Talk:Exsultate, jubilate

	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.

POV assertion

Mozart fans will certainly agree the final Alleluia of Exsultate, jubilate is "outstanding," but what about those who are not Mozart fans? Stravinsky would disagree that the final Alleluia is "cheerful," or that it carries any emotion. James470 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "outstanding" implies an aesthetic judgement that is unnecessary. How about "ebullient" and "virtuosic"? If we had to qualify every statement to satisfy Stravinsky, we wouldn't be able to say much in these articles. Its fairly easy to find statements that its one of the most recorded showpieces for soprano[1]. Sadie in "Mozart: The Early Years" says its "a jewel of a piece with its high spirits and its wit" and that "its music speaks unmistakably of his relaxed high spirits at the time he wrote it and of the elation and confidence that his opera-house success it brought him". I guess we don't need to include too much critical opinion, but it is one of Mozart's most well-known early works -- probably his best known early vocal work -- and some mention of the mood and operatic virtuosity could be mentioned. My two cents. DavidRF (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would be OK with quoting Sadie as you have suggested; I would also be OK with retaining "outstanding and cheerful" if that's the opinion of a notable composer or singer. James470 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Incarnatus (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments over what constitutes an aesthetic judgment on works of genius in any of the arts get pretty tiresome. Going out of the way to avoid value judgments about art, particularly art that has by the consensus of in this case 200 years of civilization been accounted a work of genius is pretty absurd. And speaking of absurd, I have removed the ridiculously incompetent amateur performance of Exsultate Jubilate posted in the article. I realize we have to avoid using copyrighted material, but that's not an invitation to post miserably sub-professional performances simply because there's no rights issue involved.Gillartsny (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exsultate, jubilate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]