Requiems for forgotten wars

[Jona Lendering]

War requiems are usually written for recent wars. There's a lot of music, some of it very fine, devoted to the two world wars. This is very proper, because music can indeed be a monument to those who died. In my opinion, for such a tribute, it is necessary that the war still matters. Writing a requiem about a war that lost its direct relevance long time ago, is, in my opinion, somewhat tasteless. The honor of those who died within living memory is diminished if we also start writing requiems about, for instance, the Java War of 1810-1811.

Am I right about this? I mean, this is essentially a story about how I feel we should commemorate our dead; it is rather subjective, and it is partly influenced by the fact that here in the Netherlands, the commemoration of the dead of WW2 is increasingly converted into a "freedom day", with less and less attention for the men who actually died on, for example, the Grebbeberg. I strongly object to this, and that may influence my musical judgment.

So, can you agree? Or am I alone in believing that one should not write requiems for forgotten wars? And a second question, do you know examples of modern composers who actually did write requiems about conflicts like, say, the Java War of 1810-1811. (Trojan War does not count, as that war has become some kind of symbol for all wars.)

(Actually, this is not really off-topic; but I do not see in which of the categories it fits, but if a moderator wants to move it, that's fine with me.)

[Simplex]

Hi Jona,
IIRC : Sir Benjamin Britten -- War Requiem (>Coventry ??)

Greez

Simplex

[Jona Lendering]

Sir Benjamin Britten -- War Requiem (>Coventry ??)

More or less; written for the rededication of the Coventry Cathedral, and using WW1 poetry (Owen). Anyhow, beautiful and inspiring, especially because Owen's texts ("Anthem for a Doomed Generation" etc) are still highly relevant.

What I'm looking for is a modern requiem of a war that is now no longer relevant - and your opinions about such a project.

[M. Demetrius]

I had never thought of things in this light, Jona. Thanks for causing me to be introspective on this matter.

I tend to agree with you, in that there's no personal connection to ancient wars with our modern society (particularly in the US, where there's little "ancient" anything...except perhaps for some Amerindian conflicts, and near nothing is known about them). Music? No, I can't see how it could be done and really make sense.

Good thought. I'll have to crack open a beer and thing things out.through

[Jona Lendering]

Music? No, I can't see how it could be done and really make sense.

Thanks - this is what I was thinking about as well. Anyone else?

I'll have to crack open a beer and thing things out.through

If only the European leaders had drank a beer or two, at their leisure, and had thought a bit more, in that beautiful summer of 1914...

[Astiryu1]

Not to disagree with your point of view which is valid in many respects. I am on the other side of the fence as I would prefer to see a musician being respectful and accurate when writing a piece of music. Any war should never be forgotten as lives on both sides were lost. By bringing the conflict into the mainstream people understand a little better of what happened and maybe learn the history themselves. Too much music that means nothing is also a problem. Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture was and still is a great piece and simply because of the song I researched the war myself. As long as the music is done tastefully and doesn't bash on the people fighting I think it's okay. The modern pop artist Pink first started singing with her father and he wrote about fighting in Viet Nam. "I have seen the Rain" is a duet between them and really captures the soldier's thoughts before and after the war.
[url:3l3zjfwx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJrftgq6KKw[/url]

Where there's music, there can be no evil. - Cervantes [ Don Quixote ]

[Jona Lendering]

By bringing the conflict into the mainstream people understand a little better of what happened and maybe learn the history themselves.

A very good point; I had not thought of it like this. Thanks.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

I have qualms about writing this. This is from my perspective as a combat medic and a combat vet. People always like to equate experience: "You were in Vietnam? Well I understand! I was a dental tec in New Jersey." or, "I was in Nam. I was a clerk in Bien Hoa. Once, a mortar shell landed a mile away!" This does not come close to combat, actually taking an objective, taking casualties, being scared all the time, and thinking being bored is the most desirable pleasure in life. There is no point in talking to those in the military who equate service. When you get home there are those from all sides of the political spectrum who say "Well, if you have been there you know that our political perspective is correct”. When you tell them that they have no comprehension of what you saw, they then tell you that you are "messed up" or that you "simply don't understand". There is no point in talking to those people because they have not the faintest understanding. I am guessing this is true for most, if not all wars.

I don't remember any music out in the field. There were a few guys singing versions of popular songs with lyrics that would never be allowed to be sung in public, much less here. When we evacuated our dead there were no parades or memorial services. No music of any kind. We never heard what happened to our wounded. No one bothered to tell us. No one cared. We got used to it. There was no point in talking to each other about it, we already knew.

I avoid events like Memorial Day or Veterans Day. I particularly hate it when someone puts words into the mouths of the dead claiming to about how what they thought or what they felt or what their motivation was. It has never had the same consistency as what I heard from the ones who were dying, if they could say anything at all. There is no point in talking to those who make speeches or write songs and I avoid them and their events. These events are for the families of those who never came back. It is their due. It is not for those of us who lived. We knew the dead when they were still alive, and remember them as such.

If someone feels moved to write music in memoriam, let them do so. Who can tell them they can’t? I simply see it as a gesture, and created by someone who has never lived what it was they are composing about, and hopefully they never will. I just see it as music.

Ralph

[Jona Lendering]

I particularly hate it when someone puts words into the mouths of the dead claiming to about how what they thought or what they felt or what their motivation was.

That's something I understand and respect. I know several Dutch veterans who prefer not to attend similar occasions, because someone will say that they fought -and that others died- "for country and queen". They do not like to hear that, as they say that they had different motivations.

[Narukami]

Well said Ralph.

Excellent topic Jona.

:|

Narukami

[Sean Manning]

I particularly hate it when someone puts words into the mouths of the dead claiming to about how what they thought or what they felt or what their motivation was.

That's something I understand and respect. I know several Dutch veterans who prefer not to attend similar occasions, because someone will say that they fought -and that others died- "for country and queen". They do not like to hear that, as they say that they had different motivations.

That is a hard one. The most famous war poem in Canada, "In Flanders Fields" by John McCrae, ends by saying that to stop fighting would betray the dead. Its a magnificent poem, but it still speaks for people who aren't around to give their opinions any more.

[Jona Lendering]

The most famous war poem in Canada, "In Flanders Fields" by John McCrae, ends by saying that to stop fighting would betray the dead.

I'm going to look for it Sean. Thanks!

[hoplite14gr]

Agree with Ralf.

An example in a vain attempt to help the others understand(?) the view

Written by a veteran - (usually gives the creeps to "politically correct people")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBqc7FbIcyY

Written by a veteran - (yes people use it as background to "put words to the dead!")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbhQD5Pn ... re=related

not by veteran but popular with with Chechenya war vets before they pass out from vodka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxjN6wyM064

While I like to think that world problems might be better resolved over a nice drink but instead of music people should be forced to look on graphic photos of mangled artillery casualties-especially political administrators!!!
That will teach them all the history they need :evil:

Thanks for enduring my rant.
Kind regards

[Astiryu1]

Agreed! A picture is worth a thousand words!

[Jona Lendering]

people should be forced to look on graphic photos of mangled artillery casualties-especially political administrators!!!
That will teach them all the history they need :evil:

This argument is often used by newspapers and TV as an excuse to show terrible things. Military leaders also believe that shock will deter people, and try to keep photos away from the press, because we might stop supporting the war. Perhaps the mechanism indeed exists, but I have some doubts. Otherwise, we would all have become pacifists when Goya painted "Los desastres de la guerra" (pdf; shocking). This series of atrocities is endless, but it didn't deter people from starting new fights.

To be honest, I believe humankind cannot be deterred from war. Somehow, we seem to long for it. My little nephew is shy boy, and yet he loves to play with toy soldiers. It's within us, and it is perhaps better to accept our appetite for destruction as something that will always be there.