Talk:O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

Title

Shouldn't the title be "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" (or some variation of where the comma(s) is/are) rather than its present form "Oh Come, Oh Come Emmanuel"? Kommodorekerz 00:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, got me there. I don't know what is proper. I guess just O, now that I think about it....--Jimktrains 12:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

According to my sources of hymn books and carol books, apart from the spelling of Emmanuel/Immanuel, they all agree on "O come, O come, Emmanuel". I'll make the move. Mdcollins1984 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the name of this Wikipedia page should be Veni veni Emmanuel and this English translation of that hymn only as one part. JSilvanus (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would keep the title as-is because it is far more familiar to English-speakers, but see the note under Content. LiberalArtist (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links

There seems to be some recent lively editing in the external links section, about a link to the lyrics. And I also see that edits in recent months have gone to at least three different such sites.

But I also notice that the top of the article also points to a wikisource version.

A suggestion: Either remove that "external links" section, or replace its (single) content with another reference to the wikisource version. (If those other sites have something to add to the discussion, then why not allow all of them to be included?)

Any objections? Assuming that's OK I'll try to remember to do that in a few days from now.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the EL section makes sense to me. If we have the lyrics at wikiquote, there's no need for an additional, outside copy of them. I hadn't realized the wikiquotes was up there, as I work off the diff link in my watchlist so much. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Content

I was directed to this page when trying to look up Veni, Veni, Emmanuel. However, this page gives me no information about the original composition such as who wrote it or when but instead gives me only information about a protestant translation. I would like information on the original Catholic hymn.

Since there are perhaps many people who will also want information on the original and not the translation, perhaps the article should be shifted to speak more of that than the translation. Or a new page needs to be created that speaks directly of the original and excludes information on the translation all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.169.224.7 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded — there is much more detailed info in the German-language Wikipedia, including a thorough account of the music. I will translate it soon, I hope. LiberalArtist (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On Arvo Pärt's relationship to Veni, Veni Emmanuel

I don't believe Pärt based his third symphony on Veni, Veni Emanuel, although he may have been inspired. Can the author of this statement include citation? If not, I am happy to edit or leave it to the original author to do so.

While similar in mood and cadence, I cannot hear the melody directly quoted throughout any of the three movements of the symphony. The liner notes for Neeme Järvi's, the dedicatee of the work, recording on the Swedish BIS label offers "The melodic element of the Third Symphony makes us think of the choral music of the 14th and 15th centuries (though there are no quotations)." (Merike Vaitmaa, 1989). On 30 August 2010, Terrance McKnight of National Public Radio's WQXR did write, "Opening with a lonely oboe solo, the symphony slowly gains strength, and as it stretches out, I couldn't help but think of it as a kind of Symphonic Fantasy on the advent hymn 'Veni Veni Emmanuel'" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129282688), again implying inspiration, but not necessarily a direct basis. I wonder if this statement is the origin of the "Emmanuel" assertion.

Finally, the third symphony was completed in 1971, not 1977.

Euge-o-rama (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Eugene (Euge-o-rama)

Based on the above, I have removed the passage on Pärt — I removed the reference to his 7 Magnificat-Antiphonen, as well, as these are based on the O Antiphons. LiberalArtist (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The composer Arvo Pärt wrote a symphony, his 1977 Symphony no. 3, that uses the melody and expresses the millenarian (or even apocalyptic) theme of the text. He also wrote seven Magnificat Antiphons, which were essentially the German texts of the hymn set to a variety of arrangements.

References

not what I learned

"Rejoice, Rejoice, O Isra-el/ To thee shall come Emmanu-el."

Thus preserving the regular four lines, without the run-on (which seems strange) into the last line. 47.20.162.46 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)captcrisis47.20.162.46 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with O Come, O Come, Emmanuel (Tarja song)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Chhandama (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Same song, WP does song articles, not recording articles Richhoncho (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Describing the "original"

@Beleg Tâl: I think I disagree with the part of Special:Diff/888301991/888330438 where you say that this hymn was "originally written in" Latin. To me, talking about the "original" suggests that there was a complete Latin version that existed first and that the versions in English (and other languages) are derived from the Latin in a straight-forward, linear fashion.

In this case, talking about an "original" might make sense with respect to the words alone, but I don't think it makes sense with respect to the music or the hymn as an integral whole. As the article notes, the tune which is overwhelmingly used with this hymn was first associated with these words in English in the 1851 Hymnal Noted. That tune later passed from the English version(s) to also be used with the words in Latin, German, and other languages. So I'm not sure there really is an "original" for the hymn as a whole, and I definitely don't think we can simply say it was "originally written in" Latin.

I'm going to try to add some more context to the introduction that I hope will address these considerations. I'm very interested in hearing your perspective!

LiberalArtist (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@LiberalArtist: The intro (prior to my edit) claimed that this article was about "a translation of a Latin hymn, 'Veni, veni, Emmanuel'". The article is clearly about the Latin hymn itself and its later developments in multiple translations in multiple languages. If you have a better way of wording this than I was able to do, please feel free to do so. Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Methodist Hymn Book (1933)

The history is a little more complex, but I don't want to just add yet another column (unless others think it a good idea). The version in the 1933 Hymn book is:

O come, O come, Immanuel,
And Ransom captive Israel,
The mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.
  Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel
  Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, O come, Thou Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes, on Sinai's height,
In ancient times didst give the law
In cloud, and majesty and awe.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory o'er the grave.

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.

O come, thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.

Obviously HAM verse 5 is MHB verse 2 so MHB verse 3 is HAM verse 2. MHB verse 4 is HAM verse 3 with differences (lines 1 and 2). MHB verse 5 is HAM verse 4.

I don't know how much of this you want to incorporated. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit by 149.22.1.251

The IP user has made a good point. Hymnbooks traditionally set the refrain as:

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel‿
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

for typographical reasons. Musically and linguistically however it should be:

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

I've checked the MHB of 1933, HAM of 1861 and HAMNS of 1983. The MHB sets the text verses in style 1, but the words and music is in style 2. HAMNS follows suit, but in addidtion marks the end of the first line with an inverted slur (as shown) to indicate that there is no break. HAM sets both text and the music as in style 1.

So, the question is: whilst avoiding charges of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR should we alter the text description to fit the musical version, or keep it in a form that reduces the page width?

As usual, we should follow reliable sources. Your description of the three hymnbooks indicates that when laid out as text they all place the line break after 'Emmanuel', as do we. Semantically, 'Emmanuel' belongs with 'shall come', and most trained singers would not breathe after Emmanuel. However, considered as poetry in isolation from the much later tune there is a good case for putting the line break after 'Emmanuel', partly because 'Emmanuel' rhymes with 'Israel' (as it does in the Latin). Verbcatcher (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Carol?

See Talk:List_of_Christmas_carols#O_Come,_O_Come,_Emmanuel where this discussion started. "The version of 02:15, 2 December 2006 by EdGl characterised it as a carol and added the category. All references to it being a carol were stripped out at 20:56, 4 January 2007 by an IP user, but one who clearly knew haw to edit properly and who was cognisant with liturgical matters". Since the text does not, and has not for 15 years, described the hymn as a carol, it is hardly splitting hairs to remove a stray categorisation left over from 2006. Please Amakuru respond with:

1. Why it should be categorised as a carol when it clearly isn't.
2. Why it should be grouped with Christmastide entries when it is an Advent hymn
3. Why it is "splitting hairs" to tidy up a 15-year old oversight

Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I have added sources which describe it as a carol, and also noted that it is sometimes referred to as such. I assume your objection is because you regard it as an advent song rather than for Christmas? Which is no doubt the case, but given those sources, it is WP:Original research and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for us to claim it isn't actually a carol. So apologies if my "splitting hairs" comments seemed over harsh, but I still maintain that it belongs in the Christmas carol category.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Both actually. It is an Advent hymn, not a Christmas one, and furthermore it does not have the structure of a carol. Merely being included in a popular book of vaguely Christmassy songs does not equate to a serious discussion about the form. Consider that carols are originally circular dances, though today through ignorance the term is often applied to any for of festive song. Now consider O come, O come which has the form of solemn plainchant and looks forward to the festival, but is not yet festive. Oh, and BTW, this is not WP:OR, since this is what I was taught both at church and and school when growing up. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)