PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

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

I understand this detail was added at the request of our Bishops’ Conference, who soon learned that this sort of top-down control creates more problems than it solves. That’s why it came to be honoured more in the breach than the observance, and not just in relation to new music: the injunction that “the Conference is likewise to judge which musical forms, melodies and musical instruments may be admitted in divine worship” is stated separately from the restriction on permission to publish new music, and so applies to any music, new or not. This clause alone provides a reductio ad absurdum response to the legalistic approach to the GIRM, but it isn’t really necessary: the GIRM isn’t a tick list in which every item has the force of law and equal importance. It’s a work in progress about celebration of a work in progress (the new form of the Mass), and it needs to be reflected on in the context of tradition and practicality.

More fundamentally, the legalistic approach to the GIRM is evidence of how little we’ve moved from the Ultramontanism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a time when WG Ward could opine: “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast”. It now manifests itself in the crazy idea that an anonymous panel, selected and supervised by the Liturgy Office, should pick over the runes of an obscure, confused and ill-expressed document produced by that Office, in order to decree what liturgical music may be published, and what may not. As Calum Cille would say: get on with you!

[Nick Baty]

Telling composers that they "should" take the doxology missal tone into account when composing their own doxology and amen is quite unwarranted.

It's really only publishers who have to worry about this. Do what you like within your community. But if you're selling it further afield, make sure you've indicated how the two link together for those clergymen who are more at home with the Missal tone.

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?

The actual wording is:

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 version may need to be transposed into a suitable key and indication of the starting note should be provided in any published setting.

So it's as simple as showing the starting note in the score – see recent Decani publications for examples.

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?

Well there won't be any police around to see that they do. But, here in England & Wales, it's an expressed preference that the assembly's parts in the Eucharistic Prayer should have musical cohesion. And that isn't a new idea. It's in the 2005 draft of the Guide for Composers (which long predates the blessed Panel). And, in Celebrating the Mass, the bishops of England & Wales point composers towards that guide.

There's nothing new here. Paul Inwood and Bill Tamblyn (among others) were promoting such ideas back in the 70s, possibly earlier.

In short, you don't have to write a new doxology but if you do, simply indicate how the Amen could link to the Missal tone. Presumably, this is to assist parish musicians who can't quite work it out. It's not really that proscriptive.

[Calum Cille]

Telling composers that they "should" take the doxology missal tone into account when composing their own doxology and amen is quite unwarranted.

It's really only publishers who have to worry about this. Do what you like within your community. But if you're selling it further afield, make sure you've indicated how the two link together for those clergymen who are more at home with the Missal tone.

So, the first mention of the point in the "Guide for Composers" is for composers, whether publishing or not. Great then, I'll just not get it published in England and Wales, thank you, "Guide for Composers." That solves everything for people publishing in England and Wales.

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?

The actual wording is:

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 version may need to be transposed into a suitable key and indication of the starting note should be provided in any published setting.

So it's as simple as showing the starting note in the score – see recent Decani publications for examples.

Simplicity is not the issue, it's the obligation "to compose a setting" to facilitate a tie in with the doxology. "Therefore allowance should be made for use of Missal tones for texts such as the Doxology."

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?

Well there won't be any police around to see that they do.

Great then, I'll just not get it published, thank you, "Guide for Composers." That solves everything. There's no police running around to see that I attend mass either so not attending mass is alright too, then.

But, here in England & Wales, it's an expressed preference that the assembly's parts in the Eucharistic Prayer should have musical cohesion. And that isn't a new idea. It's in the 2005 draft of the Guide for Composers (which long predates the blessed Panel). And, in Celebrating the Mass, the bishops of England & Wales point composers towards that guide.
There's nothing new here. Paul Inwood and Bill Tamblyn (among others) were promoting such ideas back in the 70s, possibly earlier.

You know, some of us, including me, have actually been composing for longer than the 2005 draft of the "Guide for Composers", even using a musical conformity across the sanctus, memorial acclamation and amen. The age of such a practice should not place composers under an obligation to use it in any given circumstance.

In short, you don't have to write a new doxology but if you do, simply indicate how the Amen could link to the Missal tone.

Great, I don't have to compose a new setting of the doxology for mass as long as I don't publish! Super! It's all fine, then! The logical extension is that I don't have to compose a single thing, actually. What an encouraging document the Guide is under your interpretation.

Presumably, this is to assist parish musicians who can't quite work it out. It's not really that proscriptive.

Oh yes, it is, for a sensitive soul being asked to make a modern amen appropriate for use with a traditional tone. Hundreds might slap any old amen onto a traditional doxology tone, but I'm not one of them.

Your argument that this is no great burden to non-publishing composers (ie, compose away as freely as you like as long as you don't ever publish it because then you'll have to change it for this kind of rule) is ludicrous reason to accept the approach in the guide on this issue. Your argument that the approach to this issue can't be policed is also a ludicrous reason to accept it. Your argument that it is acceptable to slap any old amen onto a doxology as long as you match the keys just shows that the musical standards that you are happy for others (and possibly yourself) to use in the mass are of a different nature to my musical standards, and that is, for me, another ludicrous reason for accepting the Guide's approach on this issue.

[musicus]

CC, the words "slap any old amen on a doxology" were yours, not Nick's. Nonetheless, you make a good point. Reflecting on my own two new Mass settings, it is clear that the requirement to accommodate the ICEL incipits has influenced my musical decisions, especially regarding tonality/modality, which is rather daft (to say the least) because I would much prefer it if priests would sing my own. I could well understand a refusal to go along with this requirement.

[Nick Baty]

You know, some of us, including me, have actually been composing for longer than the 2005 draft of the "Guide for Composers", even using a musical conformity across the sanctus, memorial acclamation and amen.

So no problem for your there, then.

Great, I don't have to compose a new setting of the doxology for mass as long as I don't publish!

No. You don't have to write one even if it is for publication.

The logical extension is that I don't have to compose a single thing, actually. What an encouraging document the Guide is under your interpretation.

No you don't. Under anyone's interpretation there's no compulsion for anyone to write anything.

Hundreds might slap any old amen onto a traditional doxology tone, but I'm not one of them.

And, after all, surely the most important point here is that the assembly can sing it, regardless of what leads into it. And if it must follow your own setting of the doxology, what do you do on the day when Father has a day off and Fr AN Other stands in?

Your argument that this is no great burden to non-publishing composers (ie, compose away as freely as you like as long as you don't ever publish it because then you'll have to change it for this kind of rule) is ludicrous reason to accept the approach in the guide on this issue.

My argument is rather similar to MCB's – everyone is getting a tad hysterical about what might happen. We've have several examples from folk who've been knocked back for textual reaons. Only SC has cited composers who have been knocked back for non-musical reasons – and I'm pleased that he has. But none of the composers he mentions have posted their feedback comments on here. If they did, we would be able to discuss them more easily.

Your argument that it is acceptable to slap any old amen onto a doxology....

Not quite sure where I said that but, doubtless, someone will find it. (Note to self, stop posting while *beep*!)
(Why on earth have I been bleeped for a word which means intoxicated? *beep* if I understand this thing!)
*beep*! Forgot we're not allowed to say *beep*!

[Nick Baty]

I would much prefer it if priests would sing my own. I could well understand a refusal to go along with this requirement.

And what do you do when Father Unknown arrives to celebrate Mass?

[Calum Cille]

So no problem for your there, then. ...

You don't have to write one even if it is for publication. ...

Under anyone's interpretation there's no compulsion for anyone to write anything.

So that's alright, then. "People don't have to write for the liturgy," is your response to unwarranted obligations! Great one. You're a real encourager.

Hundreds might slap any old amen onto a traditional doxology tone, but I'm not one of them.

And, after all, surely the most important point here is that the assembly can sing it, regardless of what leads into it.

Eh, no, the point under discussion is unwarranted obligations being put on composers.

And if it must follow your own setting of the doxology, what do you do on the day when Father has a day off and Fr AN Other stands in?

And what do you do when Father Unknown arrives to celebrate Mass?

Need I go back to the modern just for one word?

Your argument that this is no great burden to non-publishing composers (ie, compose away as freely as you like as long as you don't ever publish it because then you'll have to change it for this kind of rule) is ludicrous reason to accept the approach in the guide on this issue.

My argument is rather similar to MCB's – everyone is getting a tad hysterical about what might happen.

No, your argument is simply that, if I don't like the obligation, I don't need to compose. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

But none of the composers he mentions have posted their feedback comments on here. If they did, we would be able to discuss them more easily.

I'm criticising the "Guide for Composers", not the panel's interpretation of it.

Your argument that it is acceptable to slap any old amen onto a doxology....

Not quite sure where I said that but, doubtless, someone will find it.

You quoted the following words of mine.

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?

You then wrote the following as part of your reply.

So it's as simple as showing the starting note in the score ... .

Given the lack of mention of further principles bearing on the matter, this therefore can be validly interpreted as implying that relating an amen to a traditional doxology is as "as simple as showing the starting note in the score", the implication being that it is so simple to do, no create vexation to a composer, that the obligation in the Guide is no great cause for complaint. Perhaps you would care to clarify.

[Nick Baty]

So that's alright, then. "People don't have to write for the liturgy," is your response to unwarranted obligations! Great one. You're a real encourager.

Not at all. Just confirming what you said.

And what do you do when Father Unknown arrives to celebrate Mass?

Which one word?

Otherwise, dear CC, rather valid points, leaving you with just seven possible courses of action:
1) Stop composing (but please don't!)
2) Continue composing but don’t publish
3) Publish via the panel process, following the rules
4) Publish via the panel process, ignoring the rules, and appeal if you’re turned down
5) Publish without the panel process and see if ICEL takes action (somehow doubt that they will)
6) Make a formal representation to the bishops of England & Wales
7) Get together with others who object to the process and make formal representation to the bishops of England & Wales

Am seriously *beep*-ed now and really must stop writing.

[Calum Cille]

Yes, dear CC, rather valid points.
Seems to me that you have just seven possible courses of action:
1) Stop composing (but please don't!)
2) Continue composing but don’t publish
3) Publish via the panel process, following the rules
4) Publish via the panel process, ignoring the rules, and appeal if you’re turned down
5) Publish without the panel process and see if ICEL takes action (somehow doubt that they will)
6) Make a formal representation to the bishops of England & Wales
7) Get together with others who object to the process and make formal representation to the bishops of England & Wales

Am seriously *beep*-ed now and really must stop writing.

Thank you for your potted tutorial and career advice, it was quite unrequested and unnecessary. This is about an England and Wales process, it doesn't really affect me. I'm criticising one aspect of the approach in England and Wales. The fact that you can tell me what I can do with myself and others on this forum is a ludicrous reason to accept or defend this aspect of the process.

[Nick Baty]

The fact that you can tell me what I can do with myself...

Trust me, there've been times when I've been tempted. Not with you, CC, but with one or two others! But suspect I'd be bleeped.

We either put up with the process or formally object to it.
No use wittering on about it here.

[Calum Cille]

We either put up with the process or formally object to it.
No use wittering on about it here.

I hasten to disagree. What is the purpose of any public forum? To provide the opportunity for all the relevant points to be discussed. That's not wittering, that's public debate. Any acquiescence or formal objection benefits from any fresh awareness that the public debate provides.

Reflecting on my own two new Mass settings, it is clear that the requirement to accommodate the ICEL incipits has influenced my musical decisions, especially regarding tonality/modality, which is rather daft (to say the least) because I would much prefer it if priests would sing my own. I could well understand a refusal to go along with this requirement.

In my case, having to tie an amen to a traditional doxology would influence the production of the amen in a very conscious manner. I would then have to compose my modern doxology to match my traditional-influenced amen. It just feels completely the wrong way round. I would prefer the modern amen to flow out of the modern doxology, not the sanctus, memorial acclamations and doxology out of the amen.

[Nick Baty]

I hasten to disagree. What is the purpose of any public forum? To provide the opportunity for all the relevant points to be discussed. That's not wittering, that's public debate. Any acquiescence or formal objection benefits from any fresh awareness that the public debate provides.

True. But it's not really going to get us anywhere.
Apologies for repeating myself but it really does seem that those who have been pulled up on textual issues have posted feedback here while those who have been knocked back for musical reasons have not. It really would help if they did. Might SC be able to persuade the composers he quotes to allow us to see their feedback comments?

[NorthernTenor]

Apologies for repeating myself but it really does seem that those who have been pulled up on textual issues have posted feedback here while those who have been knocked back for musical reasons have not.

No apologies for repeating myself: this isn't true.

[Calum Cille]

So that's alright, then. "People don't have to write for the liturgy," is your response to unwarranted obligations! Great one. You're a real encourager.

Not at all. Just confirming what you said.

And what I had said was what you had said but in other words, viz the following.

In short, you don't have to write a new doxology ...

Great one.

And what do you do when Father Unknown arrives to celebrate Mass?

Which one word?

The question

Need I go back to the modern just for one word?

was sited within the following paragraph.

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?

I hasten to disagree. What is the purpose of any public forum? To provide the opportunity for all the relevant points to be discussed. That's not wittering, that's public debate. Any acquiescence or formal objection benefits from any fresh awareness that the public debate provides.

True. But it's not really going to get us anywhere.

I hasten to disagree that public debate on this issue gets no one anywhere.

[NorthernTenor]

The misconception here, CC, is that it's possible to have a rational discussion with Nick about this. It isn't. If the facts don't fit the world as he wants it to be, he simply ignores them. If others' arguments undermine his, he doesn't address them. If they persist in disagreement with him, he dismisses it as wittering. Frankly, it isn't worth doing much more than pointing out the fallacies and inaccuracies as they arise. Reasonable dialogue doesn't appear to be an option.