PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

But doesn't that mean they won't be able to publish settings of the Mass? (ICEL will not give permission without clearance from the Liturgy Office.) Either they will lose a lot of money or many congregations will end up singing all sorts of unauthorised paraphrases.

[alan29]

But doesn't that mean they won't be able to publish settings of the Mass? (ICEL will not give permission without clearance from the Liturgy Office.) Either they will lose a lot of money or many congregations will end up singing all sorts of unauthorised paraphrases.

I suspect that all congregations will sing settings that are within the capability of those who lead the music. And for many parishes it will be down to 3 chord guitarists and faltering pianists. If there is not repertoire for those toilers in the Lord's vineyard (may they be blessed for their dedication,) then I suspect that any number of revisions and panels will be irrelevant. Either that, or even less of the ordinary will be sung. Can that be what those who legislate actually intend?

[NorthernTenor]

Further to the message about Kevin Mayhew. I have now asked him if he will be submitting music to the censorship panel. He confirms that he will have nothing to do with the process. I hope that in time other composes and publishers will take a similar attitude - this is the best way to speed the inevitable collapse of the current episcopal pantomime. Colin Mawby

But doesn't that mean they won't be able to publish settings of the Mass? (ICEL will not give permission without clearance from the Liturgy Office.) Either they will lose a lot of money or many congregations will end up singing all sorts of unauthorised paraphrases.

Colin & Nick's comments speak to the injustice and absurdity of the process in England & Wales. The poor drafting of its terms of reference has allowed the Panel to censor settings on grounds other than textual fidelity, its stated purpose. The net effect of this is an unease amongst publishers and composers that will make them less likely to engage with our Bishops on liturgical matters. As for their loosing money: well, significant parts of the translation are outside the scope of ICEL's copyright; I suspect many parishes will be happy to rub along with paraphrases; and it's really not all that difficult to switch the place of publishing to somewhere the Bishops' Conference hasn't made such a dog's breakfast of things.

All in all, it's an excellent illustration of the maxim that the abuse of authority gets it a bad name. It has been suggested on this board that we may see reform of the Process, and I can attest that one of its more iniquitous elements - the hearing of appeals by those those involved in the original judgement - has gone. Let us hope that is the first sign of a more thorough-going reform.

[Nick Baty]

And for many parishes it will be down to 3 chord guitarists and faltering pianists. If there is not repertoire for those toilers in the Lord's vineyard

There must be (and is) repertoire for these dedicated people.
What matters is that they sing the right words – that's something that some on here object to!
I can provide proof that the Panel is not "censuring" as Colin, and other, would have us believe.

[NorthernTenor]

And for many parishes it will be down to 3 chord guitarists and faltering pianists. If there is not repertoire for those toilers in the Lord's vineyard

There must be (and is) repertoire for these dedicated people.
What matters is that they sing the right words – that's something that some on here object to!

No it isn't. To suggest so simply tells us how little you've listened to what others have to say, Nick.

I can provide proof that the Panel is not "censuring" as Colin, and other, would have us believe.

Provide away, Nick. It will be fascinating to see how you prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can prove a positive, because I had a setting refused on grounds that had nothing to do with textual fidelity.

[presbyter]

OK - call me a pedant but for the sake of clarification please -

Censuring....... formally expressing extreme disapproval

Censoring........ officially examining material and suppressing unacceptable parts thereof

Which one?

[Nick Baty]

And sometimes one and the same.
Surely Israeli Mass should be both censored and censured, simply because of lack of textual fidelity.

[presbyter]

And for many parishes it will be down to 3 chord guitarists and faltering pianists.

Go up to four chords and a three-fingered and one thumbed pianist and the Glory to God collection contains some suitable material ........ alongside (optional) SSATB splashes for the festally ambitious.

[alan29]

And for many parishes it will be down to 3 chord guitarists and faltering pianists.

Go up to four chords and a three-fingered and one thumbed pianist and the Glory to God collection contains some suitable material ........ alongside (optional) SSATB splashes for the festally ambitious.

That's good to know. Lets hope that those who are in charge of this process nationally are disseminating this information to the parishes.

[Nick Baty]

That all seems to depend on which is your home diocese.
Great things going on in some, nothing in others.
But I've digressed to a thread higher up the page!

[presbyter]

Lets hope that those who are in charge of this process nationally.........

Someone's in charge?

[alan29]

Lets hope that those who are in charge of this process nationally.........

Someone's in charge?

To take responsibility?

[presbyter]

Lets hope that those who are in charge of this process nationally.........

Someone's in charge?

more seriously....

The liturgy Office acts on behalf of the Bishops' Conference.

As to what happens in individual dioceses is left up to whatever form of Liturgy Commission the Bishop has set up.

Some dioceses - e.g. Portsmouth, Hallam - employ persons with a responsibility for formation in liturgical music throughout the particular diocese. Some dioceses - e.g. Birmingham - have a small committee/commission working on a voluntary basis. In some dioceses there's no official mechanism of any sort and whatever happens seems to be dependent upon the initiative of willing individuals, without any support from their diocese.

[NorthernTenor]

Southwark is one of those Dioceses where centrally-organised formation does not extend to liturgical music. On balance, that's probably a good thing, given that a fair proportion of those musicians who consider themselves liturgists have an insatiable urge to meddle. You only have to consider the way the permission to publish Procedure has been implemented in England and Wales to see the point.

[presbyter]

Further to the message about Kevin Mayhew. I have now asked him if he will be submitting music to the censorship panel. He confirms that he will have nothing to do with the process.

The "first step" I reported was, I understand, an enquiry as to how to approach ICEL directly. Nothing about the panel process.