PANEL decisions

[Colin Mawby]

I am totally amazed at the amount of superfluous detail contained in these submissions. It gives the impression that we write to please the anonymous gang of five rather than the Glory of God. Lets forget about mind boggling detail,commas, guitar chords, word repetition and compose music that is totally true to our personal inspiration, music which is unrestricted by the views of incompetent and anonymous placemen (or women). May I suggest that composers and publishers unite and decide to ignore this cumbersome process. We need to call the bluff of this gang and just go ahead and publish. I cannot see ICEL launching a myriad of copyright cases - the resulting scandal would be too great.

One of your correspondents mentioned the legislation on Restrictive Trade Practices. I would be interested to know if it applies or not. (I earn my living as a liturgical composer). If it does, there might be a case for a Judicial Review.

[HallamPhil]

I also write for the greater glory of God (but could never earn my living out of it!) and not one note of my music was altered by the process, nor did I expect it to be. However I do not own the text and cannot see that there is a great problem in the Panel (which I believe acts on behalf of ICEL et al with regard to its text) asserting itself even if it is in the nauseating detail many have experienced.

[HallamPhil]

NT, my own setting is complete apart from the Creed... Penitential Act (2); Kyrie, eleison; Lord, have mercy; Glory to God; Alleluia; Holy, Holy; Memorial Acclamation (3); Doxology & Amen (3); Lamb of God; Post-Communion Chant.

Has anyone set the Creed yet?

At the time of submitting to the Panel (my music, that is!) there were about 70 submissions from others. I don't suppose all of these will have been full settings but some probably will have been.

[NorthernTenor]

I would have no problem if the Panel stuck to its purpose: "To review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text." I do have a problem with its current ultra vires activity, which involves using the process as an excuse to impose particular views on matters of musical and liturgical judgement, where such decisions ought to be left to composers, parish musicians and clergy. Any one of those views may or may not be arguable, but they are not the business of the Panel according to its own terms of reference. To use the process in this partisan way is meddlesome and dishonest.

In passing, significant parts of the texts are in the public domain (see Appendix 2 of the Guide). The Panel's approach therefore runs the risk of irrelevancy for those texts. A less partisan, more cooperative and encouraging approach would minimise that risk.

[NorthernTenor]

I don't suppose all of these will have been full settings.

Well, according to one judgement at least, Phil, the Panel might have something to say about that, depending on the elements not set.

[Southern Comfort]

For those trying to make sense of the Panel's decisions, here's an interesting inconsistency from sometime back that I didn't notice at the time it happened:

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
...
Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest. Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.
— Approved

Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
...
Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.
— Approval Withheld. Reason: too many Holy's, too many Hosanna's

Without wanting to revive the debate about whether three Holy's are Trinitarian or not (they clearly aren't), by my count there are exactly the same number of Holys and Hosannas in the approved setting as in the rejected one. In fact the approved setting even has an additional Holy at another point further on.

[NorthernTenor]

not one note of my music was altered by the process, nor did I expect it to be.

Well, section 74 of the Composer's Guide has been quoted by the Panel, and it includes matters of musical judgement, so such expectations are not necessarily well-founded.

[contrabordun]

I think this particular example is slightly disingenuous. The panel is upholding the premise that the Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Amen together form a single unit of the Mass. This premise, which (of course) runs counter to the classical musical contents of a mass setting (ie Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus) does, if accepted, make it desirable to maintain a sense of continuity across the three items. Perhaps a parallel would be a composer wishing to set a Sanctus and not a Benedictus, on the basis that there are plenty of other settings of the latter available to go with his Sanctus. It just makes no sense, because that's not the way the Mass is, any more.

However, the idea of a unified Sanctus/Meml Acc/Amen is, and has been for some time, offically the best practice of the English & Welsh Bishops' Conference (who are surely entitled to set whatever parameters for acceptability in their own territory as they like). I think therefore that on this specific topic, your argument should be with them, rather than the panel.

The real nature of the problem, it seems to me, is this. Following the experience of the past 40 years, the Bishops would like to be able to (or have been told from Rome to) ensure that the music settings used for Mass are of decent musical worth (let's not try to define that) and that they stick to the actual translations. However, they can't actually control what happens at parish level. They have some influence, but little chance of finding out and absolutely no actual sanctions if people ignore them. They can only affect parish practice by persuading individuals to see things their way. The only real lever they have to pull is access to copyright permission, and it will have some effect on what gets published. In other words, because they have no control over whether a published setting is used in Mass, the Bishops are trying to ensure that only those that they see as fit for such use get published.

A digression: supposing for some reason, somebody wanted to set and publish, a musical setting of the Sanctus (ie without the Benedictus), for concert purposes, to the new texts. Would they have to get panel copyright approval by submitting it to the panel? Presumably it would be rejected?

FWIW, I think the combination of the ability to publish in any country and sell in any other, plus (as you have said) the fact that large chunks of the People's texts are in the public domain, plus the fact that the Bishops clearly have almost no control over what actually happens at parish level, plus excuse of the cost of buying new music, plus the restraint of trade questions means, I strongly suspect, that the meerkat will decide, and parish clergy and musicians will (continue) to do more or less as they please.

[HallamPhil]

Quite possibly, Paul, and folk like me, employed to advise on a Diocesan brief will have to be seen to tow the party line.

[NorthernTenor]

Paul,

A case may be made for a unified setting of the Memorial Acclamations, Sanctus and Amen. However, there are a number of problems associated with the Panel’s insisting on it. The first is a matter of principle and governance: refusal of permission because a setting does not comply with this approach is beside their stated purpose, which is quite simply to ensure fidelity to the text. In other words, they are acting ultra vires. If the Bishops want them to act in this way, then they should have the honesty to change the terms of reference accordingly. This is no small matter. How can we trust the Bishops’ Conference to act with integrity if its officers and agents blithely disregard their own published rules; and if they do so, how can they expect us to follow the rules? The lack of transparency and absence of accountability in the process make this matter all the more troubling. They suggest the local hierarchy and its staff have learned nothing in the last few years.

That is not to say the Panel might not encourage particular practice in relation to non-textual issues, through feedback to composers and progress reports: its terms of reference refer to the Composers’ Guide, which takes a position on a number of non-textual matters. However, given the unambiguously narrow scope of the Panel’s purpose, such opinions can only be seen as more or less strong advice, rather than criteria for granting or refusing permission to publish.

Matters of integrity aside, the second problem is that considerations of subsidiarity suggest the Panel’s action is not justified by the desirability of a unified setting. Unity is as much a matter for those who program liturgical music as it is for the composer. There may or may not be a substantive problem with a setting of the elements of the Eucharist Prayer that is perceived to lack unity, but that it is a matter for musical - to some degree subjective – judgement that is best left to local musicians and clergy, who should also be quite capable of choosing appropriate music for elements not including in a setting. I cannot help but feel that the modern phenomenon of publishing all-encompassing mass settings, and the Panel’s implicit support for them, reflect a desire to control and diminish local choice and judgement. Then again, it's an approach that commercial publishers are keen on, for obvious reasons.

You indirectly touch upon the third problem in you own comment: the Liturgy Office has agreed that ICEL has no copyright on the translation of the Sanctus. A setting of it can therefore be published without its consent or ICEL’s. The same goes for the Kyrie and Agnus. It would be quite possible to comply with the copyright constraints of, say, the Gloria and Credo translations separately from other elements which publishers don’t need to submit to the process. The more Panel members ride hobby-horses through their own rules, the more likely it is that this fragmentation will occur. That would be a shame, because there is something to be said for a limited process that encourages textual fidelity in mass settings.

[presbyter]

Has anyone set the Creed yet?

Someone sent me a draft of a simple chant setting that's since been adjusted slightly and is now on its way through the complexities of the permission to publish process. I think it will be a useful addition to parish repertoire.

[Nick Baty]

Acclamations 6: Assembly, keyboard/guitar, optional unison choir, flute and clarinet. Witheld.
....a textual deviation [I had added the word "Lord" in the choir part], 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.

This has finally been passed – although not until I'd scrapped the extra 't' in Resurrecttion! To be honest, I'm rather glad of this free proof-reading service.

Acclamations 7: Assembly, priest, keyboard, option SAB choir, optional flute, clarinet, violin. Accepted. (Although not until I'd corrected the punctuation!)

Repetitions in Accs 6 include:
"Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Heaven and earth are full of your glory."
and
"Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest."
and
"Save us, Saviour of the world, save us, Saviour of the world."

Repetitions in Accs 7 include:
"Hosanna. Hosanna in the highest."
and
"until you come, until you come again."
and
"Save us, save us, Saviour of the world,"

[JW]

I suspect the panel cannot be consistent given the extent to which they are seeking to control the minutiae of captilisation, punctuation and repetition.

I guess the reason for the panel is that Rome want to avoid the excesses of the 1970's, but am amazed that the Bishops can't find a different way to manage the parishes over which they (not the parish priest) have full apostolic oversight.

[presbyter]

Why do we have a panel when we can download ..............

http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/11/04/26/12-08-56_0.pdf ?

It's approved by ICEL - distributed with permission. No thematic unity Sanctus / Memorial Acclamations (so that can't be an ICEL requirement). No setting of the Great Amen apart from the Missal tone.

This setting would not pass our panel assessment but it has been approved by ICEL. We could use it (now), if we wanted to. Crazy! Yet another example of something approved for use in the USA that would not be approved for publication here.

What's so wrong with thematic disunity between Sanctus and Memorial Acclamation anyway?

[Nick Baty]

What's so wrong with thematic disunity between Sanctus and Memorial Acclamation anyway?

What's right with it? And it is some time since the bishops asked for unity in the eucharistic acclamations. Why would anyone object?