nazard wrote:If the people who sing Byrd and Palestrina are liberals, I hate to think what that makes the people who sing anything else!
You misquote me, dear N. What I wrote was: "the liberals who want to carry on singing Byrd, Palestrina etc to the exclusion of the assembly." In other words, those who have no interest in liturgy and put music first. I love polyphony – but there are points in our liturgy where it has no place because it excludes the assembly. One ignores instructions from bishops is surely a liberal!
I love polyphony – but there are points in our liturgy where it has no place because it excludes the assembly. One ignores instructions from bishops is surely a liberal!
Nick clearly feels passionately about the use of the Panel to impose a particular approach to liturgical composition. It's a shame that passion doesn't find room for consideration of concerns and arguments, stated here and elsewhere, that might give him pause for thought. In particular, he doesn't address the problem that, as its terms of reference stand, the Panel lacks the authority to do what he advocates. He doesn't even bother to suggest that those terms of reference should be changed to give some basis for the Panel going beyond issues of textual felicity (its stated purpose). Niceties of governance presumably take second place to enforcement of the vision.
He enthusiastically supports the idea that the Panel's judgements should take into account issues of compositional consistency, but doesn't consider the problem that a judgement of consistency or otherwise is inevitably subjective, and so best left to those with responsibility for music in the parish, rather than a centrally-appointed Panel sitting in an office, working its way through a large number of scores in a limited amount of time (I take this as as a pretty good example of the virtue of subsidiarity).
His analysis also lacks any consideration of of the difference between a full setting that might be considered inconsistent, and a partial setting that entrusts consistency to the liturgical musician who completes it for his or her parish with music from other sources.
Nor is there any consideration of the argument that it would be more constructive for the Panel to encourage good practice, rather than attempt to impose it in detail; and that the absence of copyright on key elements of the liturgy makes it likely that imposition will result in the Panel's increasing irrelevancy.
Finally, his comments on the more limited approach of other Bishops' Conferences appear to show a disregard for the views and experience of other parts of the Catholic world. It doesn't appear to matter to him that we are alone in drifting into centralised direction of liturgical composition, and that there might be good reason for that; in Nick's world, it's sufficient that the Panel should be a vehicle for the imposition of views that he feels passionately about.
I'm afraid Nick's commitment to a particular vision of liturgical music leads him to advocate its centralised imposition by appointed experts, irrespective of the views of other practitioners and some serious problems of principal and practice. In an increasingly bland world his passion is to be applauded; but only up to the point where it is balanced by reason and a respect for others' views.
NorthernTenor wrote:Nick ... him ... he ... he ... He ... He ... His ... his ... him ... in Nick's world ... he ... Nick's commitment ... him ... his passion
No idea why the discussion should have taken such a personal turn. Looks worryingly obsessive to me. To get back to the substance of the discussion:
Northern Tenor wrote:best left to those with responsibility for music in the parish
This I think fails to take in to account how many parishes simply don't have the skills or the formation or the resources to cope with that kind of responsibility. It's plain that the bishops are trying to exert a corrective influence over matters which until now may widely be claimed to be dysfunctional in the typical parish experience. There's scope, I think, for argument about whether the fine tuning of this policy is as it should be; but not, I suggest, any credible grounds for advocating a libertarian free-for-all as a recipe for improving the situation.
mcb wrote:No idea why the discussion should have taken such a personal turn. Looks worryingly obsessive to me. To get back to the substance of the discussion ...
Not at all, mcb. I was addressing points raised and missed by one who has repeatedly commented on matters under discussion. Sadly, there's no point in addressing them directly to him as he has chosen to filter out my comments, so deeply does he disagree with them; hence the third person. But then, you knew that, didn't you, Martin?
Northern Tenor wrote:best left to those with responsibility for music in the parish
This I think fails to take in to account how many parishes simply don't have the skills or the formation or the resources to cope with that kind of responsibility. It's plain that the bishops are trying to exert a corrective influence over matters which until now may widely be claimed to be dysfunctional in the typical parish experience. There's scope, I think, for argument about whether the fine tuning of this policy is as it should be; but not, I suggest, any credible grounds for advocating a libertarian free-for-all as a recipe for improving the situation.
Actually, a large number of parish musicians do understand the issues, or are willing to improve their understanding of them. It's the business of the Church to build on and encourage this, not to show distrust by issuing mandates in ever increasing numbers and detail. The former approach is the one taken by other ecclesial bodies and it works for them. They know that a top-down approach will never build the culture that is the only effective source of good liturgical music.
There's a larger issue here, which is that despite the Second Vatican Council, clericalism is stil second nature to many Catholics. All that’s changed is that it’s increasingly a clericalism of lay “experts” with an axe to grind, while the clergy themselves have increasingly understood that the Church is a complex organism in which developments work out over centuries, not a vehicle whose immediate speed and direction can be fixed by pressing the right buttons. Indeed, one of the foremost exponents of this understanding is the Church’s most senior cleric, and if it’s good enough for him it should be good enough for England & Wales.
NT, mcb, I think we're all basically on the same side and are wasting time with this part of the discussion. The thing about Nick is that he is very happy because the Panel have (eventually) approved all his stuff, and he is gracious enough to say that some of their suggestions have been helpful to him.
What he is choosing to ignore, so far, is that many others have not fared as well as he, and have in some cases even been savaged by the process, receiving far from constructive reactions from the Panel. Once he realizes that and stops saying "I've done OK, so everything must be all right" then the need for some of the recent exchanges will disappear.
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.
Aren't most Renaissance Polyphonic Mass settings exemplars of thematic unity - amongst all the movements?
Southern Comfort wrote:What he is choosing to ignore, so far, is that many others have not fared as well as he, and have in some cases even been savaged by the process,......
I myself have received a few "withheld editorial" but never a "withheld" so far. Yet I think some people have received "withheld" in the most recent assessments on matters that in previous assessments would have only received "withheld editorial". Seems very harsh, if it's true. What might have happened to the principle of "case law" and precedence upon which the assessment process was, I understand, supposed to evolve?
presbyter wrote:Aren't most Renaissance Polyphonic Mass settings exemplars of thematic unity - amongst all the movements?
And some Classical ones too. Although I don't understand why anyone one would want thematic unity between a Gloria and an Agnus? Their functionality is quite different: the former is a hymn of praise, the latter is a cultic song. But they're also exemplars of a much different model where the assembly was excluded from high points like the Sanctus so, as models, not much use to us today.
The bishops are only asking for thematic unity within the Eucharistic Prayer. Where's the problem? Why is this an issue?
Southern Comfort wrote:The thing about Nick is that he is very happy because the Panel have (eventually) approved all his stuff
Untrue.
Southern Comfort wrote:What he is choosing to ignore, so far, is that many others have not fared as well as he
Just looking at some certificates here of submissions that are not my own (I have received them because they are mixed in with some of my own submissions in one, long document - all the same publisher)
One typo/very small mistake - seems to get "withheld editorial"
Four typos/very small mistakes - seems to get "withheld"
This doesn't seem to be an assessment system based on an innocent crucified who forgives a repentant thief.
Nick Baty wrote:The bishops are only asking for thematic unity within the Eucharistic Prayer. Where's the problem? Why is this an issue?
Well one composer I know happens to be pretty distraught that his fine melody for a Memorial Acclamation is not acceptable because it does not relate thematically to his Sanctus melody. Why should he have to change it? So doing would produce a much poorer musical interpretation of the sentiment of the text. Aren't we in the business of serving the texts well, so that their prayer is enhanced?
