PANEL decisions

[Colin Mawby]

Is it possible to find out who this anonymous gang of five are? While they remain anonymous they have no credibility.

[Nick Baty]

But might it place both panel and composers in compromising situations if all was revealed?

[NorthernTenor]

But might it place both panel and composers in compromising situations if all was revealed?

Not if the terms of reference and process were transparent. As things stand they aren't, and this compromises the Panel's credibility.

[musicus]

Is it possible to find out who this anonymous gang of five are? While they remain anonymous they have no credibility.

Welcome to the forum, Colin. It is good to see you here.

[NorthernTenor]

It's good to see that Colin's views are getting a wider airing.

[Copernicus]

Some mistake, NT? You've linked to a comment by someone called IanW. Here's a link to the original post, discussing Colin Mawby's views.

Interesting that, according to CM, Kevin Mayhew will be boycotting the panel process. Presumably that's so that they can maintain their stated intention to keep on publishing the clapping Gloria, etc etc, rather than from any laudable principled stance.

[NorthernTenor]

Goodness, Copernicus . I clearly can't get the hang of this BB code. Tho' i must say, IanW's suggestion is a good one

[Nick Baty]

Thanks for the link, Copernicus.

It looks as though Colin Mawby has been misinformed – the panel has only textual (not musical) jurisdiction. Publishers will only be knocked back if they stray from the texts or use incorrect punctuation or capitalisation. And it is not true that the arrangement is between ICEL and the E&W bishops – the same process is taking place in every English-speaking province.

Colin raises several questions which many others are asking:
• What's going to happen to photocopied music which doesn't use ICEL copyright texts?
Nothing as ICEL is not involved.
What's going to happen to a publisher who refuses to accept this procedure?
• They won't be given permission to use the texts.
What sanction does this panel have if non-ICEL texts are used?
None, as ICEL is not involved.
• So many composers write their own words.
So, again, this does not need clearance from ICEL.

Colin also says: "It is also not generally realised that ICEL charges publishers for the reproduction of copyright texts, and that its work is financed by the money it earns."
Just the same as any other organisation. The difference with ICEL is that it does not charge smaller independent publishers for the first 500 sold and then charges just 1.5% thereafter.

Is it true that one particular publisher has said it will "refuse to have anything to do with this iniquitous system"? I suspect the person in question has been misquoted here. If it is true, one can only presume that particular company wishes to publish paraphrases etc because they won't be given permission to publish the official texts.

The Society of St Gregory has worked for years to encourage parishes to sing the Mass as it is given. I really do not understand why anyone is getting hot under the collar because the bishops of the English-speaking world are doing the same.

[presbyter]

The Bishops are getting hot under the collar?

[Nick Baty]

[alan29]

:oops:

Beaten me to it?

[Southern Comfort]

It looks as though Colin Mawby has been misinformed – the panel has only textual (not musical) jurisdiction. Publishers will only be knocked back if they stray from the texts or use incorrect punctuation or capitalisation. And it is not true that the arrangement is between ICEL and the E&W bishops – the same process is taking place in every English-speaking province.

Excuse me, Nick, but you are quite incorrect here. The panel may (and should) have only textual jurisdiction, but it has been making innumerable musical decisions, as stated on other threads on this forum. And the same process is not taking place in every English-speaking province. Look at New Zealand, where the first setting approved by their panel, by Douglas Mews as reported on this forum some time back (were you with us then?), has settings of the Sanctus, memorial acclamations and Great Amen which bear no musical relationship to each other whatsoever. Our panel would give that an immediate thumbs-down (and I think rightly so), but theirs didn't. Look at the USA, where even textual fidelity is a relative thing, and composers are not being told how to respond to the texts in some detail, as is happening with our panel. The process is definitely not the same in all countries. It needs to be the same for the sake of credibility. I can imagine what Joseph Gelineau would have to say about what is going on here at the moment, and it would not be complimentary.

Is it true that one particular publisher has said it will "refuse to have anything to do with this iniquitous system"? I suspect the person in question has been misquoted here. If it is true, one can only presume that particular company wishes to publish paraphrases etc because they won't be given permission to publish the official texts.

Yes, one publisher has said that, and because he largely publishes paraphrases that are outside the panel's purview he will not need to submit them since they are not official texts (though they masquerade as texts that can be used instead of the official texts). I understand that he will not be submitting requests for official texts either, on the grounds that he already has ICEL contracts to publish, say, memorial acclamations, and therefore does not need to renew them just because the texts of those acclamations have changed. He will therefore circumvent the system altogether.

Nick, please stop painting the process as harmless just because you have not been affected by it. Others have been affected by it adversely because of the subjective (rather than objective) way in which it is operating.

[Nick Baty]

The panel may (and should) have only textual jurisdiction, but it has been making innumerable musical decisions, as stated on other threads on this forum.

Admittedly, I have only see one feedback sheet and it said (am paraphrasing): "Musical comments are beyond the Panel's remit, but do you mean Maestoso rather than Maetoso"?

I understand that [aforementioned publisher] will not be submitting requests for official texts either, on the grounds that he already has ICEL contracts to publish, say, memorial acclamations, and therefore does not need to renew them just because the texts of those acclamations have changed.

It will be interesting to see if he gets away with it.

Nick, please stop painting the process as harmless... Others have been affected by it adversely because of the subjective (rather than objective) way in which it is operating.

I can only go by the reports of those who have submitted music to the Panel. And the worst I've heard is people being blocked because of capitalisation and punctuation, a detail which has been corrected within minutes via email. I have heard of noone being knocked back because of musical style. It will be interesting to hear from those who have been affected in the subjective way you mention.

And the same process is not taking place in every English-speaking province.

I will accept your knowledge of other countries. However, there are those on here who think the whole process has been dreamed up by the E&W hierarchy – which it most certainly has not.

Perhaps someone from the Panel could answer our questions – even if anonymously!!!

[NorthernTenor]

Nick makes some valid points on matters of fact in his response to Colin's protest. He's also probably right about Mayhew's motivation. Unfortunately, though, he has failed to address some key points made made by Colin and others.  It is by no means clear that the Panel’s only interest is solely with textual, as opposed to musical matters.  It has been shown here and elsewhere, with reference .to the relevant sections of the Bishops’ Guide for Composers, that the Panel’s terms of reference are confused on this matter.  Now, that might just be a problem of poor drafting, but until it is resolved the suspicion will be that Panel members will, sooner or later, go beyond textual issues, partly because nature abhors a vacuum, but also to justify the existence of the Panel, whose members’ specialist skills are unnecessary for issues of textual felicity.   Indeed, a case has already been reported on this thread in which the panel has exercised musical judgement.
 
So, too, it is insufficient to simply repeat the arguments that ICEL doesn’t charge much, and that in charging it's like any other organisation.  As has been pointed out, ICEL is not just like any other organisation, and the material it provides is not just like any other published material.  ICEL is custodian of a key element of our common patrimony. Use of copyright to preserve its integrity is therefore understandable, but ongoing generation of income from it is quite another matter.  It’s not as if it’s merely a cunning plan to have those wealthy publishers fund ICEL, rather than put the cost on the faithful: the publishers (few of whom are wealthy) pass the cost straight on to their customers, the faithful.  No-one likes the interference and overheads that Diocesan and Conference functionaries like to impose on us (except the functionaries), but direct subsidy of specific translation processes and tasks, or one-off payment for rights, would likely be more efficient and transparent than the current arrangement.  It would also put ICEL out of the way of the temptation to avarice to which it has succumbed in claiming copyright on public domain texts to which it has no right (coming from one with a professional interest in copyright law, Nick's comments on this issue on another thread are so laughable as to not be worthy of further comment).

The most glaring gap in Nick's argument, though,is the issue of transparency, It seems to be the issue that most irks Colin, and the points he makes about anonymity and lack of accountability are strong (so much so, in my opinion, that I would urge anyone who knows the identities of the panel members to publicise them through the good offices of Dr. Anonymous). Nick's response to Colin, however, is strangely silent about this issue.

Clericalism takes many forms, and it is our duty to criticise it wherever it raises its head. I would submit that Ecclestone Square's procedure for review of new liturgical music is a case in point, and the duty of criticism falls to Catholic musicians. It would be a shame if those deeply-ingrained Catholic habits of comfortable acquiescence were to prevent meaningful discussion of the problem.

[alan29]

If they are only interested in punctuation etc, wouldn't it be simpler to employ someone on job-creation to proof-read? I find it hard to imagine that they have secretly assembled a panel of experts to do just that. Maybe they were under-employed in their day jobs.