PANEL decisions

[Calum Cille]

Peter Rose also started the sanctus with three hosannas in his MacKillop mass set.

http://www.roseconlonmusic.co.uk/spweb/ ... cerpts.pdf

[NorthernTenor]

This kind of thing is a gift to the authoritarians in the Bishops'Conference, who will will doubtless suggest, with a shake of the head and a sigh, that this is what would come of reforming their own process. It's what authoritarians, benign or otherwise, do.

[alan29]

Found the same thing in France a few weeks ago in that floppy hymn-book they seem to use everywhere. It just felt very odd to sing. Mind you, a lot of their hymns are "idiosyncratic" when it comes to melody and tessitura. Are they going to allow people to subject their language to the same mauling that ICEL have performed with English, I wonder. Or maybe the Academie Francaise would express certain views. Or maybe their hierarchy have more pride in their own language than would seem to be the case here.

[JW]

A point of information.

If anyone uses portions of the Missal chants (e.g. Doxology / Mystery of Faith introduction ) in their settings awaiting publication, the ICEL copyright notice should read:

Excerpts from the English translation and chants of The Roman Missal © 2010, International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.

There is another inconsistency here - I'm aware of a setting which does not have the above text but got through.

[presbyter]

There is another inconsistency here - I'm aware of a setting which does not have the above text but got through.

This form of wording came to me from ICEL after their review of what the panel here had already passed.

[NorthernTenor]

Are they going to allow people to subject their language to the same mauling that ICEL have performed with English, I wonder. Or maybe the Academie Francaise would express certain views.

I doubt it. They might, on the other hand, have had something to say about the blandness of its predecessor, had it been rendered in French; had they not fallen asleep reading it.

[presbyter]

I think my safety valve is going to blow soon. I have spent seven months trying to learn about the permission to publish process. I have tried to understand how the new texts may and may not be set. I have submitted my own, and the music of eight other composers, to the panel, sometimes twice, after receiving "withheld editorial" and one "withheld". I have then made the further submission to ICEL in Washington - 224 pages of printed, hard copy. The fruit of seven months hard slog is about to appear in print.

I have obeyed "the rules".

Readers will have noticed my annoyance at the publication of two Mass settings from Scotland above. Now, this morning, many parishes will have received an e-mail about the Missa Nova by Robin Highcock - originating from Shaftesbury, Dorset. Manifestly, this setting has been submitted neither to the panel, nor to ICEL. The required indication of permission to publish and ICEL copyright notices are not printed in the score. The treatment of the text of the Sanctus could be questioned by the panel (in the light of my experience of assessments already made). There are no indications of pitch for the "Mystery of Faith" and Doxology chants.

I'm not knocking Highcock's music - at a first glance it's actually pretty good.

But I am hopping mad that the panel/ICEL process is being circumvented or ignored.

Highcock, possibly, does not know of the required procedures and is acting in ignorance. I imagine that he does not know he is in breach of copyright.

Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law........

Yet what, if anything, can be done about this and similar attempts to publish Mass settings without the necessary approval?

[Nick Baty]

Yet what, if anything, can be done about this and similar attempts to publish Mass settings without the necessary approval?

Probably nothing. It is for the owners of the text to take action for unauthorised use. Who was the chap who wrote a book about copyright infringement – particularly on the Internet – and then found the whole of his work reproduced on the Internet?

[John Ainslie]

It is for the owners of the text to take action for unauthorised use.

Presumably the PANEL, as the copyright agents for ICEL in this country, would be doing its job if it were to write to Mr Highcock and point out the error of his ways. Law is only as good as its enforcement.

[presbyter]

Presumably the PANEL, as the copyright agents for ICEL in this country, would be doing its job if it were to write to Mr Highcock and point out the error of his ways.

This raises the question of dissemination of information. I am sure Robin Highcock has acted with the best of intentions, offering his music freely for the good of the Church. I am sure he does not know about the permission to publish procedure.

In the Archdiocese of Birmingham, information has been sent out to those on the Liturgy & Music e-mail list and participants in the recent fifteen workshops on new music for the Mass are aware of the procedure. Some people who have been to the workshops are indeed composing their own Mass settings, which is to be encouraged.
Information about this, and new music in general, is also being sent out to all priests and deacons in an imminent Ad Clerum.

What are other dioceses doing for their musicians and composers? If a composer is not a member of the SSG and does not frequent the Liturgy Office website, how does he or she get to know about the procedure? Have all diocesan representatives present at the national Liturgy Office meeting earlier this year managed to send out information to all parishes in their dioceses? [I know, I know.... information gets stuck at the parish priest level and does not get passed on.]

I hear of workshops having taken place, or about to take place, in Birmingham, Portsmouth, Westminster, Liverpool, Northampton, East Anglia, Brentwood, Clifton, Hallam, Southwark, Middlesbrough, Salford....... that's just over half of the dioceses of E & W. Some, but by no means all, of the church musicians in these dioceses could now be aware of the publication procedures. What about the other dioceses?

Robin Highcock's Mass will probably not be an isolated case of home produced, desk-top publishing. Other settings are likely to follow, don't you think?

Any panel members reading this? Think not so much as to how to enforce the procedure but of getting knowledge of the procedure itself to composers and potential composers. Not every composer is going to go through commercial concerns such as Decani, McCrimmons, RSCM..... whoever. Some composers are setting themselves up effectively as home-based, desk-top publishers (Nick Baty with his Concept Music, for example). Get knowledge of the procedure through to them.

[presbyter]

Robin Highcock is now graciously accepting help in putting together a panel submission. The fruit will be well worth the wait. It's a good Mass setting.

[NorthernTenor]

I look forward to seeing Robin's setting. Of course, he should be advised that ICEL copyright only applies to some elements of the translation. As the Guide for Composers admits, other key parts (e.g. Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus, Our Father) are in the public domain, and so not subject to the whimsey of whover drew up the Guide (was it perhaps the enthusiastic outcome of a Master's thesis?) and those given the task of interpreting it.

I'd also like to report that one of the more indefensible parts of the process appears to be undergoing some adjustment. Having obtained permission to publish stand-alone the only part of a mass setting that comes within ICEL's copyright (the Gloria), I submitted an appeal against the rejection of the non-copyright Sanctus setting (I know, I know, but I'd rather work with than against). I have now been advised that Bishop Hopes has excused himself from hearing the appeal on the not unreasonable grounds that he was involved in the original decision. This would seem to address one of the key concerns about the process. I also suspect it reflects the efforts of some decent people doing their level best with essentially flawed terms of reference, because they want to make things work. I trust their evident good will leads to further reform.

[presbyter]

As the Guide for Composers admits, other key parts (e.g. Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus, Our Father) are in the public domain, and so not subject to the whimsey of whover drew up the Guide.......

Not quite NT. Yes, these texts are in the public domain but the panel are assessing the use of all Missal texts, not just the ICEL texts. Miss that comma out in 'Lord, have mercy.' and a withheld editorial will be received.

After these few months of learning how the permission to publish process works / doesn't work well, I think it's time to subject the Guide for Composers to a critical revision. Some work on this has been done by the Liturgy Office (I can see a revision of one paragraph on the current .pdf, perhaps resulting from a comment and request for clarification I sent in). More is needed though, in my opinion, and information on the separate Information for Publishers Sheet (am I one of only a few here who have seen this?) could well be added to the body of the text of the Guide.

September could be the time to address these, and other, teething troubles perhaps?

[NorthernTenor]

As the Guide for Composers admits, other key parts (e.g. Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus, Our Father) are in the public domain, and so not subject to the whimsy of whoever drew up the Guide.......

Not quite NT. Yes, these texts are in the public domain but the panel are assessing the use of all Missal texts, not just the ICEL texts. Miss that comma out in 'Lord, have mercy.' and a withheld editorial will be received.

My point entirely, Presbyter. The Liturgy Office can only do this with the cooperation of composers and publishers. The use of the process to impose merely arguable views on matters outside its given purpose - to ensure fidelity to the text - will not foster that cooperation. I am going along with the process for texts outside of ICEL's copyright voluntarily, because I happen to think that as far as it sticks to its purpose it's doing a good job; and because I'd rather work with it, if possible, than ignore it. At some point, however, exasperation might just get the better of me.

As things stand, I can't honestly recommend Richard submits more than ICEL's copyright makes necessary. He might even choose to publish under the jurisdiction of a Bishops' Conference that takes a less meddlesome and more predicatble approach to permission to publish. That might change - we'll see.

[Southern Comfort]

Presumably the PANEL, as the copyright agents for ICEL in this country

Really? I very much doubt that this is the case.

The Panel are acting on behalf of the Bishop's Conference, not on behalf of ICEL. If they were acting on behalf of ICEL, it would not be necessary additionally to submit "approved" settings to ICEL for permission to publish.