New ICEL Translation: Glory to God in the highest

[AntoineDaniel]

Yesterday, I composed a “Glory To God In The Highest” (Gloria) using this new translation. My intention was to create a dignified setting that was not too long, would not become tiresome over the years, yet was easy enough for an average congregation to sing well.

Feel free to download the organ accompaniment, Mp3 audio file, vocalist score (Modern Notation), or the vocalist score (Gregorian Notation).
Here is the link: http://www.ccwatershed.org/Glory_To_God/

HERE IS A VIDEO: http://www.ccwatershed.org/video/18888095/?return_url=/Glory_To_God/

[Nick Baty]

Yesterday, I composed a “Glory To God In The Highest” (Gloria) using this new translation.

Antoine, well done, but I think you might find you're not allowed to publish it quite so quickly! At least, we can't here in the UK. We don't yet even know who to submit such things to. It's a tad irritating!

[NorthernTenor]

Yesterday, I composed a “Glory To God In The Highest” (Gloria) using this new translation.

Antoine, well done, but I think you might find you're not allowed to publish it quite so quickly! At least, we can't here in the UK. We don't yet even know who to submit such things to. It's a tad irritating!

If you think about it, Nick, you'll realise that the link Antoine has kindly provided to his setting means that it already has been published in England & Wales. Something tells me the authors of the guidelines haven't given a lot of thought to the impact of the internet and open-source licensing on religious music publishing and distribution.

[AntoineDaniel]

My understanding is that the New translation is already being used in many countries, and has been used already at numerous Papal Masses.

[NorthernTenor]

My understanding is that the New translation is already being used in many countries, and has been used already at numerous Papal Masses.

That's beside the point, Antoine, as far as the chaps in Ecclestone Square (where our Bishops' Conference paper shufflers have their offices) are concerned. They've decreed that musical settings of the new texts can't be published in these parts, by physical or digital means, without aproval from them. It looks like a bureaucratic make-work and silliness to me; and that the process will be hard pressed to combine efficiency, fairness and transparency with any benefit that justifies the trouble. The clear absence of thought about internet-based publishing and distribution and the ways in which it transcends national boundaries and established publishing models is just one example of how out of touch the process is with the real world.

[Nick Baty]

Antoine, the UK Guide for Composers was published today. I think the US was a few weeks ago. It's all very straightforward. The panel in each country simply has to confirm that the text is faithful to the ICEL translation and that the role of the assembly is respected. Without this confirmation, ICEL will not grant a licence to publish.

[mcb]

It looks like a bureaucratic make-work and silliness to me; and that the process will be hard pressed to combine efficiency, fairness and transparency with any benefit that justifies the trouble. The clear absence of thought about internet-based publishing and distribution and the ways in which it transcends national boundaries and established publishing models is just one example of how out of touch the process is with the real world.

It's possible that some good will come out of it. One of the things we seem to be stuck with at present is 1970s paraphrase Mass settings, with mangled and occasionally heretical renderings of the Missal texts. The proposed scheme for vetting may at last provide some kind of lever to help parishes move on from them (if you can do that with a lever), and some kind of hold on the tender parts of publishers (if you can do that with a lever) who insist on reprinting them. It remains to be seen, of course: it will also require a bishop with the determination to require the use of approved Mass settings, and priests/musicians/parishes with the inclination and resources to fall into line. But don't knock it: it might yet do some good.

[NorthernTenor]

But don't knock it: it might yet do some good.

I think it's worth knocking, mcb, as fundamentally flawed. The process description now appended to the Liturgy Office's Guide for Composers indicate that its scope is the text: the purpose of the review process is to “review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text.” (section 2); the panel may provide advice on other matters, but it “would not pertain [to] the permission to publish” (Nick has clearly failed to read this).

The process is unnecessary for the maintenance of textual integrity, which can be achieved by the exercise of rights under copyright law. Guidance on other matters may or may not be welcome or useful, but it hardly requires or justifies the process; and nor is it the best vehicle for such guidance.

I'm afraid, then, that I'm left with the impression that the process is a classic solution in search of a requirement - the very stuff of bureaucracy.

[musicus]

The process is unnecessary for the maintenance of textual integrity, which can be achieved by the exercise of rights under copyright law.

This is a very good point, to which I would love to hear an answer.

Guidance on other matters may or may not be welcome or useful, but it hardly requires or justifies the process; and nor is it the best vehicle for such guidance.

I'm afraid, then, that I'm left with the impression that the process is a classic solution in search of a requirement - the very stuff of bureaucracy.

I agree.

I wasn't writing church music back then, but wasn't this approval stuff tried the last time, and soon abandoned?

[contrabordun]

There is the point that composers have some discretion (eg to repeat phrases). I suppose you could make a case that somebody needs to take a view as to the limits of that discretion. But apart from that, NT's argument seems perfectly sound to me.

[Southern Comfort]

I wasn't writing church music back then, but wasn't this approval stuff tried the last time, and soon abandoned?

Yes, exactly so. The National Music Commission spawned a subgroup, headed by John Lowe (anyone remember him?) to vet all the new Mass settings. They started in 1966 but within two or three years had been forced to abandon their work because the volume of material being submitted was simply too great for them to handle in a reasonable space of time. Nothing could be published that did not carry an annotation indicating the approval of the NMC, as with the earliest settings (Trotman, Rees, etc) which have been out of print for years now, after the texts changed in the early 1970s. The NMC ceased to exist in 1971, when it was reabsorbed back into the NLC.

The NMC did not approve settings they thought were insufficiently musically competent, and the number of those rejected was not small! I hope we're not going to see that kind of thing happening this time round....

In those days hymn books did not contain Mass settings, but they did carry a nihil obstat and an imprimatur, and often a foreword from the Cardinal. We haven't seen that for many years now. It would be a way of ensuring that certain publishers did not continue to issue Mass settings (in hymnbooks) that deviate a long way from the liturgical text with the excuse "that's what our customers want". One publisher stated in a letter to the Tablet sometime back that this was why he intended continuing effectively publishing whatever he felt like. Hmmmm.

[Nick Baty]

One publisher stated in a letter to the Tablet sometime back that this was why he intended continuing effectively publishing whatever he felt like. Hmmmm.

And the new system does not prevent this.
Publishers will only have to approach the panel if they wish to reproduce the authorised texts.
They don't have to ask anyone if they wish to publish any old crap.*
Something of a loophole here?

* Interesting that "crap" wasn't beeped while totally inoffensive, ordinary, everyday words like like *beep*, fag and *beep* are.

[AntoineDaniel]

I'm not really sure how the English Bishops will be able to prevent folks from visiting websites in other countries and continents. Any ides??

[Nick Baty]

Truth is, Antoine, they won't. But it's not the E&W bishops who are making the rules. These come from ICEL. (Ultimately from GIRM.)

And ICEL's rules are the same throughout the English-speaking world: you need ICEL's permission to publish their material – just the same as with any copyright holder. And ICEL won't give it without proof from a regional authority that you're reproducing it exactly as given. On the other hand, as long as you do stick to the text exactly, you're not going to encounter any problems and permission should be little more than a wink or a nod!

ICEL could have insited on seeing each and every setting of the new text. In practice, as ICEL is an agency of the English-speaking bishops worldwide, they've simply moved part of the sifting process further down the chain. The positive side of this is that the process will be speeded up. Could you imagine how long you might have waited if every publisher around the globe had to submit their work directly to ICEL?

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected) those settings which have been approved in the US (many now advertised by GIA, OCP and WLP) can be used in the UK without any further permission. Apart from the Internet issue you raise, each panel is (at least, in theory) following the same rules.

[NorthernTenor]

Truth is, Antoine, they won't. But it's not the E&W bishops who are making the rules. These come from ICEL. (Ultimately from GIRM.)

And ICEL's rules are the same throughout the English-speaking world: you need ICEL's permission to publish their material – just the same as with any copyright holder. And ICEL won't give it without proof from a regional authority that you're reproducing it exactly as given.

...

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected) those settings which have been approved in the US (many now advertised by GIA, OCP and WLP) can be used in the UK without any further permission. Apart from the Internet issue you raise, each panel is (at least, in theory) following the same rules.

I'm not aware of a similar process to ours' in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as as the USA, though I, too, am happy to be corrected. If I'm right, then perhaps there's an issue of interpretation here, which our paper-shufflers have chosen to interpret in a way reminiscent of our government's implementation of EU regulation - in the most restrictive way possible, with gold plate added for good measure. The guidance notes suggest such confusion when they identify some parts of the text as being in the public domain (e.g. the Our Father), yet still include them in the material that must be checked for copyright's sake.

BTW - Thomas Muir warned us about this some time ago. Perhaps we should have payed more attention.