Colin Mawby wrote: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.
...
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.
There are a couple of problems with Nick’s response to Colin. The first is his claim that it is the Panel’s job to enforce a particular interpretation of actuosa participatio in its bearing on who sings what in the liturgy. It is not. As Presbyter has pointed out already in this thread, the Panel's purpose is given quite clearly in its terms of reference as being “To review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text”. Some may wish its remit went further, but there you have it: it doesn’t. To suggest on ideological grounds that the Panel should go beyond its terms of reference is to suggest censorship.
The second problem is Nick’s justification of the Panel’s anonymity on the grounds that it protects his relationship with those members he may know. While I understand his desire not to change valued relationships, this essentially personal consideration should have no bearing on a matter of openness and polity. I would also suggest from experience that is possible to maintain a personal relationship with those whose occasional responsibility it is to judge your work.
NorthernTenor wrote: I would also suggest from experience that is possible to maintain a personal relationship with those whose occasional responsibility it is to judge your work.
For myself, I think it is most beneficial to obtain an assessment of a work before it gets anywhere near the panel submission stage. The "phone/e-mail a friend", from whom a composer will get an honest opinion, is a most useful exercise. I myself had a "thumbs down" from friends on one piece I was working on - "not distinctive enough" - so that piece has been binned. I am still good friends with the two people concerned.
I've also made suggestions about changes to pieces of theirs ...... one of which has resulted in the most glorious of discords .......... that's a frisson in the music, not a loss of friendship.
The more we can help each other .......and help each other in the light of panel decisions already made .......the better.
I'm sure your readers will be interested to read this recently discovered correspondence:
Dear Anonymous Gang of Four,
We publish the work of Herr Beethoven and submit his Missa Solemnis in D for your approval. Although primarily a concert work, several liturgical performances have been planned. It is a work of genius and is written for the solemn grand occasion and, in our opinion, fits the ancient philosopher's words as a "bridge between humanity and God". It is not intended for parish use.
Dear Publisher,
Thank you for your submission. Herr Beethoven's work is far too long. The soprano part is too high, the vocal parts over complex and there are too many textual repetitions. The harmony is obscure. He only sets the Latin text. The congregation can't take part and as for the punctuation - ouch!!
Our friendly helpful advice is: Herr Beethoven should cut the length of his Mass by 90%, transpose what remains into the key of Bb, add an optional congregational part, set it to the English text, make the harmony more conventional and delete all those difficult fugues. It is essential that he adds guitar chords - a folk group may wish to accompany it. He must also add an optional keyboard accompaniment and attend to the punctuation.
Permission to publish withheld.
Dear Anonymous Gang of Four,
We are sorry to have offended you, particularly as we are sure that you are a gang of four famous, internationally acclaimed musicians. "Mea maxima culpa" - sorry, we should have written: "Through our most grievous fault".
We also represent Signor Palestrina and Father Victoria. We wish to submit their Masses: "Papae Marcelli" and "O quam gloriosum". We know that there are many textual repetitions in the "Kyrie" and "Benedictus" but both composers will both look with sympathy upon the possibility of adding guitar chords and an optional congregational part. We trust that you will approve them for publication.
We also represent Herr Bach and will submit his new Mass in B minor as soon as the proof reading stage is complete.
From what I know of the Italian and Spanish composers mentioned, Colin, their work is all very well and good, though perhaps a little lacking in excitement and showing a tendency to pastiche.
Dear Publisher, As these are not settings of the new ICEL text you do not need our permission (or ICEL's) to publish the works of Herr Beethoven, Signor Palestrina or Father Victoria. Yours, Gang of Five (You keep missing out one of us!)
Nick Baty wrote:Dear Publisher, As this is not a setting of the new ICEL text you do not need our permission (or ICEL's) to publish the works of Herr Beethoven, Signor Palestrina or Father Victoria.
I don’t think you’ve quite understood the spirit of ritual music since the Council, as outlined in the key documents of Gellineau, Huijbers, Universa Laus, Inwood et al. My doctoral thesis: “Songs do Furnish a Room: Bauhaus, Huijbers and Noble Simplicity” may be of help if you wish to understand the work of more progressive liturgist-composers.
