PANEL decisions

[Southern Comfort]

It's the requirement to resubmit at all for such minor trifles which is childish. Some publishers would find it insulting. If publishers are to trust the process, then the process must demonstrate some trust in the publishers.

With that I can agree. But one only has to see what some publishers have done in the past to understand why the Panel is being, perhaps, overly cautious and why they are asking to see final page proofs rather than earlier drafts. I must admit that I found it irritating at first – then I realised I was getting a free proof-reading service. Can't grumble at that.

I have no problem with requiring reference to the Missal tones per se . What bother me is the fact that we require it when no other country does. If they don't, why should we?

Or we could be proud of what we're doing and hope that other countries follow suit.

Nick, I think you're just ignoring the realities of liturgical music publishing, which is now an international phenomenon, not a national one. The fact that, for example, Composer X's Mass, published by OCP or GIA, can be marketed over here and used without problem, senza references to the Missal tones, while the same setting needs to be amended if it is to appear in an English publisher's hymnbook or supplement, is nothing less than farcical.

[Nick Baty]

And with that one cannot disagree – although hasn't music publishing been international for several decades, if not centuries. But why complain that in E&W we're encouraging our presiders to sing just because another country isn't. If America was to go a bomb some country for no good reason should the UK simply follow suit. (OK, perhaps not a good comparison.)

[presbyter]

In case anyone is wondering, I am not ignoring the issue about the anonymity of the Panel members - but I cannot make up my mind whether this is a good or bad thing!

Nor me.

However, what has not been addressed is the speculation about who the panel members are - not so much on this forum but on another. Two of us who post here, for example, have been accused (I choose that word carefully) of being members of the panel and of being in cahoots with the Assistant Secretary of the Bishops' Conference Liturgy Office. The accusation resounds with sarcasm and should it continue, on scrutiny of the wide-ranging styles of music passed by the panel, I imagine there could be overtones of odium around the corner. There has already been a libellous comment on one blog about one of the two posters I mention, concerning the money he allegedly could be making out of Catholic Church Music from his association with the permission to publish process. The other poster has not been libelled but is tangentially involved because of his relationship with the first poster in that they did something together for this Society and the Liturgy Office.

The two people that I mention who post here are not, not, not members of the panel. They both can do without their good names being defiled by scurrilous gossip (which, to the poster on the other blog, if you don't know already, is grave matter for the confessional).

[NorthernTenor]

And with that one cannot disagree – although hasn't music publishing been international for several decades, if not centuries. But why complain that in E&W we're encouraging our presiders to sing just because another country isn't. If America was to go a bomb some country for no good reason should the UK simply follow suit. (OK, perhaps not a good comparison.)

No-one is complaining that our priests are being encouraged to sing.

[presbyter]

No-one is complaining that our priests are being encouraged to sing.

I know a few who you'd prefer that they did not.

[Colin Mawby]

I again stress that the only way to bring this ignominious and totally ineffective censorship process to an end is for all publishers and composers to ignore it. In the world of politics this is known as "people power".

I again ask the members of the anonymous panel to consider their positions, understand the enormous harm that they are doing to Catholic music, the cynical distrust that they are sowing among comosers and publishers, show themselves as people of principle and resign forthwith.

Colin Mawby

[mcb]

It seems to me that censorship is a loaded word, and thoroughly inappropriate for describing the Panel process, whether or not one finds the detail of the process to be excessively prescriptive about non-textual matters. There's no call for hysterics. Moreover, there's a distasteful irony in upholding as a beacon of liberty a publisher who, seemingly, intends to keep on promoting music that could be seen as a continuing obstacle to good liturgy.

[Nick Baty]

I again stress that the only way to bring this ignominious and totally ineffective censorship process to an end is for all publishers and composers to ignore it.

But all that will happen in this case is that ICEL will refuse permission to publish and British composers, publishers and parishes will be the poorer for it. And while, as a couple of people have already mentioned, the corporation is unlikely to want the bad publicity of pursuing a small publisher over a couple of comas, I can't see it sitting back while large publishers print large runs and promote them in schools and parishes all round the English-speaking world.

ICEL isn't just about full stops and commas. It's about making sure the the official translation is used – including those parts which are in the public domain, for which, by the way, it doesn't charge royalties, despite what one might read elsewhere. As I understand it – and doubtless I'll be corrected again – the entire Roman Missal is under ICEL's copyright except for national propers and adaptations.

So if you want to publish a standalone Sanctus, you could get away with doing so without ICEL's permission. Although if you deviate from the text, ICEL would still, in theory, have the power to reprimand.

For some years, in England & Wales, it's been the practice to compose the eucharistic acclamations as a musical whole – I haven't seen this is writing before 2005 but, again, I could be wrong – and I'm with SC in applauding this. However, then you really would need ICEL's permission – and they won't give it without the certificate from the local bishops' conference.

If the panel process does have glitches and loopholes, surely the correct process would be to make formal representation to Bishop Alan Hopes, citing all the music, from a variety of sources, which has been held back for reasons other than textual fidelity. It's certainly not very helpful or constructive to post claims of "censorship" all over the web.

[NorthernTenor]

It seems to me that censorship is a loaded word, and thoroughly inappropriate for describing the Panel process, whether or not one finds the detail of the process to be excessively prescriptive about non-textual matters. There's no call for hysterics. Moreover, there's a distasteful irony in upholding as a beacon of liberty a publisher who, seemingly, intends to keep on promoting music that could be seen as a continuing obstacle to good liturgy.

Censorship is an appropriate word here, mcb, for an apparently deliberate distortion of the process to impose restrictions in arguable matters that are outside its stated purpose. The lack of openness and the anonymity of Panel members serve to strengthen this perception - if it waddles and quacks, it's probably a duck. And it is the farce that passes for the process in England and Wales that is hysterical, not those who condemn it for what it is.

Finally, there's nothing distasteful in upholding the rights of someone you disagree with. There is in not doing so.

[NorthernTenor]

ICEL isn't just about full stops and commas. It's about making sure the the official translation is used – including those parts which are in the public domain, for which, by the way, it doesn't charge royalties, despite what one might read elsewhere. As I understand it – and doubtless I'll be corrected again – the entire Roman Missal is under ICEL's copyright except for national propers and adaptations.

Where to begin with this nonsense? If a text is in the public domain it it can't be under ICEL's copyright; and more than one source (including SC, on this board) has reported that ICEL has attempted in the recent past to levy fees on the publication of public domain material to which it has no right.

So if you want to publish a standalone Sanctus, you could get away with doing so without ICEL's permission. Although if you deviate from the text, ICEL would still, in theory, have the power to reprimand.

This is a bit like saying that you have the right to reprimand me for a polyphonic sanctus, and I you for you assemblyolatry; and we both have the right to ignore the reprimand. In other words, it adds nothing to the present discussion.

For some years, in England & Wales, it's been the practice to compose the eucharistic acclamations as a musical whole – I haven't seen this is writing before 2005 but, again, I could be wrong – and I'm with SC in applauding this.

Please pay attention, Baty N. The point is not whether you think it's a good thing or not, but that it's an arguable issue outside the stated purpose of the Process.

However, then you really would need ICEL's permission – and they won't give it without the certificate from the local bishops' conference.

Ditto, Baty N. The point is that it's quite feasible these days for composers and publishers to shift their country of publication; and the longer the Liturgy office continues in its high-handed yet bunbling way, the more likely they are to do so.

If the panel process does have glitches and loopholes, surely the correct process would be to make formal representation to Bishop Alan Hopes, citing all the music, from a variety of sources, which has been held back for reasons other than textual fidelity. It's certainly not very helpful or constructive to post claims of "censorship" all over the web.

The Church is the world's biggest old boys' network - Freemasons, Stalinists and English public schools just don't get a look in. Old boys' networks hate it when people rock the boat: they'd much rather them have a quiet, respectful word here or there, resulting in some minor adjustments that don't require anyone to admit they were wrong in the first place. I don't think I need to explain the many ways in which this is a bad thing. Post away, Colin.

[presbyter]

Case study.......

Number of Holy in the Sanctus:

Just idly wondering from how far back in history the panel are applying the principle of case law.

Victoria - Missa Simile est Regnum Coelorum - six Sanctus in the alto part.
Palestrina - Missa Assumpta est Maria - four Sanctus in Soprano 1.
Lassus - Missa Octavi toni - five Sanctus in the alto part.

Presumably all published with Roman approval at the time?

[Calum Cille]

Get this.

"As with the Dialogue before the Preface, composers may, of course, create their own settings of the doxology. However, since many presiders will be limited to the Missal version, it may be wise to compose a setting which allows that as an option. The Missal page 25 version may need to be transposed into a suitable key and indication of the starting note should be provided in any published setting."

"Settings of the acclamations of the assembly in the Eucharistic Prayer should be complete and have a musical integrity.

Ordained ministers should be encouraged to sing those parts proper to them. Therefore allowance should be made for use of Missal tones for texts such as the Doxology."

Get on with you.

[Nick Baty]

Victoria - Missa Simile est Regnum Coelorum - six Sanctus in the alto part.
Palestrina - Missa Assumpta est Maria - four Sanctus in Soprano 1.
Lassus - Missa Octavi toni - five Sanctus in the alto part.

Or does one add the total number of Sanctuses and divide by four (or three or five) to get the true number.
But as these were not intended for the assembly, presumably they would now not get anywhere anyway.

[quaeritor]

In all the sound and fury have we forgotten that GIRM said (in No 393):

Bearing in mind the important place that singing has in a celebration as a necessary or integral part of the Liturgy, all musical settings of the texts for the people's responses and acclamations in the Order of the Mass and for special rites that occur in the liturgical year must be submitted to the appropriate office of the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales for review and approval prior to publication.
The Conference is likewise to judge which musical forms, melodies and musical instruments may be admitted in divine worship, provided that these are truly suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use.

That "the Conference is . . to judge . " seems to create not only a "right" but a duty to say that some setting won't do - and in terms that include its "musical form" and "melody" - and on the basis of "judgement", not some form of documented specification. It doesn't leave much room for "how dare these unqualified dabblers tell me that my stuff isn't fir for purpose?" To suggest that "they" can tell me that my setting is not worthy, but not through this committee or on that piece of paper, so I don't need to take any notice, would be a very Catholic way of playing by the rules but scarcely worthy of us (I hope).

Grumpily (again )

Q

[Calum Cille]

It doesn't leave much room for "how dare these unqualified dabblers tell me that my stuff isn't fir for purpose?"

Well, if you put in those terms, no, it doesn't, but we could paraphrase: "on what grounds do the Bishops, or those they have delegated judgement to, invalidate the appropriateness of my composition for liturgical use?" Having the right to judge is not necessarily the same as producing right judgement or reasonable grounds for judgement, or even a fixed, immutable judgement. Bishops, as priests, are well-versed in making accommodations. A 'dabbling' bishop may be less willing to pronounce musical judgement; hence, he may delegate responsibility to people with more narrow and rigid musical opinions. It is quite appropriate for composers to speak up for their own sensibilities on how musical forms relate to tradition, theology, pastoral concerns and so on, as a bishop may appreciate this kind of information in order to form his own opinions.

Get this.

There is an inconsistency between theory and practice in the "Guide for Composers" if you oblige composers to produce musical conformity between a modern sanctus, memorial acclamation and doxology and amen and then assume the average priest will come along and not perform the modern doxology but a traditional doxology which does not musically conform even to the Amen.

Given such inconsistency between theory and practice, if a priest sings the doxology as per the missal tone, why is it better to sing a modern amen to it which links musically to the modern sanctus and modern memorial acclamations rather than to the actual doxology melody used in practice? Would it not be equally musical, and stylistically very appropriate, to follow the missal tone doxology melody with the traditional ending? Would it not be musically just as sensible to a congregation who know and may expect the traditional amen melody as the ending?

If you can't provide priests willing to learn new doxology melodies, how can you expect musical uniformity across the entire eucharistic prayer? If you are already making provisions for a commonly occurring lack of uniformity in practice, why demand it of composers in the first place who are composing for practical purposes? Isn't there a clash between actual practice and pie in the sky which means that you should not be obliging any composer to do anything?

The next thing they'll be telling us is that the verse of a responsorial psalm must finish on the same pitch as the starting note of the response, no exceptions. I believe it would impoverish modern religious music to insert any more such formal obligations of specific compositional patterning into guides for composers.

Telling composers that they "should" take the doxology missal tone into account when composing their own doxology and amen is quite unwarranted. If I have access to a priest and congregation who can manage my modern doxology and amen, why should I bother relating them to the traditional tone? And if I have a priest who doesn't know my modern doxology and amen, why "should" the congregation have to sing my modern amen after his traditional doxology? The modern musical conformity of the eucharistic prayer has already been broken, we've moved back to the traditional from the modern. Need I go back to the modern just for one word?

Get on with you. This is whimsical stuff indeed for an obligation.