PANEL decisions

[JW]

The setting I'm doing is my first major compositional exercise since I graduated in 1996. I've just put the finishing touches to my 'Gloria' and have just read NT and Musicus very appropriate comments with interest. My objective / brief is to provide a very simple setting to be very congregation-friendly; trying to get the new translations off to a flying start. I don't necessarily expect it to last alongside settings by decent composers. However, the only way I can set the Gloria is by a refrain of 'Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will' in compound 6/8 time with the verses set to a chant tone sung by choir/cantor/or even congregation if they're brave. By doing this, the words fit into an easily-remembered pattern.

Rather than dum-di-dum-di-dum-di-dum, it's dum-di-dum-dum , dum-di-dum-dum , dum-di-di-dum-di-di-dum-dum ; dum-dum-dum , dum-dum-di-dum , dum, dum, dum.

I can only hope that clog dancing is considered to be a style of music as the 'Guide for Composers' 31 says "no style of music is excluded from the Church" but then goes on to say that "some styles may be better suited to the liturgy than others...". However, as no style is excluded and my congregation are unlikely to be distracted by the clog-dancing style (few professional musicians or Dutch people), I'm hoping the panel might let me get away with it. I'm excited by the prospect of the London seminar on Saturday - hopefully someone from the panel will be there, even if anonymously.

[quaeritor]

As to changing the word order, I always strive to set the text as given, if only so as to rise to the challenge!

Oh Musicus! I bow to you! - for years I've been standing on the mantra (can one really do that?) "the words, all the words, and nothing but the words". Anything less is just a confession of defeat. We have to get away from the assumption that unless the words can be recited to the rhythm of a drum machine they can't be set to music, and worse, can't be sung. I remember many years ago being impressed by the cleverness of a number from "Hair" the words of which I think I can remember not perfectly but accurately enough to make the point: "I met a guy called Frank Jones on September twelfth, right here, in front of the Waverly, but unfortunately I lost his address" Try knocking that into "dum-ti-dum-ti-dum"!

Q

[Nick Baty]

I am becoming confused by all this, O Musicus and Q. When has it ever been acceptable to change the words to fit any rhythm – dum-ti-dum included? And would anyone here use such a setting anyway? (If the questions don't make sense, then blame the scotch!)

[presbyter]

However, the only way I can set the Gloria is by a refrain of 'Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will' in compound 6/8 time with the verses set to a chant tone ...........

Come to Hammersmith on 19th March - you'll hear your "only" way is not the only way to make sense musically of this awkwardness.

[Southern Comfort]

I have today discovered that ICEL not only stands for International Committee on English in the Liturgy but also for the Industry Committee for Emergency Lighting and that "ICEL approved products meet all the current product and application standards required to make sure people are able to escape safely from premises in the event of an emergency".

The Industry Committee for Emergency Lighting has existed since at least the mid-70s. Where were you then, Nick?

[Southern Comfort]

I have seen a range of new and unpublished Gloria settings, none of which are in 6/8 but in 4/4 or free rhythm. Many of the new American settings, however, are in 6/8 or 3/4.

[auchincruive]

Are there any indications that the panel is sensitive to new punctuation? I notice that the punctuation of the Holy, Holy has changed. Previously 'Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might'. but now 'Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts', which means that 'Holy Lord God of hosts' is now intented as a single phrase. Listening to some of the music from USA it sounds more like 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts' with a pause of some kind between the final 'Holy' and 'Lord God of hosts'. I was wondering because it could determine whether we can adapt some of the music we already use to accommodate the new text.

[HallamPhil]

You can definitely assume that the Panel is hyper-sensitive over the punctuation. For the reasons that you cite I think this is probably for the better.

[Calum Cille]

Previously 'Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might'. but now 'Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts', which means that 'Holy Lord God of hosts' is now intented as a single phrase.

The feature of this mass text (Holy, holy, holy Lord God Sabaoth. Heaven and earth are full of your glory.) which I find most noteworthy is that the Septuagint refers to God in the third person here rather than addressing him (Holy, Holy, Holy [is the] Lord [of] Sabaoth. Full [is] all the earth of his glory.) which, at least in the second phrase, follows the Hebrew which doesn't use the word God either. The Latin mass text of the modern Roman rite on the other hand (Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord God [of] Sabaoth. Full are heaven and earth of your glory.) clearly refers to God in the third person in the first phrase and then addresses him in the second phrase.

I would comment that the subtleties of the meaning of the whole Latin phrase are most accurately represented by "Holy holy holy [is the] Lord God [of] Sabaoth" and that "[O] holy holy holy Lord God [of] Sabaoth" would be incorrect as a strict English interpretation of the Latin. An interpretation of "Holy holy holy [is the] Lord, [the] God [of] Sabaoth" is, by using a comma after "Lord", a restriction of meaning to a single interpretative option of the Latin. The rules of modern English punctuation do not standardly allow a string of adjectives unseparated by commas as per "Holy holy holy Lord God of hosts" so we have to write "Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts".

However, the average English person could interpret "Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts" either as addressing God or as referring to him in the third person. Latin does not offer such choices of interpretation, as the text clearly refers to him in the third person. The Gaelic interpretation has probably referred strongly to the English missal translation and picked up on the English ambivalence of meaning but gone for the "wrong" translation option by restricting itself to addressing God here: "[Is] naomh, naomh, naomh [thu, a] Thighearna Dhia [nan] slògh"/"[Is] naofa, naofa, naofa [thú, a] Thiarna Dia na slua" (Holy, holy, holy are you, o Lord God of the hosts). I've heard it said that the reason more literal translations of the missal in influential languages are in such demand is because speakers of other languages, eg Gaelic, who translate the missal into their own language often rely on a language like English and end up importing meanings from, eg, English into, eg, Gaelic which don't actually exist in the Latin and therefore strictly constitute mistranslation.

[Nick Baty]

Holy, Holy, Holy [is the] Lord

I think "is the" was in the first draft.

[Calum Cille]

Let's face it, if we had a three line text in English which ran "big big big head chef of cooks, kitchen and dining area are full of your gastronomy, bon appetit at the tables", the average English speaker would interpret the first phrase as addressing the head chef rather than as referring to him in the third person. Small wonder the Gaelic form of the missal text ended up the way it did, if it was influenced by the English.

[mcb]

I've wondered why, if fidelity to the Latin was paramount, the translators didn't go for Holy, Holy, Holy the Lord God of hosts. It takes away the the implied vocative which is not there in the Latin.

Come to think of it, does this reflect a general trend of the translators being squeamish about the definite article? Poured out for you and for the many would surely have put a lot of misgivings to rest on the question of many vs all.

I wonder how much the problem comes down to the fact that Latin doesn't have articles? That would have been an insane reason not to use them in English, but it's one that would seem nonetheless to be in keeping with Liturgiam Authenticam.

[Calum Cille]

Poured out for you and for the many would surely have put a lot of misgivings to rest on the question of many vs all.

I should be frank and state that I wouldn't care either way whether "for many" or "for all" were used except that tradition seemed to have no problem with the concept of "many" rather than "all" until modern times so why were some so keen to change the textual concept from "many" to "all" in the missal? This question doesn't bear the character of a translation issue for me: I see it as people arguing over what theological point should be referred to at this point in the missal. In my view, we should decide what we want to say and apply it across every language, including Latin.

Not every phrase in the missal or scripture should have to be a theologically comprehensive statement. "King of heaven" shouldn't be removed simply to make way for "Lord God almighty", as it were. The Latin missal text is quoting a Latin translation of originally Greek scripture. The Greek has the option of using the definite article and notably doesn't here. This should surely produce misgivings about representing the Latin (which possesses no definite article) in English translation by introducing a definite article which is almost akin to amending scripture.

If there is a problem with the idea of using "many" (as opposed to "the many") in English, surely consistency demands that there is a problem with the idea of "many" in Latin as well, as the Latin does not distinguish between "many" and "the many", just as Gaelic does not distinguish between "son of man" and "the son of man" (context dictates the concept) and the Latin is translating the Greek which does not apply the definite article. If English speakers don't like this specific context and this concept, then one can reasonably argue that they don't like either what the Latin missal or scripture says in bare terms. If they would rather the missal said "for all" for theological reasons then, to be consistent, they should petition to get both the English and the Latin text of the missal changed in tandem. The alternative is unwarranted theological inconsistency across translations on a question which evidently much exercises certain people.

[alan29]

In response to the previous post ........
I was taught that liturgy is prayed theology and that it has a vital role in the formation of the faithful.
Which is why I am somewhat non-plussed at some of the implications in this new "translation" in particular at what is implied by translating calix as "chalice" when referring to the Last Supper in the words of institution (when almost certainly a cup was used) and as "cup" when referring to our communion vessels in the following acclamations (which are in fact chalices.)
Are we to understand that what we receive is of a different (inferior) order from what the disciples received.
Or did the politics get in the way of the theology, do you think?
And they put this forward as a more worthy translation ..... do me a favour.

[oopsorganist]

What Alan said and
when they were singing psalms all them years ago, were they approved by a committee? One hopes so.