Jump to content

Talk:Music for the Requiem Mass

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

Brahms?

[edit]

The Requiem by Brahms (and Reger) have nothing to do with the Requiem Mass, I don't know how many of the others. Change the title of this article or give them an extra article. - For the others: please provide a link to pieces with an article, not only to the composers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still the same question: his Requiem is NOT for a Requiem Mass. - Be strict, or change the article title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrie

[edit]

It is noted that it's common to sing every utterance 3 times. I couldn't find any example or reference. Can anyone shed any light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.48.163 (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Music for the Requiem Mass. 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) 04:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

resolve schism with of "Dies irae" article?

[edit]

Would it be ok to remove the text and translations from the Sequence section, in favor of a more-explicit direction to the Dies_irae article?

That change would allow a reader to benefit from improvements to the Dies_irae article, where there is more active discussion. The text currently in this article's Sequence section looks like an outdated copy from the Dies_irae article, so that a reader like me who (initially) fails to follow the link to the main article is missing out. --DavidHolmes0 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing under "Sequence" is a link to that Main article. This one should stand on its own without a link. Better correct what you find wrong, - always with a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other composers

[edit]

The list of Requiems written in the 20th and 21st century could be endless with composers who have written a requiem. There should be a requirement that the listing be associated with a composer who is notable enough to be included here at WP. Otherwise, it will simply become an overweight section for any and all to list their compositions. If no one objects, I will scrub the few that are listed now without notable links to WP composer or requiem articles; which hopefully will set a precedent for the future. Maineartists (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge to Requiem

[edit]

99% of this article is song lyrics and a list of composers. The actual information that is NOT lyrics or lists is about one paragraph long, and it's completely unsourced. There's actually less information here than in the "Music" section of Requiem. I believe this title should become a redirect to Requiem, and any important information from here should be added to the Music section there. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the page to remove the laundry lists that added no value. I left the unsourced stuff in case there are sources for any of it and will revisit at some later date. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I see the big problem that not everything called Requiem is a Latin Catholic funeral mass, - many works are in different languages, language mix, different denominations (Anglican for example), - and having two articles to keep that distinction seems useful for me. I liked to have the lyrics together somewhere, and if not here, then where? For example when writing about Faurè's Requiem, it's easier to refer to here once, than linking to sub-articles such as Libera me. Agnus Dei in the funeral mass is different from Agnus Dei in the normal mass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this article remaining here if there are reliable sources demonstrating that your first sentence is factual. As for what you would "like", please see WP:NOTLYRICS. To your question "if not here, then where?", I suggest contributing to a lyrics database somewhere, or starting your own website. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "your first sentence". Who is "you"? We all who ever worked on it? I did only rarely, - I use it to link to, often, relying on the text being there in order to not to have to repeat it in every Requiem article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! There was absolutely no consensus for such a major removal of content for this article that has offered quite a bit of reliable and researched information. That "laundry list" did add value and the "lyrics" (as you call them ... actually "text") was very essential for those wishing to know what the Latin translation meant into English. Sorry, but you did not gain consensus to make such an edit. I am restoring until you can firmly claim that this article and the content you removed is filled with "no value" and merely a "laundry list". It is evident that you have a singular intent and motive; and to suggest an editor to simply "start your own website" is counter-productive for what an encyclopedia actually is. Sorry, but I am undoing what you have done until you gain consensus and prove what you're saying is a majority for those coming to this page for the very things you removed. Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading a discussion on the OP's Talk Page regarding this topic with another editor, it would seem that there is a misunderstanding as to what the difference is between "text" and "lyrics". The words used for centuries by composers in the composition genre Requiem are text, not song lyrics: hence the section Common texts. Much like the article for Ave Maria that supplies content to reference for original and translated text; which hundreds of composer have set to music - like the text of the Requiem Mass. Simply wiping clean the entire section removed valuable information that was not merely a listing of text:

  • "Musical Requiem settings sometimes include passages from the "Absolution at the bier" (Absolutio ad feretrum) or "Commendation of the dead person" (referred to also as the Absolution of the dead), which in the case of a funeral, follows the conclusion of the Mass."
  • "As mentioned above, there is no Gloria, Alleluia or Credo in these musical settings."
  • "This is as the Agnus Dei in the Ordinary of the Mass, but with the petitions miserere nobis changed to dona eis requiem, and dona nobis pacem to dona eis requiem sempiternam" (sourced, BTW), et al ...

The informative content removed for reasons of WP:NOTLYRICS do not apply in this circumstance. For a musician, utilizing this page to reference notable works in one place is what WP is for. I am struck with your reasoning: "I've updated the page to remove the laundry lists that added no value" ... in whose opinion? Just because you may never have used this page, doesn't mean numerous other readers of WP haven't or don't. "No value" is a matter of opinion that needs hard physical proof for such a massive removal of content, and I disagree with your assessment of this page and its usefulness.

Furthermore, like numerous other musical articles on WP, there are necessary articles for artists (composers, songwriters, etc) that link to pages of Lists. It's a common and acceptable and resourced practice at WP: List of operettas by Johann Strauss II, List of compositions by Johann Strauss II - creating a page of reference that combines all the necessary information to direct readers easily and accessibly. I could link dozens upon dozens that do this; so to have a central article that assembles and offers in an encyclopedic form of reference Notable compositions by century / musical period is far from a "laundry list" where on a song page, editors dump anyone and everyone who ever sang / covered the song. The Requiems listed here have been cleaned and scrubbed to list only notable works by composers who are themselves notable and linked here on WP.

A template has been placed at the header of this article for citations / further verification; and editing to the article itself is frequent. It's a stretch to say: "99% of this article is song lyrics and a list of composers. The actual information that is NOT lyrics or lists is about one paragraph long, and it's completely unsourced.": false. The use of this page reflects its title: ""MUSIC FOR THE REQUIEM MASS"; finding a list of notable works and the centuries old text is not that far fetch as you have made it seem to justify your reasoning. Maineartists (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having the texts (which are rather short) in the article, as in Psalm articles, because a reader unfamiliar with them really needs to have a way of seeing them in Latin and English at a glance, without having to look up a different window. It wouldn't hurt to have more sourced information of where they come from and how the current use was established. - As for the list of compositions, I suggest to use in this article only compositions meant for use as a Mass, which would mean not even Verdi (intended for concert), and certainly not Brahms and Rutter. The others could go to Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt I agree as well to keep the text on the basis that you have pointed out. However, I think the statement that Verdi, Brahms and Rutter have not written a "Requiem Mass" is a circular argument without merit that leads back to the original reason this page was created. Composers specifically use this text to create a "Requiem / Requiem Mass". Whether the work is exclusively used in / for the actual Mass or as a concert stage work is merely a sign of the times. The section: Music in the article Requiem links to this article due to specific content and length but does not support exclusion due to performance location.

To say that Brahms did not compose a Requiem / Mass is against what the form actually is stated in this article: "Beginning in the 18th century and continuing through the 19th, many composers wrote what are effectively concert works, which by virtue of employing forces too large, or lasting such a considerable duration, prevent them being readily used in an ordinary funeral service". This does not disqualify what they have produced, simply because it is not performed in Mass. They use the text same as early composers who wrote for the idea that it would be performed at a funeral - or Mass for the Dead Mass in the Catholic Church as the lede of this article states. Nowhere in the article does music even enter into the actual practice. In other words: a Requiem is still a Requiem: "A Requiem or Requiem Mass, also known as Mass for the dead (Latin: Missa pro defunctis) or Mass of the dead".

Does one consider Vince Guaraldi's Jazz Mass or Leonard Bernstein's Mass any different simply because Guaraldi's was "performed" during an actual Mass, or that Bernstein called his work a "Mass" rather than a Requiem? Performance and usage are moot to this genre of writing in this day and age and should not be a deciding factor. The lede and section content: History of musical compositions for this article supports keeping the present list of composers. It goes against the proposal: "compositions meant for use as a Mass": Requiems were never created to be performed as a Mass, but to accompany the Mass service. Intent and execution are superfluous in this musical genre; and it would be hard to prove that a composer did not intend for their Requiem to be perform in that setting: as your proposal suggests.

Since that statement clearly suggests works that were / are actually performed in a Mass setting - which as I said, and the article proves, stopped being practiced after the 16th Century. This article is more than that: and to say that selections from Gabriel Faure's "Pie Jesu", John Rutter, Andrew Lloyd Webber "Agnus Dei", are not used today in the Mass / Funeral setting and for this exact purpose is a simply not true. The history of the Requiem / Requiem Mass has evolved, and this article clearly states and discusses that topic by not only explanation, but a referenced and valuable collected list of Requiems throughout the ages, from its inception to present day usage. Maineartists (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Brahms is disqualified as a Requiem, but it is no music for a Requiem mass: no Latin, not even the Latin translatd to German, but his own choice of scripture verses. For the link from Ein deutsches Requiem, a link to this article is useless, a link to Requiem is fine. (Unless it should be pointed out what Brahms's work is not.) I believe that this article should focus on the Latin Catholic mass, - there are enough of those, and the Requiem take all the rest, also many. I could also imagine a separate article Anglican burial service, at present under Requiem#Anglicism, but specific enough to warrant separate treatment, with its standard sentences. I searched for it recently, and couldn't find it. Who would think of that under Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now we head down that slippery slope. I would say "no music for a Requiem mass" is personal opinion with a slanted take on the musical form's intent as opposed to the historical transformation of the original. However, that being said: perhaps you are right. There needs to be an article specifically for this "Requiem". It might calm the seas in all areas and expectations. I would not be against preserving (rather than wiping clean) what this article offers that does not specifically pertain to what you are saying. But I must say, there will be a whole new can of worms opened once you make that disconnect and try to corral and compartmentalize all the difference forms of this musical genre. I still think this article is comprehensive, thorough and precise. Perhaps it's the "title" that is misleading? To support Brahms: he wrote Waltzes, too, but not for dancing - which were the only reason this musical form was conceived. Does that not still constitute a Waltz? I think we have something here worthy of discussion - a happy joint solution that does not destroy content is what seems to be agreed upon.
ADDED: How can you say that a link from "Ein deutsches Requiem" to Requiem is fine when the article is specifically for: "a Mass in the Catholic Church offered for the repose of the soul or souls of one or more deceased persons, using a particular form of the Roman Missal." Brahms did not use the Roman Missal. I would be happy to glean the debated material from this article, and create a separate one that focuses on the "Requiem" composition as a stand alone. But once again, the links will just get more and more intertwined to one another; and really it just comes down to semantics. Maineartists (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the problem: Requiem should be the general article, covering any kind of composition named Requiem, and this one, mentioning mass, which uses the Roman Missal, should be specific. We won't solve it today, but Requiem has a broad meaning. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So by your definition, the listed works here: Notable Compositions should actually stop after Victoria: Requiem of 1603 (part of a longer Office for the Dead and sections: History in Concert and Modern Treatment should not even be included in this article; and of course, Other composers. Since all these are simply repeated on the Requiem page, it might be solution-solved by simply creating a separate page for "List of Requiems (musical composition)" and link it to the Notable composition here: Notable Compositions. However, the question still arises: what are composers who actually wrote a "Requiem Mass" in the sense that you are debating: Ockeghem, Victoria, Caurroy doing in the same listing as Mozart, Verdi and Brahms? Maineartists (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A separate list Requiem music is a good idea, which of course also would include the Latin mass settings, such as Mozart's, and the Latin not-mass settings, such as Verdi's. Sortable by several characteristics. Not today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J or I

[edit]

I think there needs to be a consensus on whether or not this article will use "I" or "J" (i.e. Ierusalem vs Jerusalem / Iesu vs Jesu) in its Latin translation. Not only do various editors change it from time to time in disagreement; but currently there are both used within the Latin text on this page. Could we please finally make the decision one way or the other? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Music_for_the_Requiem_Mass&oldid=1206721332"