NorthernTenor wrote: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......
Nick - I have no problem at all with unified settings - it's a good idea, to my mind - but it's not the only idea, evidenced by the link I posted. I am simply highlighting one of the number of problems NT suggests. For another example of thematic disunity, try the official plainsong Missal chants.
presbyter wrote:For another example of thematic disunity, try the official plainsong Missal chants.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons so few people use them. Could the Panel not insist on thematic unity? Could it really go against what the bishops of England & Wales request?
Nick Baty wrote:Could the Panel not insist on thematic unity?
Not world-wide it can't. That's the problem I am highlighting. Our Guide for Composers is self-defeating in that we can legitimately sing imported music that does not have to adhere to its guidelines. The Michael Joncas Mass I have previously made reference to is another example of USA music that, from the evidence so far in this thread, would not be assessed favourably for publication here. Yet we can buy it and use it.
Could it really go against what the bishops of England & Wales request?
Are you sure it is actual Bishops who have made the request?
I can find this : http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf but does anyone know if our American cousins have an equivalent Guide for Composers document from their Bishops' Conference? Please, someone, post a link if you have found such a thing. It would be interesting to make a comparison.
presbyter wrote:The Michael Joncas Mass I have previously made reference to is another example of USA music that, from the evidence so far in this thread, would not be assessed favourably for publication here. Yet we can buy it and use it.
So if America does it then it's OK?
Last edited by Nick Baty on Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICEL Policy wrote:A conference of bishops must approve an ICEL text for liturgical use before it may be published or distributed within the dioceses of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and this approval must be confirmed by the Apostolic See. Furthermore, even after an ICEL text is formally approved by a conference of bishops and after the ICEL contract is executed, the publisher is bound by contract to observe the regulations established by the conference of bishops for the territory of its jurisdiction.
The license of ICEL to publish a text does not include the imprimatur, which the publisher must obtain from the competent church authority. Furthermore, it is understood that ICEL provides only a basic text for international use; it is the responsibility of editors and publishers to obtain any modifications or adaptations in the liturgical rite itself that may be required by the respective conference of bishops in each territory where the text will be distributed.........
Does that mean, in a most strict observance of local, particular law, that we should not sing imported settings that our Bishops' panel would withhold? Manifestly not, for use of imports is permitted.
Actually it's not in CTM. It's in the Guide for Composers. Although it matters not who wrote it. The bishops conference has endorsed it. And even if they hadn't what possible argument is there against musical unity in the Eucharistic Prayer?
Perhaps our bishops need to close that loophole! The arguments against thematic unity only seem to come from the liberals who want to carry on singing Byrd, Palestrina etc to the exclusion of the assembly.
Last edited by Nick Baty on Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nick Baty wrote:The arguments against thematic unity only seem to come from the liberals who want to carry on singing Byrd, Palestrina etc to the exclusion of the assembly.
I am not aware of any Renaissance composer that has set a Memorial Acclamation.
Define thematic unity. One good argument against a rule here is that such unnecessary strictures are an intellectual trend of modernity. How many parishes are just going to sing a hotchpotch of their favourite sanctus and memorial acclamation anyway unless the bishop specifically forbids that?
I see no reason why the words 'holy, holy, holy' should have to relate thematically to the words 'when we eat this bread and drink this cup' when the respective words are saying something different to each other. Such a rule might even militate against good word setting or even a good tune. It appears that "thou shalt not" is to be the watchword of the Catholic musical world in England and Wales: who would have guessed that one of the post-Vatican II liturgical developments would involve pontification on the use of musical themes? What's next - pontification on the use of modes or harmonies? I suppose next there will be calls to forbid thematic connections between other parts of the mass ordinary, who knows? While I think the good use of musical themes is interesting in itself, making a rule of their use in composition, or in liturgy, is another matter.
