PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

I'm pleased that Nick finds the Panel's advice helpful, but would make the following points:

(i) He still fails to address the evident lack of clarity in the Panel's terms of reference. Even if their decision to accept or reject is currently limited to textual felicity, the door is open for them to go beyond this in future. A simple change to the relevant section of the Composers' Guide would resolve this issue.

(ii) A panel of composers is unnecessary to check for textual felicity.

(iii) The musical advice from the Panel may or may not be useful, but even if it generally is that is no argument for a compulsory review of the music, as that would be to confuse matters of textual felicity with musical education. By all means let the liturgy office consider initiatives to improve the quality of music composed for the liturgy, but who in their right minds would make this compulsory? The anonymity of the Panel's membership compounds this problem. I respect the work of some who compose for the modern liturgy. There are others whose work I will not comment on. I would consider musical advice from them an impertinence.

[HallamPhil]

Either NT has some curious reason for singling out Nick B who is not the sole correspondent on this issue or he/she imagines that Nick is on the PANEL or has their ear. I would suggest that NT does the proper thing and addresses his/her questions to people who might be able to provide answers. Bishop Alan Hopes would be one such person, I'd imagine.

For much the same reason if Nick has reported, as I have, that his experience of the process was positive and helpful there is no reason for him to be expected to answer to the animosity from NT. If anyone has 'failed' in this respect it is NT. Has he/she had positive or negative experiences of the process or is he/she just about fruitless provocation?

[NorthernTenor]

Either NT has some curious reason for singling out Nick B who is not the sole correspondent on this issue or he/she imagines that Nick is on the PANEL or has their ear. I would suggest that NT does the proper thing and addresses his/her questions to people who might be able to provide answers. Bishop Alan Hopes would be one such person, I'd imagine.

For much the same reason if Nick has reported, as I have, that his experience of the process was positive and helpful there is no reason for him to be expected to answer to the animosity from NT. If anyone has 'failed' in this respect it is NT. Has he/she had positive or negative experiences of the process or is he/she just about fruitless provocation?

Phil,

As I've remarked in response to your intemperate posting on another thread, this is a place for discussion. It's normal in discussion to address the points made by others, and that includes identifying gaps in their arguments. Nick has persistently made a lot of comments in support of the Panel and its process. There's no harm in that - he's clearly a fan. But if you're going to argue publicly, persistently and at length for something (and that's Nick's style), you shouldn't be surprised if those who disagree with you say so; and if you continue to ignore points made, then you can reasonably expect others to point this out. There's no animosity in it, and to suggest otherwise without evidence is silly and offensive; as is your suggestion that those who disagree with Nick should take it up with Bishop Alan, rather than comment here.

[musicus]

Once again, let's focus on the issues, please.

[Nick Baty]

Returning to the topic:

If you have any useful feedback to post, please do.

More feedback today:

Acclamations 4: Now passed after second submission. (I'd attached the wrong Per Ipsum!)

Acclamations 5: Assembly, optional SAB, piano. Withheld: editorial.
I'd missed out a full stop in the Holy and and misspelled Resurrection. As this was not deemed a textual error I was able to send the corrected version immediately. The certificate was emailed back to me in less than 30 minutes.

Acclamations 6: Assembly, keyboard/guitar, optional unison choir, flute and clarinet. Witheld.
This is a rewrite of an old setting and I had altered the text in the choir part: as the assembly sings "Save us, Saviour of the world" the choir (more like backing vocals, to be honest) has "Save us, O Lord". As this was a textual deviation, I'll have to resubmit this to the next meeting. Something of a pain as I'd hoped to use it an event just after Easter – but I had half-expected this reponse.

[mcb]

I've had a 'Withheld': MA 1&2: repeat of 'come again' creates an ambiguity in the meaning. My versions end 'until you come, come again, until you come again'. To be fair, one or two helpful critics who looked over the draft version said that 'come again' conjures up 'I beg your pardon?'. It doesn't for me, but evidently it does for the panel.

Back (briefly) to the drawing board.

[Nick Baty]

To be fair, one or two helpful critics who looked over the draft version said that 'come again' conjures up 'I beg your pardon?'. It doesn't for me, but evidently it does for the panel.

So now we know that Panel members are predominantly northerners!

I had an observation on "until you come, until you come, until you come again".
"The Panel thought the repetition unnecessary and thought the acclamation would be much stronger if the first 2 were omitted".
However this was only an "observation" rather than a "withheld" which shows there's a fine line somewhere.

[keitha]

I quite like the way the Panel seems to be working - if we had had one before, some of the dreadful stuff that we have all endured from time to time might not have seen the light of day, but I do sympathise with the calls for transparency and consistency. I think that I can just (but only just) about see why the Panel rejected of mcb's setting and only advised Nick Baty for what is, on the face of it, a very similar setting - but I am by no means sure about this. I think that the Panel's response to mcb is even more ambiguous than his setting. Maybe here should be room for some dialogue with the Panel (for example a requirement to explain what they see to be an ambiguity). The other thought that occurred to me is that the Panel should be required to issue a report (if it is not proposing to do so anyway) either 6-monthly or annually providing further guidance, based upon the decisions that they have made in the preceding period.

[Nick Baty]

...the Panel should be required to issue a report...either 6-monthly or annually providing further guidance, based upon the decisions that they have made in the preceding period.

That's an interesting idea and might save a lot of hassle – on the other hand, it could leave people feeling straitjacketed. The Panel will be publishing an online list of pieces that have been approved, if they are subsequently published. I suppose it will possible to see from that what is, and what is not, acceptable.

[keitha]

True Nick, but, of course, we will only see what (eventually,in some cases) was acceptable, rather than what was not.

[Nick Baty]

That's a very good point.
Perhaps we should all be posting the observations and the negative feedback on here.
I think that was Presbyter's initial idea.

[keitha]

Agreed!

[Southern Comfort]

Suspect that a proportion of people submitting music do not belong to this forum, so we wouldn't have a complete picture. Also, submissions are being made by publishers as well as individuals.

[Nick Baty]

True. But if we feed back what has not been acceptable – as you generously did, earlier in the thread – then we'll be helping each other out quite a bit! For example, if I report being knocked back for including the word "kangaroo" in the Sanctus (think Monty Python and the Last Supper sketch) then others will know not to follow suit.

[gwyn]

Nick said

if I report being knocked back for including the word "kangaroo" in the Sanctus (think Monty Python and the Last Supper sketch) then others will know not to follow suit.

A bit of topic, no need to comment, but in Pythonesque mode, we're sadly having two Christs to venerate at our forthcoming Good Friday afternoon service.
It's just wrong on so many levels.

[Exit left. Back to the plot].