# Talk:Requiem (Fauré)

This article currently has many drawbacks, among them a consistent POV. Examples:

"one of the most popular Requiems"
"It is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful Requiems"
The work is remarkably innovative"
"Particularly enjoyable parts are the emotive Introit and Kyrie, the powerful baritone aria from the Offertoire: "Hostias et preces tibi", the soaring Sanctus, and the pristine soprano solo, "Pie Jesu". "
The author has also qualified specific quotes such as "Fauré said that his Requiem was composed "for the fun of it": he could easily, however, have been speaking disingenuously when saying this."
This is not encyclopedic.
I am now rewriting this article. Please feel free to comment or contribute. --MarkBuckles 23:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have completed a rewrite of this entire article. It still needs more specific information on the music, but I think it has come quite a long way. Comments welcome. --MarkBuckles 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather than the Kyrie being Koine Greek, the Latin rather transliterated and borrowed the now timeless words (timeless for the few today who aren't illiterate via today's narcissistic and arrogant, antiChristian bigotry (especially on display at wiki)) as most languages have done with Amen, also once Koine.  
There was no certain external occasion for the Requiem's composition. Does this mean it was not written or commisioned for any particular occasion? Please make it clearer.
One possible cause is the death of Fauré's father in 1885, and his mother's death two years later on New Year's Eve 1887. I don't think what is meant is cause. I think perhaps occasion is meant.

Tried to clarify this. MarkBuckles  (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
composed for nothing … for fun, if I may be permitted to say so!"  How dare he trivialise his own work? I am listening to it now and cannot conceive how he could hold such a sentiment! Rintrah 15:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

grin* I think it's important that the composers own sentiment be included here. MarkBuckles  (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source for this: "The Requiem is also acknowledged as a source of inspiration for the similar setting by Maurice Duruflé." I believe Duruflé acknowledged it, but I'd rather not post it for now until we can cite it. --MarkBuckles 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone replace the silly picture in the lead? Rintrah 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions? It's the score. We could use a picture of Faure, but the score is more specifically related to the piece. MarkBuckles  (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The music's out of copyright (and obtainable on CPDL), how aboutthe openig few bars or something, rather than a pretty dull cover (which is presumably fair-use anyway?)  David Underdown 09:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How's that look? MarkBuckles  (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been here since Febuary unsourced. I'm moving it here until it is. MarkBuckles  (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From the start Fauré intended to distance himself from what he viewed as the long-winded Germanic and operatic styles of sacred music.

What's the best CD of the Requiem? I used to have a Nonesuch LP (out of print). I prefer the high soloist to be a boy soprano (or sound like one). Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed only to discuss improvements to the article here.  That said, try BBC Radio 3's Building a library to see if they have recommendations, or look for something like the Penguin recording guide.  David Underdown (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Rutter really use the American spelling of "favourite"? - Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The quote appears to be from a US edition - they probably "corrected" his spelling.  Unless we can find the same foreword in OUP, we'll probably have to leave it.  David Underdown (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gurren Lagann (2007), Libera Me was featured in the episode 26 as an adaptation mixed with rap: "Libera Me From Hell".
I'm irritated. I don't hear any resemblance between both pieces. I think they just share the lyrics. Who claimed this in the first place? --Carminox (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the lead to give more of an overview of the article.  It seems to me that you need a performance history section, and the Critical reception section needs a discussion of what critics have said about the piece.  I left some hidden comments about these issues.  Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This source says the conductor was Paul Taffanel and not Eugène Ysaÿe. Perhaps Grove has something? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing ad rem in Grove's article on the work or either man. Nectoux (p. 514) says in his chronology "1900 … 12 July: Trocadéro (Universal Exhibition), first official performance of full orchestra version of Requiem, conducted by Paul Taffanel (250 performers)". The "official" is a bit cryptic, but Duchen gives 12 July 1900 as the date of the f.p. of the full orch version, which seems to confirm Nectoux. As neither of the existing citations in the article actually mentions either April or Ysaÿe I think we can safely amend the date and the conductor's name.  What do you think? – Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That would seem to be a very sensible update. Perhaps Nectoux should be added as a source also? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Good. I'll do the necessary. Glad you spotted this! Tim riley (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior to edit (9 Nov 2014), the opening line of the TEXT section read "Most of the text is in Latin, except for the Kyrie which is Koine Greek." However, I find NO reference or related materials regarding the Catholic text Kyrie in "Koine Greek"; I have thus removed this remark. On the contrary, I have searched online and found a number of pages (apparently) copying directly from WIKI, and included this what possibly could be misinformation. (Side note, I am working on this page as a research course assignment for my Masters studies in composition. Continuing editing some sections. Sincere regards to all.) Ernest.ongaku (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course Kyrie eleison is Greek not Latin! Κύριε, ἐλέησον! And I hope He does! Am reverting your well-meaning but misguided effort. Tim riley talk  16:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Tim, did you mean to revert the added references as well? Kyrie (does one ever see it italicized as a foreign word in Latin books?) is part of the Latin Mass, and it's etymology seems more like footnote material. Sparafucil (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No objection to footnoting it (grateful to hear others' views before actioning this), but we must be accurate. Kyrie eleison is not in either of the Latin dictionaries on my shelves, but of course they are both based on classical Latin. Whether the Greek words have been granted their naturalisation papers, so to speak, in Church Latin I am not competent to say, but the (rather impressive) WP article on Kyrie suggests not. Additional info? Within reason, the more the better, I'd say, if in decent English and following citation style. Tim riley talk  11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think every article mentioning Kyrie (I don't italicise any more, it's become a proper name) should have a footnote, but the linked article should explain why we have Greek in the mass which some call Latin. We need to say "Latin" once because there are masses in other languages, such as Deutsche Messe, especially Deutsche Messe (Schubert). - Different topic (if I may): is there a category for works on Latin texts which are no hymns? Looking at my latest (under construction, translated from French but I don't speak French so help welcome) Da pacem Domine (Pärt). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Wanted in the context: Da pacem Domine, found "Morning Prayer. Versicles". The Book of Common Prayer. 7th century hymn. - Well, for now I will use category hymn then, but reluctantly so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Can't help you on categories, Gerda: I'm a complete ignoramus on the subject. Never really saw the practical point of them. On the other matter, my French causes much pain in Paris, but I can read it tolerably well and I'll gladly look in at your work-in-progress in the next day or two. My internet access will be sporadic for a while (living in two flats at once, one of them without broadband yet), so forgive me if I'm tardy. Tim riley talk  13:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem, making progress for the composition. The words are the incipit of two texts, to make things more complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add a section listing uses of Faure's Requiem in other media, but the only one I can recall off the top of my head is "In Paradisum" from The Thin Red Line.  Does anyone know of other examples? Canute (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In the Wallander TV series (Krister Henriksson version), Wallander often comes home and puts on a CD of the Agnus Dei from the Fauré Requiem.---Dagme (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For my part I distrust and dislike Trivia sections of this kind. What value does it add for the visiting reader to be told that a work has been hijacked for some film or other? Tim riley talk  22:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that some readers want to know where a piece has appeared in popular culture. As of yesterday, there was a Use In Other Media section, but with just one episode of one TV show in the section. I found several movies and TV shows featuring the piece and I updated the page with citations, folding the existing content into the paragraph. That part of the section now reads: "Excerpts from the Requiem have been used in numerous movies and TV shows, including The Thin Red Line,  Salt, 28 Days Later, The Legend of Bagger Vance, Broken Flowers, Captain America: Civil War, Mozart in the Jungle, Hannibal, Endeavor, Simone, and South Park. In addition, "Libera Me" was prominently featured in the Fargo episode "A Muddy Road," and "Introit et Kyrie" and "In Paradisum" could be heard in "Nor'easter", the third episode of American Horror Story: Asylum. Tim Bortras, 16:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Bortras (talk • contribs) 

I know that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and have no idea about the other. Tim did a lot for this article and its GA quality, and I'd follow his judgement above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Tim Riley is expressing his personal preference, namely that we shouldn't be reading about where a classical piece appears in popular culture. He obviously feels strongly about classical pieces used in films--note his use of the word "hijacked"--and I respect his point of view, but lots of other people care about this information. There is also ample precedent for this kind of content on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Beethoven)#Adaptations. As for IMDB, occasional mistakes surely do crop up on the site. Yes, users can submit content to IMDB--just like on Wikipedia--but unlike Wikipedia, IMDB doesn't post the new content until it has been reviewed. Also, just like Wikipedia, IMDB will fix mistakes. See http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?infosource for more details. More importantly, I've personally heard the Requiem played in many of the examples listed on the page I cited. The paragraph is accurate and useful to many readers. Tim Bortras, 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that this project favours the editorial preference of an article's principal author(s) over the interests of the readers. Compare the Requiem to Fauré's Cantique, for an example at a glance.  Perhaps you can try change it, but it's the current practice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that I didn't have to show you the Cantique - where I am the principle author, and therefore you were not reverted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that user Nikkimaria unilaterally deleted the entire Use In Other Media section, after I took the time to meticulously improve it and verify the content. No further discussion in this Talk page. And no comment in her deletion other than to link to a 200-page document, without indicating WHICH PART of that magnum opus she thinks is applicable. What a shame this person acted so arrogantly and disrespectfully of others' work, and that she wiped out genuine content that many readers care about. Wikipedia is different things to different people, but a lot of its readers care about popular culture (movies and TV shows included). Those people want to know which films utilized a certain piece of music. To hide that content from those users because you condescendingly believe they shouldn't care about it is truly deplorable. Tim Bortras, Tim Bortras (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

no comment here needed when concense had earlier been established. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NPA - you're not one to talk about being "disrespectful" given your comments and actions here.
The RfC I linked to explained, in great detail, that such content should have reliable secondary sourcing indicating not only that it exists, but that it is significant to the topic. Neither Tunefind nor IMDb are reliable sources, nor do they accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
more generally such references belong only only on the articles for the tv shows etc Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"In popular culture sections" seem to attract controversy, don't they. And practice seems to vary widely. I'm very sorry that Tim Bortras thinks his efforts here were wasted. But Nikkimaria is absolutely right about secondary sources. I don't think anyone really doubts that all those films/ shows used the music. But it's really only notable if someone, like a film critic, has noted how appropriate, or clever, that use was. And I think Ceoil is also right - if a reader hears (or perhaps partially recognises) a piece in a film, their first port of call would probably be the article for that film. The reverse is possible of course - someone reading this article could suddenly realise they had heard the music in film x or show y. It just seems a lot less likely/ useful. I'm not a die-hard lover of "classical" music who thinks that these kind of mentions cheapen an article, but I do think secondary sources are key. Otherwise things can very easily get out of hand. The same goes for poetry - for example Do not go gentle into that good night, etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Consistency. And WP:ITALICS. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well spotted – @Gerda Arendt: – Gerda, will you deal or shall I? Tim riley talk  09:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Will try. My father died today, in the mood for Requiem. Mozart is on the Main page, and is in bad condition, I will not have time for that, will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
So very sorry to read this. I've sent you an email, dear Gerda. Tim riley talk  09:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Tried to fix. The Latin names of the movements are without italics or quotation marks, but Libera me is additionally sometimes his earlier standalone composition (then italic), sometimes a piece of text, then quotation marks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

When I helped improving this article - in collaboration, mainly with Tim riley who did the groundwork - I thought of Wikipedians who died: Wadewitz (8 April 2014, two years ago today), Cindamuse (11 April 2014), Viva-Verdi (March 2015) and Dreadstar (January 2016), thinking of them in the quiet way Fauré's music gave us forever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia but I noticed that the Robert Shaw, Judith Blegen, James Morris, etc. recording is miscategorized as following the 1900 version. I have not seen the physical source referenced but the liner notes state unequivocally that it uses the 1984 edition by John Rutter of the 1893 version. If no one minds, I'd like to move this recording into the 1893 section citing the liner notes of the CD itself. Mchernen (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the external links to this reference as they linked to: Franz Kafka, a biography by Brod, Max, 1884-1968. Any suggestions? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The second subsection of Versions states "...but the first edition to be published was by the English conductor John Rutter in 1989". This simply cannot be right as stated.  I sang the Requiem in the 1960s from a published score (Hamelle/FitzSimmons) which an internet search dates as 1944.  Either the assertion needs considerable qualification -- which version? which scoring? first to be published where? -- or it's just plain wrong, unless I am missing something. Unfortunately, I lack the resources to track down versions and editions, so I'll have to leave this to others. But surely the date and publisher of the first edition of this standard work should be definitive. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The quote you provide is specifically in the subsection about the 1893 version. Was the one you sang perhaps the final version instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. There have been so many versions! It wasn't obvious to me from the subsection layout that the 1893 one wasn't (essentially) the final one. The version I sang would have been the "final" one as of mid-20th century, the brown covered FitzSimmons which was common for decades. It almost needs a table format to clearly show Fauré's versions and important editions. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The History section opens: "Fauré's reasons for composing his Requiem are uncertain." This copies the sentence in the lead. Then the next sentence says (essentially) "perhaps because of the deaths of his parents", neatly contradicting the next sentence in the lead. Then the third sentence tells us, in Fauré's own words, why he wrote it. More or less contradicting both first sentences. Perhaps it should say "F's Req was not composed in response to any specific prompt... but Fauré wrote... " -- this needs rewording, but it would surely be better to avoid the current logical incongruity. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

In the lead, it says "unclear". Feel free to word the history section better, - English isn't my first language. Something like: "One might think that it was prompted by the death of one his parents", BUT no. Perhaps the parents' deaths needs not even to be mentioned in the lead. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but reality is often contradictory and obstinately puzzling. The first sentence says the reason he wrote it is unknown, the second is backed by scholars, and the third is a primary source, Fauré himself. Composers can be notoriously unreliable sources, especially about themselves and in correspondence. Often they conceal, deflect, or mislead on meaning or personal matters. So it's just not clear, or certain. MONTENSEM (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes it is legacy maintenance: paradox fascinates and clarity bores in art. There may well be good work clarifying the matter some, but likely not enough to resolve it. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)