The New Texts: A Seminar for Composers

[Nick Baty]

Peter has composed some Eucharistic Acclamations and one of the "Mystery of Faith" texts...works much better as
When we eat this Bread
and when we drink this Cup,
we proclaim your death, O Lord,
until you come again.

And I hear that Nick Baty (no relation) has produced a set of acclamations in which the same text is rendered:
When we eat this Bread,
When we drink this Cup...

In another set the assembly sings the above text exactly as prescribed while, beneath and around them, the choir sings "We proclaim your death, proclaim your death, until you come, come again."

In his third set so far (he's been busy), the assembly sings:
Save us, Saviour of the world,
for by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.
while accompanied by a choral:
Save us, Saviour of the world, set us free.

Nick tells me that these choral variations could be considered to be changing the sense of the text. But he doesn't want to replace them with "Ahs" or "Shoo-bop-she-bops" and is concerned.

However, he has tracked down the nameless committee: They're in a secure office just off Diagon Alley, next to the Ministry of Magic!

[HallamPhil]

Pardon my ignorance SC bit if the Sanctus is not ICEL what is it? and who owns it?

I presume that as well as encourage new compositions publishers would also wish, for the purposes of continuity, to encourage adaptations of what has been tried and tested and sold a few copies. I might have hoped that we might have found new wine for the new wineskins.

I would also like to discover at what point an acclamation becomes too long to bear that name. Is there something about the nature of the form, as well as the text, which may benefit from consideration?

[docmattc]

One would hope that the 'nameless committee' would itself have a firm set of guidelines from which it works. If not, its possible that Peter Jones could have the new 'Coventry Gloria' rejected on Tuesday because it contains proscribed adaptations, but might resubmit the very same text on Thursday as, for instance the 'Kenilworth Gloria' *and get the seal of approval.

* and maybe under another name too, in case the nameless committee work not only on accuracy of the text, but also on who they might be friends with.

[presbyter]

I think Southern Comfort and I are viewing this issue through different lenses......... and I'm getting confused.

ICEL does not have oversight of the celebration of the liturgy in E & W - our Bishops exercise that oversight. I should like to know, for example, if our Bishops would approve a setting of the Sanctus (for which I might have just had a bright idea) that has 16 Hosannas for everyone to sing before I begin to put my idea down in writing.

If firm guidelines state that is all right, I should then like to be able to submit a manuscript to the nameless committee to obtain permission to go to a publisher. I should not like to go to a publisher first, have them spend time type-setting my score, let them submit a proof to the nameless committee - only to receive a rejection slip. That's not only discourteous to the composer - it's discourteous to the publisher who has wasted time (and money) in producing a proof.

[presbyter]

Secondly, in the memorial acclamations, the Hosannas would be legitimate, given that all these Mass settings, which will also apparently be included in a revised edition of Laudate, are also used by Anglicans, to whom these strictures do not apply. A simple rubric saying "Stop here if you are Roman Catholic" would suffice! Or more probably, "Anglican users may continue with the Hosannas"

It is difficult to tell in a forum post whether a tongue is in a cheek or not.

[Nick Baty]

II should not like to go to a publisher first, have them spend time type-setting my score, let them submit a proof to the nameless committee - only to receive a rejection slip. That's not only discourteous to the composer - it's discourteous to the publisher who has wasted time (and money) in producing a proof.

1) The nameless committee only has oversight for the text – they won't be bothered about the quality of the typesetting
2) It won't take publisher long to typeset as they'll simply convert the file you give them
3) Permission is needed to publish – really, it's the publishers problem, not yours!
4) 16 Hosannas is probably a couple too many!

[presbyter]

Pardon my ignorance SC bit if the Sanctus is not ICEL what is it? and who owns it?

The following texts are in the public domain.

Lord, have mercy
Holy, holy
Our Father
Lamb of God

[Southern Comfort]

Pardon my ignorance SC bit if the Sanctus is not ICEL what is it? and who owns it?

This text is only two words different ("power and might" v. "hosts") from the text we currently use. ICEL have therefore declared that they do not intend to claim copyright in it. (And quite right too. They would have had to have modified it considerably more in order to claim copyright in it as a new, original text.)

The text we currently use is copyright 1970, International Consultation on English Texts [ICET], re-copyrighted in 1998 by ICET's successor, the English Language Liturgical Consultation [ELLC]. ICET generously allowed its texts to be used in perpetuity free of charge, without permission having to be sought, provided that any appropriate copyright acknowledgement was also printed. This effectively places ICET texts in the public domain, so long as that copyright notice is included.

[Southern Comfort]

I think Southern Comfort and I are viewing this issue through different lenses......... and I'm getting confused.

ICEL does not have oversight of the celebration of the liturgy in E & W - our Bishops exercise that oversight.

No, we're looking through the same lens. The nameless (national) committee does ICEL's work for it, checking the text for accuracy. Once it has done its work, the publisher may apply to ICEL for a contract to publish, supported by a formal approval from the nameless committee. In other words, our bishops are being asked to act as ICEL's agents in the approval process. It saves ICEL itself from having to do all the donkey work.

But the same principle still applies: neither ICEL nor its agents can dictate to whom a publisher may sell its products, and therefore cannot prevent the publisher providing supplementary material acceptable to other constituencies than those it can actually legislate for itself. This is one of the grey areas thrown up by the fact that Anglicans and Catholics often use the same texts, even with occasional variations and modifications. The number of Anglican parishes using the Gathering and Millennium Masses is considerable.

[HallamPhil]

Thanks SC. I hope the same clarity appears in the Guidelines to composers. I am now wondering if what presbyter alleges (that Lord have mercy is public domain) is equally the case for all the penitential rites texts?

[Nick Baty]

SC, Presbyter lists
Lord, have mercy
Holy, holy
Our Father
Lamb of God
as being in the public domain.
But should ICET be credited for the Holy and Lamb of God!
Doesn't take much to confuse me!

[docmattc]

But let's not loose sight of what purpose of the 'nameless committee' should really be:

That's what this is really about: making sure that composers do not unwittingly stray from Church doctrine in their adaptations.

Because ICEL does not hold copyright on a text does not leave us free to do what we like with it in Catholic liturgy. And whether or not its published elsewhere for other denominations is not really relevant to the discussion here.

[Southern Comfort]

Thanks SC. I hope the same clarity appears in the Guidelines to composers. I am now wondering if what presbyter alleges (that Lord have mercy is public domain) is equally the case for all the penitential rites texts?

No, just the words Lord, have mercy and Christ, have mercy.

[Southern Comfort]

SC, Presbyter lists
Lord, have mercy
Holy, holy
Our Father
Lamb of God
as being in the public domain.
But should ICET be credited for the Holy and Lamb of God!
Doesn't take much to confuse me!

Yes to the Holy, no to the Lamb of God (which is both old and new ICEL). The ICET text begins "Jesus, Lamb of God".

[Nick Baty]

But let's not loose sight of what purpose of the 'nameless committee' should really be:

making sure that composers do not unwittingly stray from Church doctrine in their adaptations.

That may be the intention but, as is usually the case when noone really knows what's going on, rumours abound. Will the Nameless Committee allow repetition, for example. That doesn't involved straying into heresy. Neither does have a whole chorus of 32 Hosannas. But will it get the OK?

And whether or not its published elsewhere for other denominations is not really relevant to the discussion here.

Why not?