From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Anglicanism / Lutheranism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Death (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Default page[edit]

I don't think this page should be the main page for requiem, there are a number of other uses of the word, perhaps the default should be the disambiguation page.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Monty Python reference[edit]

Does the reference to Monty Python have to be included right in the body of the Pie Jesu discussion? It just seems jarring to read it there-- perhaps mentioning it in a footnote would be better.

MAGO DE OZ uses this too

--Luis Fernandes Nov 6, 2005

I agree. In general, I think the numerous popular culture references don't belong in articles at all, but people keep putting them back. A common practice is to make a "trivia" section at the end, or a "xxx in popular culture" section at the end. Antandrus (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Amanda Hammond May 2006=[edit]

A requiem is not to be sad and morbid. It was a way for people to remember and celebrate the passing of a loved one's life and acheivements; or like in the story, THE DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Charley gives a requiem for Willie that explained things about Willie. Charley did this so Biff and Happy can better understand what their father was and why things were the way they were. -- 06:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Amanda12.65.126.158 06:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)--


A requiem is a memorial service for someone who has died. That's fact. It is the task of an encyclopaedia to provide readers with facts.

Personal responses to such events vary. One may indeed feel 'sad' or 'morbid' or 'celebratory' when confronted with the death of another. Likely each composer who sets the text, each listener and mourner, has different ideas about what a memorial service 'should' do. Choosing sides on that question is not part of our work here. It is not the task of an encyclopaedia to tell readers what to feel.

Alton (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic liturgy[edit]

I felt the following phrase had to be removed from the section:'(The regular texts of the musical portions to be found in the Roman Catholic liturgy), laid down at the Tridentine Council, (are the following):'The Council of Trent did not actually 'lay down' the Missa pro defunctis, which dates to at least the fourteenth century and was widely used before Trent. What it did do was initiate a liturgical reform. The major effect of this was the bull Quo Primum, by which Pope Pius V declared that the liturgical rite of Rome was, with some exceptions, to be the liturgy of the entire Western church.The Dies Irae does have a special connection to Trent, as it was one of the handful of Roman sequences permitted by the reform, most having been abolished. --Gazzster 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And... The Dies irae should be removed from this section of the article since it is no longer part of the (Novus Ordo) Roman Catholic liturgy.Cshobar 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is, but it's now optional. InfernoXV 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a Composer[edit]

Quoting the page: "In his "Requiem FPCON ∆", Josh Armenta interlaces the Requiem text with the victims list of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks and William Ernest Henley's "Invictus.". I have added this information before, but it has been deleted due to lack of citations. I know the composer personally, however, I also have citation: Daily Herald, Neighborhood Section, June 1. Grayslake Central High School: "Student wins second place in Music Composition contest." The competing work was the requiem. Please, therefore do NOT delete this information. Thenextstephensondheim1 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, 24 google hits and a single mention in a local newspaper do not merit a mention here; our mission is to write an encyclopedia, which only includes, in general articles like this one, items of wide fame and established reputation. Please also read our conflict of interest guideline, since you know the composer. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Composer[edit]

I was a little surprised not to find Gregorio Allegri on that list. Surely 'Miserere Mei, Deus' is one of the most iconic Requiems of all time?  Exemplar Sententia. 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is iconic indeed, and beautiful, but it's not a Requiem. It's a setting of the Miserere (Psalm 51), one of the Penitential Psalms. A Requiem is a setting, at least in part, of the Requiem Mass. Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Isn't the plural of requiem "requia"? —  MusicMaker5376 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't really have a Latin plural because it's an incipit. "Requiems" is a perfectly good English plural though. Tb (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


It says in the article that a Jewish version of the Catholic requiem is the Qadish. However, this is incorrect. Requiem means rest, and it is dedicated to the defunct person. However, the Jewish Qadish makes no mention of the defunct at all. Qadish speaks only about faith in G-d and it is a sort of requirement to express that even after the lost of a beloved one, we still believe in G-d. I hope somebody with better English than myself could correct that soon. Thank you. Alejandro Alatorre Vargaslugo (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It's disappointing I have to reiterate it, but this article is not on the mourning rituals or music of world religions. It's specifically a christian requiem mass. I've fixed the article again to remain on topic. (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

An issue complicating the matter is the increasing use of the word 'requiem' in reference to elegiac works that do not involve Christian liturgy or belief. For encyclopaedia purposes you do have to set a boundary even though composers themselves excel in eroding it. I support the line that's been drawn here. It's a requiem if it (1) is based on or alludes to the Christian tradition or (2) calls itself one. The latter is itself an allusion to the tradition, so it's all one.

Alton (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Someone changed the 'Taiwanese' language heading to 'Chinese.' Please correct this if you see it again. The two are not the same. A speaker of Mandarin Chinese (the default dialect usually signified by the unadorned designation 'Chinese') does not necessarily understand Taiwanese Minnan ('Taiwanese') and vice versa. A Taiwanese composer or poet who elects to use one makes a conscious decision not to use the other. The distinction is important artistically (the languages sound very different when sung) and culturally.

One can certainly compose a requiem in Mandarin, or in Cantonese or Japanese or any number of other Asian languages. It has been done. I look forward to adding more Asian languages to the list as individual works come to my attention.

Alton (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

untitled conversation moved from top of discussion page[edit]

I would like to include the text and translation for every section of the requiem. It's unconvenient to go back and forth the mass end the requiem pages to be able to understand what the requeim is about. Or is there anything wrong about it? Muzzle

While modifying I realize the Dies Irae is really long so it could make sense to have a separate page for it (not sure, tell me what you think) so I just added all the section from the Ordinary of the Mass. Muzzle

We have a page for Dies Irae that contains the full text and a translation. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A thought. The Kensmen site should be labeled...It's associated with a Schismatic group, the Society of St. Pius X. I've not the confidence to do it without being afraid of breaking something, so could someone else do it? -Penta 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not - the owner attends the indult Mass, not the SSPX. Sympathy with some of the SSPX's positions is not schism. But, since your comment is over a year old, I'll move on. I've restored the Preface, as that section contains the sung parts proper to the Mass of the Dead. The Preface is such a part, and it's unique to the Requiem Mass. One could argue for the inclusion of the Epistle and Gospel, as well as the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion, although those are changeable, depending on which Mass for the Dead is being said. PaulGS 04:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Liber Usualis presents the Preface as a spoken portion of the Requiem. No chant melody is given for it. If it's supposed to have a recitation tone, that hardly gives the Preface much weight as a musical portion. Mademoiselle Fifi 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Liber is intended for use by the Choir, so there would be no need for the melody of the Preface to be given there. The book's already long enough, and if they can save a few pages by omitting the Preface melodies, they'll do it. Since it's always chanted by the Celebrant alone, the melody's found in the Missal. It's the Ferial tone only, the solemn tone being inappropriate for the occasion. That's probably the reason why settings of the Requiem omit it - they only include the portions chanted by the Choir. But the Preface is one of the parts of the Mass that is always chanted (except, of course, at Low Mass).
Maybe, though, "musical portions" isn't the best way to have this section. We don't need the entire Mass, since, besides being far too long for the article, most of it doesn't change. A better way might be to rephrase it to include the parts proper to the Mass of the Dead, selecting the Missa in Die Obitus (Mass on the Day of Burial) for those parts which change from one Mass of the Dead to another. After all, the article is about the liturgy, not just musical settings of it. But, like I said before, I'd be fine with omitting the changeable parts, but the Preface is the same at all Missae Defunctorum, and I think it should be included.PaulGS 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Split this article[edit]

I plan to split this article into two articles: Requiem (mass) and Requiem (music) because it covers two separate subjects. The American Heritage Dictionary (deluxe electonic version (CD), 1994) corroborates this by their definitions of Requiem: 1a.) Roman Catholic Church: A mass for a deceased person, 1b.) A musical composition for such a mass, 2.) A hymn or composition for the dead. -- Requiems (music) are frequently heard in secular concert halls, far outside of their liturgical context, simply as "entertainment" to a paying public that applauds and cheers singers and performers at the end. The ones composed by Brahms and Britten are not compositions for Roman Catholic services at all. -- Before I make the split in the next week or so, I welcome comments. Charvex (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Excellent suggestion. I support this. The liturgy and texts supply plenty of material for a single article. The musical tradition supplies plenty of material for another, and the repertory grows by the year.

Each entry would necessarily link to the other. It may even be useful to place the full text, in Latin and English, in a separate entry and have both articles link to it.

One quibble: I would not call concert performances 'entertainment', though, simply because they take place in concerts. Someone performs, an audience is moved? If that's entertainment, a Mass is entertainment, too.

Alton (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The liturgical article should be "Requiem (liturgy)" or "Requiem Mass (liturgy)", and the music article should be "Requiem (music)" or "Requiem Mass (music)" with a disambiguation link on the top of all the pages. The namespace "Requiem" would probably need to be a disambiguation page. Dgf32 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for putting etymological info in paragraph 3. I came to this article specifically to learn the proper usage of "requiem" and "requiescat". (indifferent student in High School Latin) w3steve (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Soooo... anyone still want to split this article? James470 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Brahms and Britten[edit]

Although called Requiem, neither of these works actually follows the litergy. The latter intersperses the litergy with various poems and passages from the bible; the former is based on Luther's translation of the bible and uses none of the litergy. These should be discussed in the article and placed in a different section at the end. (Other works using the name Requiem, perhaps?) Any thoughs? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Article topic[edit]

Here's where my edits are coming from:

  • This morning someone edits Requiem (disambiguation) to remove A German Requiem (Brahms) from the grouping "Music associated with the Requiem Mass" (or something like that).
  • Since the article A German Requiem (Brahms) states that "German Requiem, as its title states, is a Requiem in the German language", and the linked Requiem article indicates that the topic is a synonym for "Requiem Mass", I undo the disambiguation page edit, because the article is indicating that A German Requiem (Brahms) is associated with the Requiem Mass.
  • Then I decide that, since the German Requiem article does indicate that the piece is non-liturgical, it probably isn't associated with the Requiem Mass and the link to this article is an error. (But I change the grouping title on the disambiguation page to "Compositions" because it still makes more sense to list the Brahms piece with the others in that grouping than with a bunch of pop albums.)
  • Then I ask at Talk:A German Requiem (Brahms) if the statement that that piece is a Requiem is an error, and I'm told that no, it is a Requiem, but it's not a Requiem Mass, and the Requiem article should be more clear that the topic is not solely associated with the Requiem Mass. And I look again at Requiem, and I see that several paragraphs down, after the article states that its topic is synonymous with the Requiem Mass, that its topic also includes other things that are not associated with the Requiem Mass. Hence the edit I made to the introduction to state that this article is not solely about the Requiem Mass.
  • So, for you people who actually care about this stuff, all I ask is that you decide what is the topic of this article and then take out stuff that is not within the topic of this article and then make sure the introduction of the article states what the actual topic is. If the topic of this article is only the Requiem Mass, that's freaking fine, but make that clear and preferably remove links to this article that are referring to other topics. (Also, it seems to me that in that case, the article would be better placed at Requiem Mass than Requiem, but I don't know.) Propaniac (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay: step one, chillax. There's no need to flip out over the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article. All right? :)
Next, the article already says what it's about: a type of Mass, and the musical compositions created created as settings for portions of it. Of course, the requiem need have no music at all; it can be spoken from start to finish. It's therefore flatly incorrect to say without qualification that "[a] Requiem is a musical composition associated with death and mourning." Brahms came along in the 1800s and slapped the term "requiem" on a freestyle composition, but that just makes his a figurative usage.
The best that can be said is that "Requiem" refers to a type of Mass, and by extension, to musical settings of the propers; and that certain other musical works on similar themes have been called "requiems" by association. Hopefully you'll approve my current revision, which I think avoids saying anything false and briefly sets out how the liturgical requiem led to the musical requiem and the figurative requiem.
As a longer-term project, you may well be right that it could be preferable to separate the musical and liturgical aspects of the term, presumably into Requiem Mass and Requiem (music), with Requiem left as a disambiguator. For now, I think there's room in the article for both concepts, but from an encyclopedic point of view it helps to explain them, and their relationship, at the beginning.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think a split into Requiem Mass and Requiem (music) would be a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks in translation[edit]

The links within the translation look a bit disturbing to me. I would prefer the terms in question explained in the text and linked there, if helpful. To translate Agnus Dei to Lamb of God and then link that to Agnus Dei seems not even helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

McDermott dissertation[edit]

This looks interesting, pdf is linked from the description page.[1] (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

organization of "20th and 21st century treatments" section / split page? / criteria for "Notable Requiem compositions"?[edit]

The second paragraph begins by talking about the development of the secular requiem, but the first two examples given are both war requiems, which is the subject of the first paragraph. Then, the other works seem to be sacred in nature. In general, I agree with earlier suggestions that the page be split into Requiem (Mass) and Requiem (Music), as that would clear up the problems with including non-standard requiems on this page. In fact, the entire page from "Non-Roman Catholic Requiem" down is disorganized and full of redundancies.

Also, in regards to the "Notable" Requiems, what merits these works being listed as notable? I agree that some of these are quite important, historically speaking, but without citation, should this section exist?

--Rubbersoul88 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


The full text here seems unnessary to me, its not why we are here, and it takes such a large volume of space, makes the article daunting and unviting to editors. I'll remove if there are no objections. Ceoil 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, for the simple reason that the included texts are those parts of the Requiem Mass Propers that are generally set to music. As such, it is important that these texts be readily accessible in an article whose principal emphasis seems to be on the musical aspects of a Requiem Mass. That said, I do feel that the liturgical aspects of the Requiem Mass are woefully inadequate, especially from a historical standpoint. We have a section devoted to the history of musical compositions, yet there is no serious attempt made to trace the history of what has been included in the Requiem Mass and what has been excluded. Perhaps a splitting of this article, as suggested elsewhere, would go a long way towards alleviating this gap. – Chuck (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Was a requiem mass held for every catholic or just (very) important ones like Franz Ferdinand (as in the photo)? (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

just (very) important ones. Ceoil 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: the Requiem Mass texts were used at any funeral Mass. If the Mass was sung with a choir, then the choir sang those famous texts, perhaps in Gregorian chant, or else in another style of music. --Chonak (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Too much from Dies Irae. Better to link to wikiquote. Ceoil (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Change Request: Post Vatican II[edit]

The text on "post Vatican II" would do well to link to real Catholic documents and reflect the real changes, some of them quite extraordinary (the word "soul" disappeared, etc.), some rather not (instead of "dona eis requiem" there is the normal "miserere nobis" in the Agnus Dei, etc.). The Requiem was, however, not replaced with a "Mass of the Resurrection" (around here the name for the Easter Vigil, btw). save perhaps by some few liturgs and that probably without allowance. The black colors were made facultative, yes, but their replacement is not white, never (what should the people say! a funeral in white!), but always violet. -- (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this section of the article contains a number of unsupported assertions Mark.hamid (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Split musical references[edit]

The article is dominated by the musical references, where it should be more balanced with the actual ceremony. Would it be a good idea to create a new article for the musical subject matter and to trim it in this main article? JASpencer (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Musical settings[edit]

Two questions:

  • Should we have red links when it says "the most notable"?
  • Can we word without saying "Requiems" because that seems to imply one composers set the text more than once. Such as "set the Requiem mass"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)