Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)