PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

I notice from one of our American cousins:
Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
With a footnote which reads: “Other invocations may be used”.

Another setting says: More invocations may be added as needed: Son of God, Promise of Life etc

Would such a variation be approved here? And, if not, am I right in thinking that settings approved by the US bishops’ CDW may be used here?

And now I’ve strayed into the theme of another thread!

[presbyter]

This interpretation of the Sanctus has been passed (based on that rather enigmatic word refrain that's mentioned in the Guide)
It's a dialogue setting with children in mind (although the comment received from the panel suggests not to restrict the setting to children ..... the composer, I understand, is pondering the comment)

Leading voices: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
All: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Leading voices: Heav'n and earth are full of your glory.
All: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Hosanna in the highest................

[Southern Comfort]

It's had to know exactly how the Panel thinks. I suppose it's just a question of looking at what has been passed.

We shouldn't have to guess how the Panel thinks. Their remit should be the same as for the US approval process, and it clearly isn't.

In the USA, all that is being checked is fidelity to the text, and even in that area there is a certain latitude. (Another example in addition to those already given in this thread: they have allowed "Amen, Alleluia, Amen, for ever, Amen" in one well-known setting of the Great Amen.) In other words, their remit is for the purposes of Concordat. As long as the text is being followed, approval also follows. What they are not doing, but what the England and Wales panel is clearly doing, is trying to tell composers how to respond to the text, so the question of repetitions does not arise and they are not denying approval because of it.

In my view, a Panel that goes further than this (for example, one of our composers has been asked to insert guitar chords in a setting which clearly has not been designed with guitars in mind, and to modify a melodic phrase) is way out of order. To do this is to make a musical judgement, but the Panel's brief has to be a textual one otherwise its judgements will risk being subjective. Indeed, they clearly already are. And it is completely unacceptable that its judgements should be on a different basis from those being made in other countries. There has to be equitableness across the board.

None of this bodes well for the reputation of the process, as this thread has already demonstrated, and I can see the Panel getting bogged down with appeal after appeal if they do not stick to the same remit as in other countries.

[Southern Comfort]

am I right in thinking that settings approved by the US bishops’ CDW may be used here?

The answer to this is

Yes, you may buy and use a setting (e.g. the revised Mass of Creation) that has been approved by the US BDCW, but

No, if as a publisher you want to reproduce the same setting in a hymnbook originating in England and Wales you must go through the approval process (and the setting might well be rejected). That, too, makes no sense at all.

I don 't think the publisher of Laudate posts in this forum, but I am quite sure that his hymnbook is used in other countries apart from England and Wales. In the related thread on this topic, I asked what happens when those other countries are happy to approve something that the England and Wales panel decides to reject? In these days of international markets, we need an internationally-aware approval process.

Furthermore, I know that several of our hymnbooks are used by other denominations apart from Roman Catholic. And yet the publishers of those hymnbooks will be prevented from including material which those denominations now use and will continue to use. The acclamation "Christ has died" is a case in point. It should not be possible to forbid a publisher from including material acceptable to non-RCs, unless we are going to go down the pathway of giving material denominational labels.

[Nick Baty]

And yet those unscrupulous publishers who just include any old paraphrase will be free to produce what they like because those texts don't need approval. All a tad mad!

[alan29]

So is there where a web page where the panel post regular updates of what is acceptable, or do they prefer that people waste their time trying to second-guess them?

[NorthernTenor]

We shouldn't have to guess how the Panel thinks. Their remit should be the same as for the US approval process, and it clearly isn't.

In the USA, all that is being checked is fidelity to the text, and even in that area there is a certain latitude. ... As long as the text is being followed, approval also follows. What they are not doing, but what the England and Wales panel is clearly doing, is trying to tell composers how to respond to the text. ... In my view, a Panel that goes further than this (for example, one of our composers has been asked to insert guitar chords in a setting which clearly has not been designed with guitars in mind, and to modify a melodic phrase) is way out of order. To do this is to make a musical judgement, but the Panel's brief has to be a textual one otherwise its judgements will risk being subjective. Indeed, they clearly already are. And it is completely unacceptable that its judgements should be on a different basis from those being made in other countries. There has to be equitableness across the board.

Well put, SC. The problem may arise from the lack of clarity in the nearest thing the Panel has to a publicly available terms of reference: the Appendices to the Department for Christian Life & Worship's Composers' Guide. Appendix 1 begins with a concise, unambiguous and narrow definition of the Panel's remit: "To review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text" [2]. This is in line with the American equivalent, but is soon followed by a statement that opens the door to other considerations: "Guidance for both composers and the panel can be found in Roman Missal: a Composer’s Guide" [7]. To be fair, section 5 of the Guide provides some useful guidance on the hierarchy of liturgical texts and its bearing on textual felicity. However, it also includes other material (much of it open to interpretation) that isn't pertinent to the Panel's stated purpose, so it would have been better to indicate that the Guide is to be referred to in so far as it bears on the Panel's stated purpose. Without this, Panel members with strong views outside that purpose might, with the best of intentions, venture on judgements beyond their capacity. SC's anecdotal evidence may indicate that this has already begun.

There is also confusion about the scope of the process. According to Appendix 2 it covers texts - such as the Kyrie and the Lord's Prayer - that are in the public domain (this is later recognised in Appendix 3). It is reasonable to expect the Bishops' Conference to take an interest in publication of settings of such texts, but the extent to which they may control it is moot.

It would be possible, even at this late stage, for the terms of reference and/or process to be adjusted to resolve this problem. Ideally, paragraph [7] would be adjusted to clarify its context within the stated purpose of the process. Failing that, a greater degree of transparency in the Panel's deliberations would be advisable. The Bishops' conference might fear that would raise more problems than it solves. If so, then I commend Plan A to them as a simple but effective alternative.

[Nick Baty]

We shouldn't have to guess how the Panel thinks. Their remit should be the same as for the US approval process, and it clearly isn't.

This, in itself is something of a grey area – for example, how many repetitions are allowed before one is not being faithful to the text?

[Nick Baty]

Two more I hear have been approved:
Blessed is he, blessed is he who come in the name of the Lord. (repetition)
Glory, glory, glory to God, glory to God in the highest. (repetition)

[John Ainslie]

It is relevant to quote a paragraph from ICEL's Publication Policies (page 8, no 6):

In setting ICEL texts to music, no variation is ordinarily permitted. Should it be desired to make a slight variation or an expansion of a single word or phrase, or an inversion of a phrase for musical reasons, an enquiry should be addressed to ICEL.

Now 'slight' and 'expansion' are how-long-is-a-piece-of-string weasel words. Given that some latitude is desirable, at what point does it become undesirable? One person's moderation is another's excess. An offertory procession or Sign of Peace in one culture (even within the ICEL empire) might be quite OTT in another. So also in language: the floweriness of Romance languages can sound rather ridiculous in English translation, especially if Liturgiam Authenticam principles are followed.

The same principles apply, I would suggest, when comparing the policies and results of American, British and other national approval panels, even interpreting the same rules. Inter-national inconsistency might be frustrating, but God save us from any more one-size-fits-all decision-making! Vive la difference!

[Southern Comfort]

It is relevant to quote a paragraph from ICEL's Publication Policies (page 8, no 6):

In setting ICEL texts to music, no variation is ordinarily permitted. Should it be desired to make a slight variation or an expansion of a single word or phrase, or an inversion of a phrase for musical reasons, an enquiry should be addressed to ICEL.

Now 'slight' and 'expansion' are how-long-is-a-piece-of-string weasel words. Given that some latitude is desirable, at what point does it become undesirable? One person's moderation is another's excess.

John, I think you have misunderstood what ICEL is saying.

a slight variation

means a slight change to the text — for example, substituting one word for another, as in "heaven and earth are filled with your glory".

an expansion of a single word or phrase

means precisely that: an expansion of the text, adding a word or two — as in "When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup". It does not refer to repetitions of the text. Expansion and repetition are two different things.

an inversion of a phrase for musical reasons

— an example of this would be "and peace on earth to people of goodwill" instead of the awkward "and on earth peace" with its two stressed syllables following each other.

None of this justifies what we see the UK panel doing currently.

[NorthernTenor]

"and peace on earth to people of goodwill" instead of the awkward "and on earth peace" with its two stressed syllables following each other.

Actually, that's an example of the relative sophistication of the new translation and of the mental tramlines the old instilled in composers. The acceleration of "and on earth" followed by an almost-caesura, the stress on and length of "peace" and ithe caesura following it, all combine to emphasise "peace", the Divine gift. The evocation of this arrangement is more affective than the suggested alternative,which changes the focus from gift to recipient in the interests of regularity of rhythm. Forty years of the strongly tonic meter of the same passage in the ICET translation will doubtless encourage many English-speaking Catholic musicians to change the worder in such a way, given half the chance. It would be a shame if the throw-away exception in ICEL's guidance were to become a loophole through which composers drive a cart and horse.

Similaar considerations might apply to repetition, where it is used to effect metrical patterns out of character with the text. "Glory to God, / Glory to God, / Glory to God in the highest", for example, might be employed in order to retain the compound time that has bedevilled settings of the ICET translation, many of which might have been better suited to clog-dancing than ritual song of the Roman Rite.

Far better to go with the translation as given, rather than every man his own translator. Of course, that would beg the question of the need for a Composers' Panel, but there's little point in going there, as committees and the regulations they engender are the very stuff of bureaucracies, especially ecclesiastical ones.

[musicus]

It is early days yet, but I have already seen several settings that negotiate the supposedly awkward "on earth peace" with ease and grace. I like NT's interpretation of the text, and I should like to think that it was the translators' too, though these things are often matters of unconscious inspiration. The facts may prove me wrong, of course.

I take NT's point about compound time settings. It certainly is all too easy to fall into Archers-mode - dum-di-dum-di-dum-di-dum - but the challenge is not to. The Panel has approved my two offerings: one in a very straightforward 4/4, the other in a mixture of 6/8 and 9/8. That mixture arises in response to the phrasing of the text (which, incidentally, emerges unscathed, apart from a single repetition of one word).

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

[VML]

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

Yipee! It makes it far easier for the people to sing and become familiar with the text as is.
I have always worked on the principle that my music serves the liturgy, and there is a certain self importance to deciding that I could dare to change the words about which so much care and time has been taken by those far better qualified than I am.

[Nick Baty]

Others may be interested to know that, ICEL needs to see more than the certificate provided by the bishops' Panel before granting copyright clearance. They also then want to see the item which has been approved.

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".