Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

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)

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


 * Man, this was bugging me so I took a look at the text of Libera Me and the requiem mass. Although Libera Me does include the words 'Dies irae', it's a interpretation of the responsory 'Libera Me' - take a look at this page at free choral music.--Gypsydave5 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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).


 * 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)

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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Requiem (Duruflé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130106034821/http://www.stetson.edu/music/concert-choir/choirCDinfo.php to http://www.stetson.edu/music/concert-choir/choirCDinfo.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
I, 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)
 * 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)
 * Condolences for your "loss of friends". But if you "could not care less" about the existence of infoboxes, you normally should not be involved in a discussion about having an infobox or not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What a horrible attempt to stop people questioning the opinions of others  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.77 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your exceptionally cold response. You obviously have not been paying attention and are completely missing the point, with added insufferable presumptuousness. You'd want to be fairly low on the IQ scale to not realise that I was dampening flames. But hey, lets personalise all the same. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the interwebs! Everyone can shove an oar in, however unwanted or ill-informed! Kafka Liz (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Its called baiting, and sadly works. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Low on the IQ scale", huh. Again with the personal attacks. Typical, this - because I have been paying attention (to such antics). A very sad state of affairs. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have some smelling salts. The fainting couch is this way, poor dear. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Kafka Liz, you should know that this is not an issue of "sensitivity" at all. What we do and how we are in real life should have no influence on what we do here on Wikipedia. In real life, we might have passed the stage of conversing many an hour ago. But here we are obliged not only to converse but to do so under very specific rules, too, the most prominent of which is that of being civil to each other. I hope this is not too great a surprise for you. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Done here really means done, for me at least. I'll not be drawn into this again. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. Re-read you contributions and tone here and take responsibility. You point comes across "editors are expendable, and I am disinterested in substance, being primarily interested in baiting." Look at the sequence and disprove otherwise. You claim to know the nuances, but not seeing it. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also you seem confused or are wanton wrt the word "again". Thats low skill baiting...you've lost me. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You want me to prove that what I'm saying is not equal to "editors are expendable"? And you want me to prove that I'm not "disinterested in substance"? Merely the fact that you demand I prove a negative shows the intellectual strength of your arguments. Consider taking a small break in order to regroup your thoughts. No one here is "expendable." Take care. -The Gnome (talk)
 * I'm done here. All of this is crap, and I'm ashamed to have been involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well according to The Gnome's utilitarian outlook, you were expendable anyway, and boo hoo. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who was it who said "could not care less about infoboxes"? Ah yes, now I remember. :-) Be well. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite chuffed :-) to make the first response that is related to the subject. As it happens, and although I consider the issue not one of life and death, I'd find the existence of an infobox quite helpful in the article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How patronising and obnoxious your comments have been. So dismissive of all opinions except your own — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.43 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2017


 * We really have to have infobox discussions that focus on content. They are generally useful for presenting simple, basic material, and those who oppose their addition have not come up with a new argument against them in years. The only real debates about them should be on content and format, not inclusion itself.   Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What utter rubbish. Inclusion should always be questioned, or you fall into the lazy assumption that they are beneficial for everything. They are not, or the wikipedia rules would insist on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.17 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiding behind an IP does not give you the right to continuously and quite casually violate the rule about being civil. You have not made one single constructive comment in this discussion. Are you proud of yourself? Do you think you are accomplishing something important by behavign like this? -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More baiting? It's an interesting tactic you have. I'm not "hiding behind an IP", as I do not have an account. You know that's allowed do you, person who "hides behind a pseudonym"? Are you proud of yourself for baiting an IP?
 * Inviting you to start making constructive contributions instead of being persistently uncivil is not "baiting". Editing through IPs is perfectly acceptable; being nasty and uncivil to other editors as you evidently are is not. Make an effort. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From the patronising baiter? You have said little of worth on this page at all, on only seem to be poking others or shutting down valid criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.17 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you consider as "valid input" this habit of yours of going around vandalising other editors' user pages (e.g. here) or smearing over articles (e.g. here). Well, I guess we will disagree about the concept of "valid," sorry. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out below, those were nothing to do with me. So it's either ignorance of how IPs are assigned by mobile phone companies, or you are lying. I think it's probably that you don't understand how IP addresses are assigned or used, so I have explained below why you need to be carefully before you lie to make an uncivil personal attack again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.177 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Being an IP user does not grant you the privilege of complaining about imaginary injustices or mistreatment. So far, you have been among those who have engaged in personal attacks, insults, and vicious commentary. In your haste to contribute more of the same, you have forgotten that you've already owned up to the fact that all those IPs have been yours! You, behind the many IPs, are the one who has been called out for vandalism and other, assorted acts. Remember this when next time the urge to deny overcomes you. Take care, now. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverts
Which tag-teaming edit warrior accused me of vandalism? It's not, and the tag team ownership is disgusting

Accusing editors of editors of vandalism when it obviously isn't, really is a low thing to do, although I'm not surprised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.238 (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are, and I - if you mean me - did NOT accuse you of vandalism. I said that the treatment of reverting an edit without an edit summary (as was done here) should be reserved for vandalism. I don't know if you understand that difference. - I am in no tag team, so I don't know if you mean me. - Can we please discuss the edit now, not assumptions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty conscience there. I referred to the nasty individual who reverted for "driveby anon IP vandalism" (in the edit summary)
 * Montanabw is not Gerda Arendt. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one has said he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.77 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I did, usually a drive-by IP who has multiple talk page warnings from previous edits is a vandal. This IP, whoever it is, has a contribs list of many random edits and many warnings on the talk page. This does not appear to be a productive editor who is here to improve the encyclopedia and usually blanking of content for no reason is vandalism. Montanabw (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What rubbish. This is a mobile phone network with hundreds of users all using the same IPs at any time and switching them them around. To judge my edit on the basis of the anonymous editors previously shows an amazing degree of incompetence in how to treat editors who make good faith edits. You should be ashamed of yourself
 * It we were to accept that this is indeed a case of "hundreds of users" using the seem IP as yours, then we would have to also accept that, by a sudden, very large statistical deviation, all of those "hundreds" of users have the exact same attitude you have, i.e. not a trace of civility when talking with other editors. Why, we should report this momentous event to the Mathematical Society or something. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What childish nonsense. Perhaps I have to do mobile phones 101 for you. Hundreds, possibly thousands of mobile phone users use or have used the IPaddress. We use it to check sports reports, read the news or edit wikipedia. Some of them have done bad things, others have not, and the warnings will be for acts by different users. The good edits done on this IP will have been done by yet more different people. I suspect you know this already, but your baiting, or pouring gasoline onto a fire, does not rile me.
 * So far, the texts coming out of IPs 213.205.194.77, 213.205.198.238 and 213.205.198.17 read practically identical. The use of the term "baiting" is also a common theme. :-) But there'll be more. -The tGnome (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, those IPs are all me, well done. They are assigned by my phone company. So what? I'm not trying to hide anything

Anon IP 213, please sign your posts. I also suggest you get a username or you could subject yourself to an investigation to see if you are attempting to evade a block or engage in sockpuppetry. At this point, your behavior is purely disruptive and you've performed three reverts in less than 24 hours via these related IPs. I will not revert you again, speaking only for myself, but you need to chill out and be more constructive. Montanabw (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not need to register for an account. I am sure you and everyone else here knows it. Thank you for trying to blacken my name further by the suggestion of evading a block or sockpuppetry. I will add them to the lies in your edit summaries as yet further grounds of bad faith bullying. 213.205.198.162 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see. You appear to have the viewpoint that everyone here is against you, whoever you are.  Perhaps instead of viewing this as bullying, perhaps you could realize that your behavior is problematic?  Judging by the many warnings on all save one of your IP accounts, you have been "not getting it" for some time.  Either that, or all the other people on these shared IP addresses are themselves problem editors, and that could result in a rangeblock for the domain, which I am sure would be a problem for a lot of other people, given where this IP geolocates.  It is not difficult to get a throwaway email account and then create an account here.  Might be wise for you to do so.   Montanabw (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See above for the basic explanation of the IP address assignment by the mobile phone company. Thousands of users use these addresses, and it is possible that the each warning is for a different phone user. No-one has any way of verifying that. The flip side of that is also true, in this little anti-IP mindset two people are showing: every single one of those good edits could be by different phone users. A range block? Does that mean you'll block several hundred thousand mobile users just because they may hold a different opinion to yours? 213.205.198.162 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A word in your ear, if I may, sir. You have already copped to the fact that all these IP addresses are yours. Check up a few lines above, if you must. Your references to "hundreds of other users" or the "mobile phone company" (!) or any other helpful titbit you might hold in reserve, are henceforth pre-emptively null and void. We are way past the denial stage. I'm saying this only to keep things interesting. Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to everyone
Please read WP:Talk page guidelines and pay special attention to the following sentences:


 * "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. . . . Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace."

Almost none of the comments in the two previous threads have anything to do with improving this article and are therefore in violation of this guideline. This is not a place to discuss IP editing, a specific IP editor, infoboxes in general, or any editor's personal frustrations. Please stay on topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tell me,, what's the penalty for discussing an IP-hopping editor's behaviour on the talk page of the article where they are editing? Given that they don't have the same talk page two days running, how else are we to communicate with them? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And let's not worry about the lies, tag-teaming and ownership here. The above comment was from yet another edit warrior who has ignored the BRD policy and has made no attempt to discuss the changes, just imposed his or her personal preference. No wonder IPs get fucked off with the games you people play. It's odd how this small unattended article has received so much attention from the infobox obsessives who have never been here before. Its almost like someone has been going round contacting people to highlight a change they want made. Maybe an admin should look at the communication voiced here, just to check who's been acting as ringmaster. (Now that is something that should be stamped down on, along with the trolling and baiting being done by others, particularly Ghome)
 * A word in your ear, if I may, sir. To save bandwidth (and people's time), here is how I found myself involved here: After looking up one of your Talk Pages, I chanced upon an editor's remark that you "removed content [from the article on Requiem (Duruflé)] without adequately explaining why." This was the least serious remark, by the way, among the many warnings in your Talk Pages to stop your acts of vandalism. And I looked up the article - only to find the typical mess. Upon the rest of the comedy, there shall be no comment. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * bullshit. At least one editor has been going round publicising this on a string of talk pages, and the obsession you and they are showing in appearing in every infobox discussion that comes up is disruptive. It will only end badly for you. (And next time you want to comment on IP addresses, learn some of the basics, almost everything you have said is wrong to the point of idiocy. It ishould be obvious to all, but I will clarify for you, who seems to be struggling: not every edit made on wikipedia by the IPs is by me. The edits on this topic have all been by me. Has that worked its way through yet?) So accusing me of the strings of vandalism made by the ranks of users of this mobile telephone network is a personal attack and severe breach of the wp:CIVIL policy. You can get off your high horse and stop with the inane baiting now.
 * Calm down. This is practically over. You have already admitted it was you, personally, behind, those contributions marked by the three (so far) IPs. So, we are past the stage of denial to which you want to retreat all of a sudden. (Next thing we typically read in such cases is that your little brother did it!) You have been accused of serious acts of vandalism in the recent past; therefore, the prudent move is to try and improve your contributions to Wikipedia and, equally importantly, your attitude towards other editors. Trying to silence valid criticism of your behavior with threats  leads nowhere. Do you seriously believe that half a dozen editors are accusing you of behaving improperly because of some conspiracy? Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention any penalties, . Editors should just follow the talk page guidelines and all will be well. Feel free to communicate with the IP or any other editor about improving this specific article here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't mention any penalties,, that's why I asked. In fact, not only is there no penalty associated with discussing an IP's behaviour here, where it is germane to the article, but it is the only sensible place to do so. So I'd be grateful if you'd quit patronising experienced editors who are quite aware of the TPGs – and their deficiencies – until such time as you manage to figure out a better place to discuss an IP's behaviour in these circumstances. It's worth noting that, ironically, your intervention has even less to do with improving the article than that of any other contributor on the page. Your cooperation in improving that sorry state of affairs would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And this from a tag-teaming, edit-warring owner of the article, who has miraculously "appeared" at this page, as if by magic. Deciding not to bother with the whole BRD thing, or talkpage, ironically, their intervention on both the article or talk page has even less to do with improving the article than that of any other contributor on the page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.177 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only "miracle" here is that the admins are allowing the drivel you post up directed personally against other editors to stand up without challenge and without you being specifically warned to cease and desist. I guess Cullen tries his best not to appear taking sides, especially against IP-users; but this is getting preposterous. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only "miracle" here is that the admins are allowing the drivel you post up directed personally against other editors to stand up without challenge and without you being specifically warned to cease and desist. I guess Cullen tries his best not to appear taking sides, especially against IP-users; but this is getting preposterous. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to pop in to say this - if nobody reverts RexxS' latest change, then brilliant, we have consensus, end of discussion. Meanwhile, the article has had a tag on the article for three years. Could y'all talk about resolving that issue instead? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's ignore the noise, whether eponymous or anonymous. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * feck me, what an inane and trite comment (from the Ghome, not Ritchie333)

Per RexxS's reinstatement of the infobox, yes, I would like that to be justified here on the talk page as he himself offers, and look forward to seeing his arguments. If convincing arguments are not forthcoming then I will be amongst those who suggest it should be reverted. But whether or not there is to be an infobox here, Ritchie333's point takes precedence. At the moment for example the infobox, as RexxS has reinstated it, contains 'information' for which there is no citation - e.g. dedication, scoring, no. of movements. If RexxS is genuinely concerned about the quality and probity of Wikipedia articles, perhaps he could sort that out as par of his justification. In the meantime I am removing those elements which are not sourced. − Smerus (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for inviting me so courteously to expand on why I feel the infobox improves this article. I won't edit-war over it, but I do think it helpful for other editors to understand why I felt restoring that version improved the article. I'd also like to take this opportunity to contest your recent removal of several pieces of information from the infobox.
 * The infobox that I restored contains a more concise summary of the lead image in its caption, which I feel is more appropriate for a lead section (of which an infobox is naturally a part).
 * The structured nature of the key-value pairs associating a label with a piece of information in this infobox allows third-parties to retrieve the information more concisely and accurately using automated tools.
 * The infobox contains the "published" microformat which allow microformat readers to retrieve the date of publication directly.
 * The infobox contains eight further pieces of information, which I believe to be key items that any reader wishing to get an "at-a-glance" overview of the work would find useful. They also may represent commonly asked questions that a reader may wish to find a quick answer to. I accept that "catalogue number", "publication date", "based on", and "dedication" are available in the lead, but it is convenient for the reader to have them in a single place, along with the link to Music for the Requiem Mass and the other three pieces of information not present in the lead.
 * That the dedication is to his father's memory is as well sourced in the infobox as it is in the lead. I'd be grateful if you'd restore that piece of information (or delete it from the lead if you really believe it to be untrue).
 * The language of the piece is Church Latin. Domine Jesu Christe, Sanctus, etc. are recognisably Latin even from someone who last studied Latin in 1967. Please be kind enough to restore that piece of information or explain why you challenge its veracity.
 * The number of movements is nine: Introit (Requiem Aeternam); Kyrie eleison; Offertory (Domine Jesu Christe); Sanctus and Benedictus; Pie Jesu; Agnus Dei; Communion (Lux aeterna); Libera me; In Paradisum. Count them. The articles states this and the infobox summarises that key fact. If you really want a reference, you can listen to the entire work at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TneUTtCAJlE where you'll find nine movements. Please be kind enough to restore that piece of information or explain why you challenge its veracity.
 * The scoring is a collation and summary of the information already in the article in the Structure and Instrumentation sections. Please be kind enough to restore those pieces of information or explain why you challenge their veracity.
 * It really doesn't seem appropriate to me to remove items from the infobox as "not sourced" when they do no more than summarise what is already in the article. For some of these items, verification would not depend on reading a fact in a source, but on a reader's ability to recognise Latin or count the number of movements in a work. WP:CALC removes the requirement for sources for trivial calculations and I would have thought that counting was in the spirit of that policy. WP:No original research states that the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. Do you really challenge the fact that the language of the work (a requiem mass, no less) is in Latin? Please have another think about your recent edits and ensure that you are genuinely concerned with "the quality and probity" of this article, rather than your dislike of the infobox. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't seem appropriate to me to remove items from the infobox as "not sourced" when they do no more than summarise what is already in the article. For some of these items, verification would not depend on reading a fact in a source, but on a reader's ability to recognise Latin or count the number of movements in a work. WP:CALC removes the requirement for sources for trivial calculations and I would have thought that counting was in the spirit of that policy. WP:No original research states that the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. Do you really challenge the fact that the language of the work (a requiem mass, no less) is in Latin? Please have another think about your recent edits and ensure that you are genuinely concerned with "the quality and probity" of this article, rather than your dislike of the infobox. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Contra-indications:
 * The composition exists in different versions: infoboxes don't do very well on articles about compositions with a multi-stage development process and/or with different instrumentations: the complexities can hardly ever be adequately summarized in an infobox, or, if left out of the infobox altogether, the box is near empty (and thus easily develops into a mere "symbol" for edit-warriors)
 * The article is in a fairly poor state currently: e.g. refimprove tag, the lead paragraph "summarizing" content that is not in the body of the article (Vichy regime), etc, etc,... – pasting an infobox on such articles that are generally in a poor state is often counterproductive (and again, easily invites infobox warriors that are fairly clueless about the article's content, i.e. for instance wouldn't even know where to find a decent reference for the body of the article or the project guidelines for classical music articles)
 * In sum, oppose infobox in any way or format for this article for the time being. We can talk again once the content & references of the article get sorted to an acceptable level. This is also intended as an incentive for those who really want an infobox for this article: first show that an appropriate body and intro for the article are possible before attempting to "summarize" unbalanced content into an infobox. You'll see that once the article itself gets sorted adequately, it becomes far easier to summarize, and doing so would cause much less discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say about the article quality, but do not follow your conclusion. A reader should see - my opinion, but - at a glance the key facts about this article, in whatever state it is, for example that it is in Latin. We can't expect our readers to know that Requiem is a Latin word, and the text of one is often in Latin (but not always, or not only). I promised yesterday already to improve this article by November, the typical Requiem time, but will see if I can make a start today. It's a piece I love. Thanks for your comments strictly to content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Complexities like "not always" or "not only" (and what I mentioned in my first point above) are difficult to summarize in an infobox, so propose the exact content for an eligible infobox on this talk page, and find consensus for it before introducing in the article. Failing such a concrete proposal, and a consensus for it, I oppose the current infobox and content. The first task is an acceptable article, with adequate references, not a summary of unclear origin: such summary of unclear origin (content not even referenced in the body of the article) is of no help to anyone, and invites to edit-warring by the clueless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I need to explain ... that the "not always" example was only included to clarify that Latin is valuable infomation? ... that key information is desirable (see the link "not only mine" for dislexic readers, for readers not fluent in English, for examples) in whatever state of an article? I'd almost say that the more confusing an article is the more helpful are clear facts in an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, are you going to propose a concrete infobox for this article on this talk page, and stop introducing it into the article before it gets consensus? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I don't care if this article has an infobox. - I only wanted to know why it was treated as vandalism, - reverted without reasoning/edit summary. - The work uses the Gregorian chant of the Requiem, - how would you say that. For me, "Based on" does it, - it doesn't claim it's a model. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "I don't care if this article has an infobox" – no problem then to remove it, apparently, until someone is dedicated enough to propose one that may get consensus. You may not have gotten an edit summary of the IP, but by now you had reams of talk page explanation (so that "per talk page" may suffice as an edit summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, an infobox can be as "clear" as you want, if its content is unverifiable (with unclear or failing references etc), it should go per WP:V. Not even speaking about WP:BALASPS which would also mandate the removal of an infobox with an overview that is out of sync with the balance in the rest of the article: as long as one can't get the balance & references right in the article, an infobox is unsuitable as a "variant" for the article content, whether or not that content pans out after referencing (as long as it doesn't pan out the variant overview should be kept out of the article anyhow). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Francis makes a lot of sense here: there's no point in summarising unverifiable information, whether it be in the lead or an infobox. I therefore suggest that an infobox could look like this one. I don't believe that there is anything that would be challenged there, given the references we have and the evidence of our own ears. With the possible exception of the scoring – as there are different scorings used in some performances, I would not quibble about leaving that out of the infobox if objections were raised that too much nuance is lost. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "It's a piece I love": I prefer Fauré's (to which this one is too indebted to my taste). Current content and infobox of the article are of course no publicity for changing my view on this composition, on the contrary. So please think twice before clinging to a messy infobox: rather propose a more adequate one on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "It's a piece I love": I prefer Fauré's (to which this one is too indebted to my taste). Current content and infobox of the article are of course no publicity for changing my view on this composition, on the contrary. So please think twice before clinging to a messy infobox: rather propose a more adequate one on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes are to be announced in the New Year's honours list and be knighted by Her Majesty. For vital services to Wikipedia. Without them there would be no encyclopedia. :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud at that one, . Although the truth is that Google is the one vital service to Wikipedia. Wikipedia would sail on cheerfully without infoboxes, of course, but it would be poorer in many places for their absence. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * On RexxS's proposal:
 * General: "versions" info is currently inadequately covered and referenced in the article, which leads to problems in the proposed infobox content (affecting currently at least the content of the "caption" and "scoring" parameters, possibly probably also of the "published" parameter). Which version was published when can of course also not be referenced to the "evidence of our own ears"
 * "caption" parameter: "arrangement"? I thought this was the original version, before the later arrangements? "showing the plainchant influence": no, this is not a good caption: where and how does it show "plainchant influence" (lead melody? instrumental accompaniment? cantus firmus type? and if so in which voice?)? – better to explain that in understandable prose than posit it enigmatically in an image caption.
 * "catalogue" parameter: an opus number is not a "catalogue" number or identification. I didn't design these composition infoboxes: it may be a flaw in the box code, but unless it is corrected we should not pass opus numbers as catalogue numbers.
 * "text" parameter: WP:EGG link to an article about requiem music (music ≠ text); also the parameter is too blunt for indicating the deviations from the standard requiem text (which are also still unsatisfactorily explained in the article body, see tag in structure section: again the infobox is trying to "summarize" something that in fact is not covered by the article's content and references)
 * "language" parameter: redundant imho: this is the standard language for a Requiem.
 * "based on": questionable parameter: rather based on Fauré's requiem I'd say ("evidence of our own ears"); also, continued WP:EGG linking: "Gregorian" links to an article about a type of music; the next link is about the general concept of requiem (masses), not specifically its music.
 * "published" parameter: see Maurice Duruflé with different publication dates: not sure which one is correct.
 * "scoring" parameter: "orchestra or ensemble or organ": as said in the first remark above, this is currently not adequately covered in the article.
 * In sum: still too many unsolved issues to support this infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC) (updated 16:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC))
 * We presently have five references and five external links to support information beyond the evidence of our ears, although that it also surely a mechanism for verification.
 * Surely you are not in any doubt that this is Opus 9? Virtually every reference makes that fact plain and none dispute it. No matter your objections to the label, the instructions at Template:Infobox musical composition are clear: "catalogue opus number or catalogue number, in the latter case listing the catalogue with a link, such as K.". If you have a problem with placing the opus number in this field as is common in many other articles, then take it up at Template talk:Infobox musical composition, where it is actually appropriate.
 * Sources such as David Gammie's notes from Hyperion makes clear the presence of Gregorian Chant: "What makes Duruflé’s work unique—and has ensured its survival while the others (rather unfairly) sank without trace—is the presence of Gregorian Chant ...". In fact, it is that very feature that is pointed to as "unique" by Gammie. I'm sorry, but in the face of a good source, I really don't think your objection to Smerus' formulation of Gregorian mass for the dead is sufficient to remove Gregorian plainchant from the infobox. Given that Barry Creasy states "Duruflé took the Gregorian plainchant Mass for the Dead as his raw material", I can see no good reason for removing the "based on" information.
 * "published", I agree is debatable and best left out. Perhaps the year of composition, which is consistently stated in the sources as 1947 would be more acceptable.
 * "scoring", I don't disagree with leaving out as inadequately covered for now.
 * "Language" - As pointed out earlier, we cannot assume that every reader knows that Latin is the standard language for a Requiem, and as she adds, not every Requiem is in Latin. i can't agree that it is redundant. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"testing for consensus" via edit-warring
please stop "testing for consensus" via edit warring. Even without your so-called "test" you knew that your edit didn't have consensus, so no need to "test" with it in mainspace in the form of an edit-war. Further: Again, totally oppose inclusion of an infobox of any kind as long as the content of the article is in such a poor state. So, stop edit warring the infobox into the article as long as no consensus for it has been found on this talk page. And stop adding info to the article's intro that is not covered in the narrative of the body of the article. Only shows lack of interest in this composition. And rather makes the article more unbalanced (which is already a problem that should be remedied, see above, not acerbated). Seems about time to tag the article for its lack of balance. And no, edit-warring an infobox in does not solve an imbalance problem, it only makes it worse. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * none of your replies above satisfy, e.g. you can write as much as you like, that still doesn't make an opus number into a catalogue number. The template content for the "catalogue" parameter is erroneous, period. None of your other replies satisfy either.
 * "year" parameter: nah, Duruflé started to compose his requiem in 1945 (or earlier), this can't be reduced to "1947"
 * "dedication" parameter: doesn't seem like a very significant characteristic. Oppose inclusion.
 * I must ask you not to decide on your version of consensus and then impose your version on the article. Your edit summary of remove/update questionable parameters, per talk does not reflect consensus on this talk page, merely your opinion alone. Several of those parameters that you object to are in no way questionable.
 * How many times do you need to be told that the field "catalogue" is documented as a container for either "catalogue opus number or catalogue number". Can't you even follow a link? or do you think that your judgement overrides the wider consensus documented in Template:Infobox musical composition? Until that consensus changes, you will respect it, or I'll ask for you to be sanctioned for disruptive editing.
 * The parameter dedication exists in the infobox for a reason. We clearly disagree about the importance of this particular dedication, but both Gerda and I have inserted it, taking a cue from the source http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dw.asp?dc=W1245_66191 so I don't believe you have the right to overrule two other editors' opinions. Either seek dispute resolution or open an RfC; but don't think you can simply dictate that your opinion is paramount.
 * The source https://books.google.de/books?id=EW4FfK2XhWoC&pg=PA166 states that the composition was completed in 1947. I'm willing to concede that other sources indicate that he was probably working on the composition in earlier years, so I'll take out the year as insufficiently agreed upon to be summarised so simply.
 * The content of the article is improving daily. The solution to your complaint about the poor state of the article is for you to put some effort into improving it yourself. There are now numerous sources to use. If you feel so strongly that the structure of the article needs to be updated, then please go ahead and do it, but I would ask you not to delete properly sourced (or sourceable) material per WP:PRESERVE. It's a good policy for you to embrace and it might get some of those regressive ideas of "consensus required before making any edit" out of your head.
 * Finally, tagging an article can't improve it. Editing it can. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing would involve reverting cluelesness --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly would. Are you implying that I'm clueless? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice for the ANI report. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is fairly clueless to label opus numbers as catalogue numbers. I have no clue who adopted that confusion in the template (and/or its documentation), neither do I want to know (if someone takes issue they can take it up with me), but I assume it wasn't you, so, short answer: no, for a point that is otherwise moot while the clues have obviously returned (kudos to you). (please don't forget to update the template documentation accordingly).
 * I emphasised reverting though, meaning: in the header of this subsection I advised against repeated reverting as a method to distinguish the clueless from the clueful. Thus I wasn't going to go against my own advice: it can sometimes be more meaningful to place an appropriate tag than to steer for an edit war by continued attempts to address clueless content by "editing" it directly, once that editing starts to take the form of repeated reverts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to wait for a while to see if the consensus of silence agreed with my addition of the new parameter, before having to update the documentation. But what the heck, if folks don't like it, it's easy for them to revert the documentation as well as the change to the template. I've updated the documentation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it further. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to wait for a while to see if the consensus of silence agreed with my addition of the new parameter, before having to update the documentation. But what the heck, if folks don't like it, it's easy for them to revert the documentation as well as the change to the template. I've updated the documentation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it further. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Catalogue/Opus
It is original research to contend that the opus number of this composition is a catalogue number. If that OR is pushed via the infobox that does not diminish the fact that this OR should not be pushed in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the consensus for the contents of that field. For the third time, this is what the documentation states:
 * "catalogue opus number or catalogue number, in the latter case listing the catalogue with a link, such as K."
 * I'll fix your problem. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll fix your problem. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"organ reduction"
The Gammie source (Hyperion 2014) qualifies the "organ only" version as "organ reduction". So this seems more like a "study score" ("vocal score"?) accompanying the (original?) orchestral version, possibly not even a version for public performance in its own right. I submit that the current version of the article is unbalanced as it seems to suggest that the "organ only" version is the most significant/central one, and that its publication date is more notable than other publication dates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The version with organ is the version we performed, with different groups. - I will leave this productive discussion until after vacation, hope to be back mid-August. - I am no friend of general article tags, which obviously have not worked in years. - The question if there would be a concise term instead of "Catalogue" for both a catalogue number and an opus number should be discussed on the template talk, because it concerns all transclusions of infobox musical composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would a term that covers "both" catalogue and opus numbers be desirable? That seems quite an inane discussion (not even speaking about the possible WP:OR of combining things that are quite distinct in scholarly literature), so I won't initiate a discussion in those terms, not here nor anywhere else. It is a simple fact that the "catalogue" parameter can't be used for this article. Also, please don't draw a discussion that is still active in another section on this page in this section that is about a different topic.
 * Re. "...the version we performed..." – where would that come in as a useful contribution to this section?
 * Re. "I am no friend of general article tags" – well, general issues need to be addressed: until they are general tags signalling them are appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Variations
As the term variations has a specific meaning in music, I wouldn't use it instead of "various" or "different". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Structure and scoring — solos?
The section mentions baritone & mezzo solos; it places the mezzo solo as in the Pie Jesu in the narrative, but not the baritone solos. I suggest the solos should be included in the list of movements, as is common. Iirc, the baritone has two solos, the Hostias, and one other brief interpolation — I can't remember where (I should, I sang the solo years ago ;-). Alas, I don't have the score handy. I'll check the ref for the list, or see if I can dig up the score, and update if possible. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Travelling, no score at hand. I think that at least the short interpolation is not necessarily marked by the composer as solo, so hesitate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked the source & made the change, also reviewed the score on Youtube. Duruflé apparently later indicated a preference for the solos to be sung by the choir, and it is often performed that way. It's always been a solo in the performances I've sung in. More to the point, the score says solo. But see also my next comment. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The solist information and other useful explanation was already in the article, but commented out Why? Anyone know? Nothing here on the Talk page that I noticed. I'll check the history, tho that can be laborious. If I can't find a good reason for its removal (or non-addition), I'l uncomment it and redact it a bit. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot was going on a while ago, and I don't remember exactly why what. One possible reason was no reference, but the score can be used as a reference. - The main critic back then is not active, so be bold ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I just saw it was you commented out that para. The overall edit you made was good IMO, reducing considerable verbal clutter and POV. I will restore the commented text but pare it down a bit. Thanks again for your helpful comments! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

External Link to performance with score
There is a performance on YouTube with the score displayed in synch, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRzPi0CA1rg. As the score is not PD, this is a great resource for anyone editing this article or researching the subject. I am tempted to add an external link to it. I know WP deprecates links to YouTube, since YT posts are unreviewed and often evanescent, but this one looks good, and stable (3.5 years, 385K views). Anyway, I've posted the link here in case the external link is reverted ;-( --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. If you are sure that the upload is properly licensed, add it please, say "per talk" in the edit summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ps: The fact that the score is not PD is unfortunately an indicator that the licensing may be not adequate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The performances (VA for each movement) are licensed, but no mention of the score (a distinction I'm sensitive to as a composer & perfromer myself!). I'll see if I can contact the poster. However, even if the use of the score is unlicensed, I don't see that WP should object to the link (no upload to WP incolved). If you know of a policy on this, please let me know; it's an important issue for me.

I would really like to put the link in; besides the synch'd score, the poster's comments include much useful background history, unfortunately unsourced, so it may be unreviewed OR or lifted verbatim from elsewhere. Obviously, I can't quote the poster's comments or even paraphrase him as a source, given the lack of references. But maybe I can google snippets of his text & find HIS source(s)! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah! I found the source of the YouTube comments, and they are indeed lifted verbatim from an online article by David A. McCarthy, at https://www.allmusic.com/composition/requiem-for-orchestra-organ-chorus-for-organ-chorus-for-small-ensemble-organ-chorus-op-9-3-versions-mc0002363699. The latter article is a very useful chunk of history & discussion of the structure; I believe Allmusic is a moderately reliable source. CAVEAT: the first para of McCarthy's article is incorrect or at least incomplete re the commissioning of the work by the Vichy régime vs commission from Durand, see Frazier in the article sources, so it had better be taken with some grains of NaCl. I will keep it in mind for the future (no time right now). I do think this article deserves to be expanded--one source says the Requiem has earned more royalties than any other piece of French Choral Music, iirc. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)