PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

Do you know anyone they've knocked back for any other reason, Alan?
I certainly don't. And some pretty crummy music has passed through the system because it obeys the very simple rules.
Apply for copyright permission from anyone else and you find yourself emailing "permissions" – no idea if it's one person, a gang of five or a baboon!

[Southern Comfort]

Nick, you clearly didn't read the pages of stuff on this forum about repetitions, for a start. That's a subjective judgment, when the panel says that the music is leading the text, but the composer says the music is responding to the text and trying to enhance the text.

The panel is also rather good at saying things like "too many Hosannas" in revised settings, when there were just as many in the original setting. If it was OK then, why isn't it now? is a legitimate question.

[Nick Baty]

Because the Panel didn't exist then?
Yes, I agree that the subject of how many repetitions are too many is totally subjective.
But I have followed this topic with great interest from the outset.
I have no argument with composers and publishers who are having a tough time.
My dispute is with those who appear not to be composers or publishers but who object to the Permission to Publish Panel simply because it is associated with the bishops of England & Wales.

[NorthernTenor]

I have no argument with composers and publishers who are having a tough time.
My dispute is with those who appear not to be composers or publishers but who object to the Permission to Publish Panel simply because it is associated with the bishops of England & Wales.

The question is not whether Nick has an argument with a particular group or not, but whether he is willing to contribute to a reasonable discussion, addressing the points made by others rather than avoiding them and repeating the same old stuff.

[musicus]

Please try to focus on the issues, everyone, and not the posters.

To the best of my knowledge, the UK Panel does appear to have (occasionally) exceeded its textual brief and strayed into musical matters, and there is no doubt that its anonymity does betray a lack of transparency (though one can understand its reasons for this). I just wonder how sustainable this process will be.

[presbyter]

The panel is also rather good at saying things like "too many Hosannas" in revised settings, when there were just as many in the original setting. If it was OK then, why isn't it now? is a legitimate question.

I wonder how the panel would react if someone submitted an English text adapted plainsong setting, that contained particularly melismatic Hosannas. If the rationale is that settings should not be unduly prolonged, it takes no longer in some present English settings to sing repeated Hosannas than it does to sing some of the melismatic chants. Perhaps I should submit something as a test case.

[Nick Baty]

Interesting idea, Presbyter.
But were melismas intended for congregational singing? (Don't know the answer to this and am hoping someone else might.)
And, returning to SC's question, don't repeated patterns help people to sing?
Perhaps composers who use these should be commended rather than slapped down.

[gwyn]

Nick suggested

Perhaps composers who use these should be commended rather than slapped down.

I have this mental image of the committee providing crowd control as Our Lord rides into Jerusalem, "Stop the Hosannas now, Two's more than enough. Move along".

[Nick Baty]

Love it!

[alan29]

Do you know anyone they've knocked back for any other reason, Alan?
I certainly don't. And some pretty crummy music has passed through the system because it obeys the very simple rules.
Apply for copyright permission from anyone else and you find yourself emailing "permissions" – no idea if it's one person, a gang of five or a baboon!

I am so totally out of the loop, that I don't personally know anyone else who has submitted stuff, let alone who has had stuff knocked back. Maybe I really should start going to composers groups again...... we plough rather lonely furrows sometimes.

[NorthernTenor]

Do you know anyone they've knocked back for any other reason, Alan?
I certainly don't. And some pretty crummy music has passed through the system because it obeys the very simple rules.

As has been pointed out, the rules are by no means clear (see previous comments on the ambiguity of the relevant sections of the composers' Guide). And SC has reported some very odd musical 'advice' from the Panel that had nothing to do with the liturgical text.

[HallamPhil]

I can't comment on 'odd advice' but have received some interesting, even challenging, 'observations' from the Panel which, they were at pains to point out, could be ignored altogether. I would hope that this is the more common experience. What were the experiences of the majority? There were apparently some 60 initial submissions to the panel so the comments/experiences of one or two however reasonable may not be sufficient to extrapolate a theory or indictment of the process which I could support.

[Nick Baty]

Might it be worth sharing the Panel's feedback? After all, the first post here says:"I thought it might be useful to post some decisions of the anonymous "gang of five" to help composers".

[HallamPhil]

I think it would be helpful, Nick.

The panel were good enough to spot typos and omissions as well as the usual punctuation and capitalisation issues. One of the problems I had was submitting the music as pdf from India and not having the ability to print out what I intended to submit so that I could spot errors. It does seem that Finale doesn't always print what you've imputted. For instance some imput of lyrics on one level was not being assimilated. It was good to have someone go through my music with a fine tooth-comb as an unpaid proof-reader!

I had an observation about too many guitar chords. Yet I had taken the trouble to sit with an excellent guitarist as he played what I'd suggested and he found no difficulty. What I had failed to appreciate was that his skill was very sophisticated and not necessarily typical of the majority. When, having received the panel's observation, I went to other guitarists and realised the challenges I was posing, (eg too many quick chord changes; that I could write Gmaj7 but some would only play G, that Capo x would be better than capo y etc, etc.) I had to make some changes. Today I had a further useful session with one who described herself as a self-taught guitarist. A rather fine exponent she turned out to be and very good at explaining the idiosyncrasies of the guitar (and guitarists).

Other observations included suggestions that I should add clarifications to avoid any ambiguity eg that Soprano line of the SATB doubles the assembly throughout etc

These all seemed perfectly reasonable.

I had some excellent observations from Christopher Walker a year ago. Some I agreed with, some I did not. That's the composer's right, I suppose, but they were all useful and well-intentioned.

During the Seminar in Salford a week ago I suggested to the gathered folk that in singing the phrase ' for we have sinned against you' (Penitential Act B) they might not sound so pleased with themselves! After the seminar I received well-intentioned advice on the same section. In the end I decided that the problem was not the music itself but that folk weren't thinking about the text they were singing. Once you've made the point perhaps you don't need to remind folk or change the melody. May be I need to consider a cautionary note?

[Nick Baty]

I submitted two Glorias and four sets of acclamations to the March meeting of the Panel. Their “Observations” are just that – suggestions.

Gloria 1: Cantor(s), assembly, piano, guitar, bass, C/Bb instruments. Accepted (which surprised me as I’d added the word “for” in the third section)
Observations: None

Gloria 2: Cantor or SAB, assembly, organ, optional 4-part brass. Witheld: Capitalisation
Observations: “The panel wondered about cutting bars 16-19 as coming too soon after initial refrains?”
I resubmitted the following morning with the capitalisation corrected and the certificate was reissued within the hour. I did take their advice on cutting four bars and the piece is better for it.

Acclamations 1: Assembly, keyboard, optional descant. Accepted
Observations: “The panel suggested that guitar chords might be helpful.”
I ignored the suggestions. Can’t see this piece working with guitars.

Acclamations 2: Assembly, piano/guitar, optional flute, optional SAB. Witheld: Holy punctuation and Doxology spelling.
Observations: “The panel suggested that Guitar chords be added with keyboard part. The panel could see this working well in schools.”
As with Gloria 2, resubmitted the following morning and the certificate was emailed straight back. I don’t agree that this piece would work in schools – but it’s nearly simple enough for adults to use!

Acclamations 3: Assembly, organ, optional SATB, optional 4-part brass. Accepted
Observations: “The panel wondered given is being based on a Kyrie whether it might be particularly suitable for the Lenten season.”
I disagree about the Lenten thing – this is too majestic (brass, choir etc) and better suited to Easter.

Acclamations 4: Assembly, piano, optional flute, optional descant. Witheld: Doxology wrong text. (Yes, I’d stupidly attached an earlier version of the Doxology. Grrrr!)
Observations “Welcome guitar chords with keyboard Holy: slur on glory Invitations: the panel thought the repetition of ‘until you come’ unnecessary and thought the acclamation would be much stronger if the first 2 were omitted. MA3: the panel noted that this ended with a major chord and the Amn with a minor which they found potentially interesting. The panel appreciated the setting.”
Because of my own stupidity, I’ve had to resubmit this (feedback expected later this week).

Those who've seen these will know that at least two of the above settings prove that the Panel is not making musical judgements – trust me!!