Colin Mawby on censorship of music for the new translation

[Calum Cille]

"Colin Mawby on censorship of music for the new Missal translation" posted on the Gregorian Chant Network on 9 May.

http://www.gregorianchantnetwork.org/20 ... c-for.html

[NorthernTenor]

Hear him.

[presbyter]

Hear him.

I do..... and I know Colin has made a post on the panel decision thread. I am a little confused though because Colin's publisher is OCP and if he's composed a setting to be published by OCP, that will go through the US Bishops' panel and not the BCEW panel..... and it will be able to be distributed/sold as an *8vo" here without ever going near our panel. It will only need to go through the BCEW panel if an English or Welsh publisher wants to republish it here. Colin does pin-point some anomalies in the BCEW system though - as some of us are doing on the panel decision thread. The appeal system criticism drawing a parallel with the way the police used to investigate themselves makes me go "Ouch!".

Colin - if you are still around, do comment.

[presbyter]

Colin's concerns about royalty payments would, of course, be best served by ICEL adding a web page to their site and making their accounts public - in adherence to Canon 1287. ICEL are accountable to at least the English-speaking faithful world-wide, are they not?

If ICEL did that, we might discover that the "funds" of which Colin speaks are only generated by royalty payments and that it is these alone that enable ICEL to function. I've never, for example, had to take a second collection to fund ICEL and never been subject to a diocesan levy for its work. So how does ICEL get its funding apart from royalty payments?

[Calum Cille]

I've never, for example, had to take a second collection to fund ICEL

Come September, I wonder how much you'd collect if you did!

[NorthernTenor]

The appeal system criticism drawing a parallel with the way the police used to investigate themselves makes me go "Ouch!".

I say "ouch", too, because it's a valid analogy. The sense of natural justice is offended in both cases. The fact that both stages of the process are the responsibility of Bishop Hopes, a fair man whose background give hims a good ear for liturgical music, is no more pertinent than the integrity of past Chief Constables.

[NorthernTenor]

Colin's concerns about royalty payments would, of course, be best served by ICEL adding a web page to their site and making their accounts public - in adherence to Canon 1287. ICEL are accountable to at least the English-speaking faithful world-wide, are they not?

If ICEL did that, we might discover that the "funds" of which Colin speaks are only generated by royalty payments and that it is these alone that enable ICEL to function. I've never, for example, had to take a second collection to fund ICEL and never been subject to a diocesan levy for its work. So how does ICEL get its funding apart from royalty payments?

I would suggest that the comfortable absence of second collections and diocesan levies diverts attention from questions about the means of fund raising, the opacity of ICEL's finances, its form, future and possible alternatives.

[Southern Comfort]

It's a pity that Colin muddied the waters by bringing in the question of paying to use liturgical texts. He was on much shakier ground there. If he had kept to the topic in hand — the desirability of an anonymous panel of vetters deciding what is musically acceptable and what is not — and if he had explained that properly instead of being carried away by his passion for the subject, it would have been more helpful.

I can just imagine what J.S. Bach would have said when told "Too many repetitions of Sanctus in your Mass, mein Herr". I can hear what Joseph Gelineau had to say about the art of setting texts to music. And I think that Colin's strongest point is that, because the panel is anonymous, no one knows if they are actually qualified to make the sort of judgements they appear to be making. He said that not only do we not know if they are musicians, but we do not know if they are good musicians. In other words, if no one respects the process, it soon falls into disrepute.

His second strongest point is on the question of appeal, as has already been pointed out. An procedure which involves appealing to the person who is in charge of the vetting process is not an independent tribunal by any stretch of the imagination. I am quite sure that the Bishops' Conference representatives who devised the process were quite capable of putting together an independent appeals procedure. The fact that they have not done so does not do them any credit, but it may be that they simply did not think about the implications. However, now that they are aware of what people on the ground are thinking and saying, on this forum and elsewhere, I hope that they will be revisiting the entire concept if indeed they have not already begun to do so.

[presbyter]

And I think that Colin's strongest point is that, because the panel is anonymous, no one knows if they are actually qualified to make the sort of judgements they appear to be making. He said that not only do we not know if they are musicians, but we do not know if they are good musicians.

Guide for Composers Page 29 - Purpose of the Panel.

To review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical texts.

To what extent might that review include suitability of the musical treatment of the texts? Has anyone received a "withheld" because, in the opinion of the panel, the musical idiom frustrates, rather than enhances, the prayer of the text?

Are the panel judging musical competence to any degree? (Some people think that's their purpose but I don't see it in the Guide for Composers.)

Naughty question:

If ICEL themselves had to submit their chants to the panel, would they receive "withheld" because of inappropriate word-setting?

[Southern Comfort]

If ICEL themselves had to submit their chants to the panel, would they receive "withheld" because of inappropriate word-setting?

I don't know if the panel would give them the thumbs-down on this count, but a lot of other people certainly would.

[Colin Mawby]

Dear Presbyter,

I am still around but am now definitely in the departure lounge or injury time. My main publisher is Dr J Butz Musikverlag. I have many others and some of my work is indeed published by OCP but this is mostly choral. (By sheer coincidence, although I have the greatest respect for their work, I haven't written for them since the introduction of censorship) Dr J Butz is an excellent publisher. I recently tried to explain to them the anonymous gang of four. They found it difficult to comprehend and said that such a system would be incomprehensible in Germany.

I find it deeply insulting that the Bishops should have so little faith in the work of their composers that they should choose to put in place a mechanism of censorship. I remember Cardinal Heenan saying to me that he put all anonymous letters in the waste paper basket before reading them. I suggest the same is done with the anonymous "helpful advice' of our gang of four. Anonymity destroys credibility.

Colin Mawby

[JW]

Sadly (IMHO), the Church has changed since those wonderful years of Vatican 2. The re-introduction of censorship of music is one of many symptoms of this. Good people leave the Church and good people join the Church. One has to live in Hope!

[Nick Baty]

I find it deeply insulting that the Bishops should have so little faith in the work of their composers that they should choose to put in place a mechanism of censorship.

Of course this brings us back to a debate which has gone on for weeks. Is it censorship? I still only don't believe it is.

Yes, an entirely choral Mass would never get through the Panel because this stops the assembly singing that which is rightly theirs. But I could show you evidence of some rather poor assembly-only pieces which have got through. These alone prove the Panel is not judging a piece on its musicality.

I am so tempted to write a setting all on one note while obeying all the rules to see if it gets through!

And if we did know who was on the Panel? Well, I have a pretty good idea about one of them. But if I knew that it would alter our relationship quite a bit.

Colin, as I write, I can picture the cover of your Good Friday Choirbook – I think I sang each part in the Reproaches over the years that my voice was slipping up and down before settling! Happy memories.

[presbyter]

My main publisher is Dr J Butz Musikverlag........

Thank you Colin. A real conundrum for the powers that be there then. Publish in a country where the Bishops' Conference is not a part of ICEL. No English-speaking panel to go through. Presumably the publisher deals directly with ICEL for copyright permission. Sell the Mass setting in English-speaking countries. I bet no one has entertained that possibility. Intriguing.

[Colin Mawby]

Dear Presbyter,

Thankyou for your excellent suggestion. I will see what I can do. Colin Mawby