I can understand what you're saniyg, Josh, but two problems with it come to mind.1) Not everyone even has the choice to attend a church with a choir of sufficient caliber to sing Handel as he'd have intended it. Should they be left out because they don't happen to attend St. Patrick's? Small congregations deserve to hear such a piece in person too. The fact that the quality will be lower is just a reality that has to be accepted.2) Who's definition of good are we going to use? On those occasions when I attend church at Westminster (which is, admittedly, none too often) I am treated to the Westminster choir singing. Which is usually nice. But I also have to sit through those godawful solos with voices that have such a ridiculous amount of vibrato . I simply cannot stand it. And, even aside from that, should we place more emphasis on the emotion behind the singing voice or technical accuracy?If I may make a reference to pop music here to illustrate my point without it being taken to suggest that either artist can be compared to Handel, it's like Celine Dion's English-language music versus Adele's music. With only a couple of exceptions, Celine Dion's English-language music is technically beautiful but emotionally dry. Adele, on the other hand, has incredibly emotional music but can't even hit the high note in the studio recording of Someone Like You and is otherwise not always on pitch, etcetera. For me, personally, I prefer the sound of Adele even when she's trying to sing a note clearly above her range. Because it sounds more emotional. Others might disagree. That is precisely my point, though. Who's standards do we use?