Jump to content

Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.205.198.238 (talk) at 06:01, 30 July 2017 (→‎Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconClassical music: Compositions
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Background and History of Composition

Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford Diarmaid MacCulloch's recent 1,200-page doorstop "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" describes this work as actually having been commissioned and composed earlier, during the État Français period by Durufle, which fact was "conveniently shrouded in obscurity" after the end of the war. The work was actually commissioned by the Nazi collaborationist Vichy government, and the publisher was a supporter of Petain. (Nevertheless, MacCulloch describes it as "one of the most beautiful works of modern Catholic liturgical music.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.1.47.98 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that the Dies Irae text of the Requiem Mass is omitted by Durufle. This is incorrect. Durufle sets this text to music, although briefly, in measures 52-76 of the 8th movement, Libera Me. Randy Jordan (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Randy Jordan[reply]

Why are there two sections to this article called structure?

Versions

It exists in three orchestrations: one for organ alone, one for organ with string orchestra, and one for organ and full orchestra.

In the main Durufle page, it says the following: 

   * Version with Organ (1948)
   * Version with Orchestra (1950)
   * Version with small Orchestra (1961)

Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperOctave (talk • contribs) 20:30, December 5, 2006

The Requiem (Duruflé) article is correct: all three versions contain an organ part, which is very difficult indeed in each case. —Cor anglais 16 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But 1950 for the version with orchestra is nonsense, isn't it? The Requiem was composed in 1947, and if I am not mistaken, the orchestral version is the original one. --FordPrefect42 14:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Is the structure presented really correct? I have checked CDs available, and the structure seems rather to be 1-Introit, 2-Kyrie, 3-Domnie Jesu Christe, 4-Sanctus, 5-Pie Jesu, 6-Agnus Dei, 7-Lux aeterna, 8-Libera me, 9-In Paradisum. That is, 3,4 and 7 is not correct in this text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.211.134.33 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the structure presented is correct. Domine Jesu Christe is the appointed Offertory text for the Roman rite Requiem mass; the Sanctus includes the Benedictus (in some mass settings, the Benedictus appears as its own movement); and Lux aeterna is the appointed Communion text for the Roman rite Requiem mass. However, Duruflé does not label all of the movements of his Requiem with the generally accepted terms (i.e., as they are referred to in the Liber usualis); he used the incipits from the text instead in the movements you specified. Perhaps the incipits should be noted in the movement list as well? —Cor anglais 16 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Harmonic Content

I heard this piece performed by the USC Choir and Thornton Symphony last night, and I cannot figure out why Durufle would end such a masterful piece with a dominant 9 chord. Does anyone have any idea?

The overall harmonic content of the piece is extremely modal, especially in reference to Gregorian chant mode systems and contrapuntal structure. But the dominant 9 chord at the end of the piece seems to emerge from nowhere. And in all places, the very last note of the piece! It is a beautiful coloristic ending, but it seemed unprepared.

-Kyle Malkin


You have answered your own question: Durufle did not conclude REQUIEM with the major/minor Diatonic (dominant 9) chord; his harmonic arena embraced modes as employed by Palestrina and Renaissance polyphonists.

Durufle was a mystic, and the final chord is penultimate; in that, on earth, we have a glimpse of Life Eternal, and our 'eternity' is incomplete. You say "it seemed unprepared" rather than "unresolved". (Durufle believed in the perfection of Eternity and strove for perfection in his compositional craft.)

One curiosity, the final chord of REQUIEM has, in it's center area 4 consecutive whole steps (e-f#-g#-a#, as represented by fa-so-la-ti). The spaces between those tones, the 3 whole steps could be said to represent a Trinitarian idea, intended by Durufle as a suggestion the body, at death, returns to God, or to perfection. In this instance the symbol is surrounded by tones of the Harmonic Series that occurs in Nature. Writing a final chord and leaving listeners with heightened expectation seems an appropriate, lovely gift and a natural musical conclusion for Durufle's REQUIEM.

Jean Thiel, DMA Hailbale (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hailbale (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailbale (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Requiem (Duruflé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I suggested an infobox, as they are in similar works by Mozart, Verdi and Reger. It was reverted by an IP without reason, which also reverted other fixes to the article. Discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite requiems, but re infobox, Could not care less, so pls don't escalate as a polarising issue. Still reeling from the loss of friends this kind of attitude has lead to. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which idiot accused me of vandalism? It's not, and the tag team ownership is disgusting

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requiem_(Duruflé)&oldid=793032802"