Calum Cille wrote:Not being much acquainted with the English church, I don't know if it is the English and Welsh bishops who have this great concern for thematic unity or whether in fact there is a cadre of influential musicians plying them with intellectual admonitions
It's more to do with the general state of music in E&W over the last 40 years. There's been a great tussle between those who want to hang on to polyphony (at the expense of the assembly) and those who want some sort of pop/rock (at the expense of the assembly). In the middle are those of us in sympathy with the SSG (and similar organisations) who have stepped back and said, "This is about the function of music, how music serves the liturgy, how music aids the assembly in worship".
Calum Cille wrote:Hope I'm not snapping!
Not at all. I find your posts most interesting – although I don't understand them all!
Last edited by Nick Baty on Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
presbyter wrote:But as to how the panel might interpret the paragraph - who knows?
Well, I've sent the Panel settings which are unified by tonality and/or by rhythm and/or by melody and they've passed them. They did query one (vaguely) Em setting where MA3 ended on chord of E when the Sanctus and Amen ended on Em. (This was just an observation, not a "withheld".) I just suggested they look at the text.
The paragraph in CTM is, in my opinion, so imprecise and vague in its construction that it fails to convey much meaning at all;
• Settings of the Sanctus Acclamation, together with Memorial Acclamation and Amen should form a unity which reflects the unity of the whole Eucharistic Prayer.
presbyter wrote:It's not as hard and fast as we might imagine. But as to how the panel might interpret the paragraph - who knows?
It's extremely near the bone if not actually piercing it. The traditional liturgy does not necessarily respect that unity musically and I don't see why it should. What defines or comprises a "unit"? The fact that it is distinguishable from other units? Does that mean the unit cannot be subdivided? Does it mean it shares no matter with other units? That we should not highlight such variegation within the unit musically and mark musically those distinguishing features of the unit?
Rooms are not only described by their walls but by their contents, which are not necessarily all composed of the same material or colour; some contents will be composed of multiple materials and multiple colours. The perceptive artist can see and depict things about the contents and the room which the less perceptive will not pay attention to. To legislate that all the contents of the mass or eucharistic prayer be treated as if they are of one colour and substance is to paint the roses green and the clock white.
presbyter wrote:Who writes this obfuscating tosh?
Well, I don't envy them the job but I still don't see why someone who's got a really good idea for a Sanctus and nothing thematically similar for a memorial acclamation should not be allowed to ignore the holistic view and go ahead and compose the Sanctus rather than impose a deficient memorial acclamation on a publication.
Last edited by Calum Cille on Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Nick Baty wrote:In the middle are those of us in sympathy with the SSG (and similar organisations) who have stepped back and said, "This is about the function of music, how music serves the liturgy, how music aids the assembly in worship". ... I find your posts most interesting – although I don't understand them all!
Excellent timing. I was just about to say, I'm not sure what "the expense of the assembly" means although I wouldn't press anyone for a definition, either for that or for "how music aids the assembly in worship." I haven't come across a deep discussion of the matter on this forum, although NorthernTenor raises a number of issues.
presbyter wrote:An epiclesis is not an institution narrative is not an anamnesis....... A Preface is not a Sanctus is not a Memorial Acclamation is not a Doxology and Great Amen..... A Eucharistic Prayer is a unity in diversity.
Beautifully put, presbyter. The pastoral musician's charter!
presbyter wrote:A Eucharistic Prayer is a unity in diversity.
Someone has informed me that in the latest batch of approved settings there is a suite of Eucharistic Acclamations that do not exhibit common musical material.
I have been informed that not only do we have a panel checking the ways in which composers use the texts of the Missal;
we also have an anonymous theologian checking non-Missal texts and that in future, publishers will have to submit all hymn and other song texts for scrutiny.
Looks as if all new collections published in this country will require a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
I cannot find any information about this on the liturgy office website yet.
I understand that this has been the plan for some time, but it has been on the back burner while the new Missal translation rush is taking place. Again, however, we are talking about 'only' textual and doctrinal fidelity, with no test of musical 'quality', so far as I am aware.
Dom Perignon wrote: Again, however, we are talking about 'only' textual and doctrinal fidelity,.......
My reliable source informs me that, for example, this text would be approved for it contains no doctrinal infidelity:
If I were a butterfly, I’d thank you Lord for giving me wings If I were a robin in a tree, I’d thank you Lord that I could sing If I were a fish in the sea, I’d wiggle my tail and I’d giggle with glee But I just thank you father for making me. For you gave me a heart and you gave me a smile You gave me Jesus and you made me your child And I just thank you Father for making me.
presbyter wrote:My reliable source informs me that, for example, this text would be approved for it contains no doctrinal infidelity:
If I were a butterfly, I’d thank you Lord for giving me wings If I were a robin in a tree, I’d thank you Lord that I could sing If I were a fish in the sea, I’d wiggle my tail and I’d giggle with glee But I just thank you father for making me. For you gave me a heart and you gave me a smile You gave me Jesus and you made me your child And I just thank you Father for making me.
Yes yes, presbyter, but your hasty redaction of the authentic text loses some theological nuance: I just thank you Father for making me me is what she wrote. Quite different.
mcb wrote:Yes yes, presbyter, but your hasty redaction of the authentic text loses some theological nuance: I just thank you Father for making me me is what she wrote. Quite different.
Oooops - apologies - you are correct. I was too keen to remove the associated rubrics from the copy and paste and removed essential text too.
Mind you - talking of editing rubrics - one notes how Rome ignores Mazza's magisterial scholarship and retains a rubrical addition in the Roman Canon as a part of the prayer. Just wait until we hear ICEL's EP 1 and we all go - "Huh? What did the priest just say?"
