# the Mass vs. the Messiah



## science

Let's take these two head to head and see what happens.


----------



## DrKilroy

I usually like Handel and I really enjoy some numbers from Messiah, but it doesn't work as a whole to me. Mass in B minor I find better in this respect (which is strange, given that the movements were basically assembled from very diverse sketches and fragments).


Best regards, Dr


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

a tie perhaps? Both are great works, it's difficult to decide. Maybe the Mass in B minor in terms of consistency, and the Messiah in terms of highlights ('And he shall purify', 'For Unto Us a Child is Born').


----------



## Ingélou

I just love the Messiah because there are so many belters, and hearing it at Norwich Cathedral last Christmas was such a glorious & moving experience. I'm quite ready to concede that Bach's may be the more profound in musical terms.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

F. J. Haydn's Harmony mass deserves to be up there in terms of some of the greatest sacred works ever, imo. So does J. M. Haydn's Requiem in C minor.


----------



## hpowders

I love the Handel. I like the Bach. Pithy, but clear.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> F. J. Haydn's Harmony mass deserves to be up there in terms of some of the greatest sacred works ever, imo. So does J. M. Haydn's Requiem in C minor.


Except that it's not part of the thread title. 

Haydn's masses are pithier than any choral work Bach or Handel wrote, so you know I'm a fan.

Hey Bach! Hey Handel!! Keep it pithy!! You think all I have to do is sit around all day for hours to listen???

I will now listen to Haydn's 40 minute Harmony Mass.:tiphat:


----------



## Manxfeeder

I think the B minor mass hits me more directly than the Messiah. Handel's work is a presentation of a narrative with word painting, but the B minor mass is a more personal experience that starts in a humble petition and leads to the throne of God.


----------



## Dustin

My personal favorite to listen to is Messiah. I'm just an absolute sucker for Handel's vocal and choral writing. The Mass in B Minor is a huge favorite of mine too but I enjoy it a tad less than the other.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Handel's Messiah tops all other works for me because not only is it musically wonderful, but also it is the Word of God explaining God's plan of salvation for the world.


----------



## ArtMusic

Fro starters Bach took a decade to put the B minor mass together, as he had no (single) performance of it in mind.

Whereas Handel wrote the Messiah in three weeks .... should I say more?

I love them both


----------



## hpowders

Some composers tortured themselves when composing, like Brahms. Others churned out music very quickly like Mozart. Both great. Proves nothing.

There are passionate advocates for each of these great pieces. I prefer the Handel. Again. Proves nothing.


----------



## Oliver

Voted for the Mass. I wonder why almost everyone has heard of Handel's Messiah but I get a blank stare when I mention Bach's Mass or even Mozart's Requiem Mass.


----------



## Novelette

hpowders said:


> Some composers tortured themselves when composing, like Brahms. Others churned out music very quickly like Mozart. Both great. Proves nothing.
> 
> There are passionate advocates for each of these great pieces. I prefer the Handel. Again. Proves nothing.


Very much agreed, hpowders; application of time does not make a work great--let alone a composer. Since judicious people may disagree on whether or not a work is great, and applying such a criterion presupposes that determination... Well, we know the rest.


----------



## Dustin

Oliver said:


> Voted for the Mass. I wonder why almost everyone has heard of Handel's Messiah but I get a blank stare when I mention Bach's Mass or even Mozart's Requiem Mass.


Because Messiah is programmed annually in hundreds of cities across the world. And one of these days I will finally make it to one of these performances here in Houston. Shame on me for not having done it yet when I've been to so many other classical concerts. Same thing with The Nutcracker. Never seen it live.


----------



## hpowders

Novelette said:


> Very much agreed, hpoweders; application of time does not make a work great--let alone a composer. Since judicious people may disagree on whether or not a work is great, and applying such a criteria presupposes that determination... Well, we know the rest.


The Bach and Handel are both very different; both very great and we are lucky to be able to play each whenever we want in as many interpretations as we want. Does it get any better than that?


----------



## Novelette

hpowders said:


> The Bach and Handel are both very different; both very great and we are lucky to be able to play each whenever we want in as many interpretations as we want. Does it get any better than that?


It gets no better than that! Thank goodness we can enjoy both our Bach and our Handel without interference. 

[And drat! You quoted me before I could scramble to fix my two typos. I need faster reflexes! Or I need the patience to proofread my own posts before hitting that fateful "Post Quick Reply" button.]


----------



## hpowders

Novelette said:


> It gets no better than that! Thank goodness we can enjoy both our Bach and our Handel without interference.
> 
> [And drat! You quoted me before I could scramble to fix my two typos. I need faster reflexes! Or I need the patience to proofread my own posts before hitting that fateful "Post Quick Reply" button.]


Oh. Sorry! Stuff like that doesn't bother me. It's the other "names" they call me that bothers me!! :lol:

I would go out on a limb that among the general public it's Handel's Messiah that's more popular. That's most likely because many folks who have a casual interest in serious music probably never even heard of Bach's b minor mass.


----------



## ArtMusic

Oliver said:


> Voted for the Mass. I wonder why almost everyone has heard of Handel's Messiah but I get a blank stare when I mention Bach's Mass or even Mozart's Requiem Mass.


That explains why Handel's Messiah NEVER was fogotten ever since it was first performed (mind you, it wasn't that popular with London audiences at first). It stayed in the repertoire ever since. Great works speak for itself.


----------



## Celloman

I voted for the B minor mass because it is simply one of the most profound artifices of human expression I have ever heard.


----------



## KenOC

Celloman said:


> I voted for the B minor mass because it is simply one of the most profound artifices of human expression I have ever heard.


The B-minor Mass has some good tunes, but the Messiah has it beat. But the tunes in the SMP beat either!


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> The B-minor Mass has some good tunes, but the Messiah has it beat. But the tunes in the SMP beat either!


Does it reduce to tunes?


----------



## hpowders

That comment completely _tuned_ me out by the way. The Bach B Minor Mass is better than THAT!!! 

I see it simply as a comment from a "pot-stirrer". :tiphat:


----------



## Celloman

hpowders said:


> That comment completely _tuned_ me out by the way. The Bach B Minor Mass is better than THAT!!!


I quite agree. That comment was way off pitch!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> Hey Bach! Hey Handel!! Keep it pithy!! You think all I have to do is sit around all day for hours to listen???


have you got the cover of Bach by the Ramones? No track longer than two minutes


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Oliver said:


> Voted for the Mass. I wonder why almost everyone has heard of Handel's Messiah but I get a blank stare when I mention Bach's Mass or even Mozart's Requiem Mass.


if it is in the english-speaking world, then Messiah is better known because it is in English and you can sing along without getting (many of) the words wrong, perhaps?


----------



## Xaltotun

The Mass and it's not even a contest, a very unfair comparison.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Xaltotun said:


> The Mass and it's not even a contest, a very unfair comparison.


It really is apples to oranges. I want both, but will take my mass by Beethoven.


----------



## SanAntone

B Minor Mass - no brainer.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

why just these two pieces? I prefer Mozart's Requiem.


----------



## Phil loves classical

George's Messiah easily for me.


----------



## JTS

I have no idea why we are called upon to choose between two such completely different works.


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> I have no idea why we are called upon to choose between two such completely different works.


The time periods are similar, both are sacred choral works, and the works/composers are extremely popular. What more do you want?


----------



## Red Terror

Nothing beats Bach.


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> The time periods are similar, both are sacred choral works, and the works/composers are extremely popular. What more do you want?


But that is where the similarity ends. They are completely different forms.


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> But that is where the similarity ends. They are completely different forms.


Please explain.......................


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> Please explain.......................


I would have thought it obvious.


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> I would have thought it obvious.


The only thing obvious to me is that you offer no answer to your premise.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Handel's Messian. Even if the mass were Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, I would still pick Messiah. But would rather have both.


----------



## starthrower

Messiah during the Christmas holiday season, and the B minor mass at other times of the year. But I don't listen to Handel for the most part.


----------



## SanAntone

_Messe h-Moll_, hands down.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The mass is a quasi-liturgical work that was never in its entirety performed before the mid-19th century as there was no place for a huge solemn mass in Lutheran service and it would have been too long even for the Catholics. 
Even in the mid-20th century when it had been established in the repertoire, scholars debated whether it really was ONE work at all, or rather a compilation. (I think by now most honor Bach's obvious effort in bringing together the different parts late in his life, re-using the Gratias as Dona nobis pacem is obviously meant to achieve some unity, despite different ensembles/choir parts (4, 5, 6 and 8) throughout). Nevertheless, it remains a paradoxical work (and this character is totally ignored by modern audiences who of course have a perfect right not to care). I think it is a bit uneven and despite the masterstroke of repeating the great Gratias/Dona nobis at the end, it peters out after the Sanctus (the Benedictus aria is a low point for me and the Osanna is just not up with the Sanctus but of course nothing is). 
Sure, most of the choirs are as good as it gets and some arias are nice (Laudamus te and Qui sedes are probably my favorites) but some of the arias are not as good as many others by Bach, I think owing to the more "abstract" text (unlike "Erbarme dich" etc. from Passions). The overly systematic (and rather similar) "ring" structure of both Gloria and Credo and all the symbolism with 100 bars and 9 of this, 24 of that, and 7 voices etc. are something I found fascinating when I first encountered the piece at 17 or 18 (and I had a book analysing all that stuff) but it is also a bit stiff and makes the piece very long. (I have seen it 3 or 4 times in concert but on disc I usually split it up)

Messiah is a non-liturgical quasi-sacred work that is probably considered more "sacred" today than it would have been 250 years ago. If the b minor Mass is some "summa musicotheologica", Messiah is a brilliant popular evangelizing book, a christian worship Rock band  Unlike the little I have heard of modern popular Xtian music, I love Messiah. It also has a few lesser arias (I think "The trumpet shall sound" is just too long) but mostly it is one impressive "hit" after the other. (Admittedly, on discs I often split it up as well.) Jennens was apparently a pompous jerk but the libretto is brilliant. 
It's not quite such an outlier as Bach's mass but also rather different from most other Handel oratorios in being not dramatic at all, having no acting persons. That might even have been a disadvantage back then but it is a clear advantage today because dramatic oratorios are strange hybrids and we are also not as familiar with details of the Judas Maccabaeus or Samson stories than with the core of the christian story that constitutes Messiah.


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> The only thing obvious to me is that you offer no answer to your premise.


I said they were completely different forms. Isn't that obvious to you?


----------



## JTS

Kreisler jr said:


> Messiah is a non-liturgical quasi-sacred work that is probably considered more "sacred" today than it would have been 250 years ago. If the b minor Mass is some "summa musicotheologica", Messiah is a brilliant popular evangelizing book, a christian worship Rock band  Unlike the little I have heard of modern popular Xtian music, I love Messiah. It also has a few lesser arias (I think "The trumpet shall sound" is just too long) but mostly it is one impressive "hit" after the other. (Admittedly, on discs I often split it up as well.) Jennens was apparently a pompous jerk but the libretto is brilliant.
> .


We have to realise that Messiah is a work to be performed in the theatre not during the church service. Why it was not very well received in England initially. As you say the libretto is brilliant. It was however somewhat far from the Christian rock band of today!


----------



## Kreisler jr

The better comparison than with christian rock would maybe a musical "biblia pauperum" as the pictures in churches showing bible stories were called in the middle ages, except that most of Handel's audience were rather well off.


----------



## tdc

The B minor mass for me, but this work I prefer listening to just certain parts admittedly. I think it has some of the best music composed in it, but I don't listen to it as one work. The St. Matthew Passion works better in my view as one complete work, but just my opinion. They are both great masterpieces. 

I have not listened to that much Handel, but I do certainly like some of his music, I respect him as a great composer. I haven't listened to the Messiah in a long time.


----------



## Machiavel

Neither.
Mozart great mass in c minor


----------



## Frost15

A tie but if I had to choose one I would go with Handel's Messiah


----------



## ChoralLlama

Handel's Messiah might be my favourite classical work of all time. In part because it was the first classical work that I really listened to and was amazed by, but also because it's simply a splendid work.


----------



## amadeus1928

Both works are amazing but I personally prefer Messiah more


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Nevertheless, it remains a paradoxical work (and this character is totally ignored by modern audiences who of course have a perfect right not to care).


I still don't get what's "paradoxical" about the Bach. (I'm guessing that it's the argument "Handel was better because Bach was outdated" again.) Some did complain Bach was too complex, but nobody called Bach outdated in his time. The idea that us moderners have the right to decide today what was paradoxical or not in their time is just plain silly. The through-composition in the G minor mass BWV235 is even forward-looking. It's kind of like the flat-earth conspiracy theory; for instance, "Zelenka, Heinichen, Hasse, Zach, and co. were all composing outdated music in their time without even themselves or their audiences knowing about it." (It's usually the pseudo-experts who obsess over them.) No one with proper musical background in the 18th, 19th centuries would have praised Handel's use of harmony above Bach's. (and this character is totally ignored by modern audiences who of course have a perfect right not to care. I hate to say it, but to be honest, _if you care more for harmony_, Handel's Messiah is the kind of piece that gets tiring with 3 listenings, Bach's doesn't even with 30.)


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> I still don't get what's "paradoxical" about the Bach


The fact that most of it is sort of a patchwork of parodies of earlier cantata movements is paradoxical. Also the dance-like nature of so many of the sections. I love both works, but if forced to choose the choice would be clear: the Mass.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> The fact that most of it is sort of a patchwork of parodies of earlier cantata movements is paradoxical. Also the dance-like nature of so many of the sections. I love both works, but if forced to choose the choice would be clear: the Mass.


We all know how notorious a self-plagiarist Handel was, and the dance-like nature of movements like "E'very valley". Using biblical texts in their native language was what the "church composers" (even those of the later era) also did extensively (in their cantatas, graduals, offertories, etc), and the practice doesn't put Handel's Messiah in some special place set apart from Bach's works regarding this issue. Neither of these guys were regarded "outdated" or "paradoxical" in their time by the same reason certain string quartet works of the early 1770s that contain blatantly academic fugues as finales were not.


----------



## Musicpro

I take Handel's Messiah


----------



## Dimace

Bach's h-moll Messe is of paramount importance for the German people due to historical (after War) reasons. It is signalizing the rebirth of the German Nation and finishes the recent tragedies Germany suffered (because of our mistakes, of course) For this reason (and of course because I like a lot this work) I voted for the Father.


----------



## Rogerx

I still can not make up my mind, so I abstain from voting .


----------



## Kreisler jr

I very clearly expressed what is "paradoxical" (cobbled together, never performed in the shape we have today etc. but nevertheless "opus summum") about the b minor and never referred to any comparison with Handel or to Bach being "outdated" because these arguments are totally independent of this but as usual hammeredklavier is stalking me with his poor comprehension, accompanied by reading weird stuff into what other people (such as I) write.

Just get *any* book on Bach, preferably a bit older, because the claim that the b minor mass was "not really an integral" piece was rather prominent among Bach scholars (who certainly had no beef against Bach and neither have I) in the 1950s and 60s. 
As a teenager I got a small volume on the b minor basically together with my first recording and the author, Walter Blankenburg, spends several pages (in a short, popular book!) to argue *for* the integrity of the Mass.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Dimace said:


> Bach's h-moll Messe is of paramount importance for the German people due to historical (after War) reasons. It is signalizing the rebirth of the German Nation and finishes the recent tragedies Germany suffered (because of our mistakes, of course)


Do you have any source for this? I have never heard anything like this and neither that the piece became particularly important or more frequently played in the early 1950s? To my understanding in Germany the most popular large Bach works by some margin have been the Christmas oratorio for obvious reasons and the St. Matthew. 
I suspect that in the more protestant, more Bach-affine regions a Latin "catholic" mass was long met with some doubts (it's also the most difficult for the choir by some margin, I think). In any case I am also not aware of traditions to have the b minor mass as regularly as one of the Passions in Lent or the Xmas oratorio before/around Xmas. This might have mostly practical reasons for nonprofessional choirs.
So in my impression, quite to the contrary, the b minor mass has no special connection or importance for Germans, it seems to me the most "international" of Bach's pieces (naturally, because of the form and the language) and for the reasons just sketched probably the least frequently sung of his 4 large scale choral works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> I very clearly expressed what is "paradoxical" (cobbled together, never performed in the shape we have today etc. but nevertheless "opus summum") about the b minor and never referred to any comparison with Handel or to Bach being "outdated" because these arguments are totally independent of this but as usual hammeredklavier is stalking me with his poor comprehension, accompanied by reading weird stuff into what other people (such as I) write.


Sorry, I still don't get what you meant by "paradoxical". Handel's Messiah was also performed sparingly, in excerpts (eg. in New York in 1770). That didn't make it "paradoxical". Vivaldi's work was virtually forgotten in the 19th century; that didn't make it "paradoxical". Apparently no one else has got what you're saying either, cause you apparently don't think Dissident's guess on your convoluted writings "correct" either. You obsess over whether a work was performed or not; but maybe the Messiah was closer to being like what you described of Liszt's Hungarian rhapsodies? 



 (C'mon; do we have to listen to all these over and over?)


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I still don't get what you meant by "paradoxical". Handel's Messiah was also performed sparingly, in excerpts (eg. in New York in 1770). That didn't make it "paradoxical". Vivaldi's work was virtually forgotten in the 19th century; that didn't make it "paradoxical". Apparently no one else has got what you're saying either, cause you apparently don't think Dissident's guess on your convoluted writings "correct" either. You obsess over whether a work was performed or not; but maybe the Messiah was closer to being like what you described of Liszt's Hungarian rhapsodies?
> 
> 
> 
> (C'mon; do we have to listen to all these over and over?)


Well your question was answered. If you don't think that's paradoxical, fine.


----------



## Ariasexta

The Messiah is one of a kind of work, in English, that is quite interesting already. Sacred music in English is a kind of bonus by its own right. But JS Bach`s Mass is like a monumental work of al time. I can only by definition and elementarily technical ways describe them, like asking rubby and sapphire of the same carats, which you like better? emotionally, rubby for me but I still have to say sapphire is beautiful too, I want both of them at last.


----------



## Rogerx

> polls suck and so do the people who make them79.33%
> Bas, gellio, jacob, JTS, kfriegedank, PetrB, StlukesguildOhio


This after all those years since OP started.


----------

