PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

And what I had said was what you had said but in other words ...

I am glad that we agree that we agree!

Need I go back to the modern just for one word? was sited within the following paragraph.

Apologies. I thought you were referring to one word within the text of the liturgy.

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

It can get us somewhere – but we do appear to be going around in circles on here.
Still, you're a pleasant chap to debate with!

[NorthernTenor]

we do appear to be going around in circles on here.

... and his arguments are frequently circular.

[Southern Comfort]

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?

Nick, you've already had three examples:

I can point to a composer, one of whose new settings of a Sanctus was rejected on the grounds that there were too many Holy's and too many Hosannas, while in the same Panel session a revised setting of another Sanctus by the same composer, with the same number of Holy's and Hosannas, was approved. (Another revised setting by the same composer, containing even more Holy's and Hosannas, was approved in a subsequent session.)

comments such as "This setting seems to be driven by the music rather than the text. Approval withheld".

The Panel, in commenting on the fact that some revisions seem to be trying to fit the text to the music, rather than vice versa, have blithely ignored the fact that in the original settings the composer did exactly the same thing, in order to provide balance in the musical form and more importantly singability and memorability for the assembly, so there is nothing new here. It was OK then, so why not now?

What more do you want?

[Nick Baty]

Nick, you've already had three examples:

We've had your reference to them.

comments such as "This setting seems to be driven by the music rather than the text. Approval withheld".

Yes, that is an example – although given by your goodly self rather than the composer. Presuming this is a verbatim report, albeit unattributed, thank you for this. Can we presume this was texually accurate? Was the panel suggesting that the text had been adapted to fit the music?

What more do you want?

This thread started out as a place for people to share panel feedback – hopefully in a constructive fashion. It has turned into a rant from people who (mostly, although not exclusively) have not received feedback but are complaining about the process.

[NorthernTenor]

More of the same, I'm afraid (see my explanation to Calum Cille above).

[Calum Cille]

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

It can get us somewhere – but we do appear to be going around in circles on here.
Still, you're a pleasant chap to debate with!

Thank you but speak for yourself. I see myself as justifying my position in as structured a manner as I can with you!

And what I had said was what you had said but in other words ...

I am glad that we agree that we agree!

Then you have missed the sarcasm, the point of which was to disagree.

Need I go back to the modern just for one word? was sited within the following paragraph.

Apologies. I thought you were referring to one word within the text of the liturgy.

I was indeed referring to one word within the text of the liturgy, namely, 'amen', when I asked, "need I go back to the modern just for one word." You may like to reread the paragraph!

[Southern Comfort]

Nick, an addition to example 1 above. This setting of the Sanctus was not only turned down on the grounds of two many Holy's and Hosannas but on the grounds of too many "Blessed is he"s as well. Another setting with the same number of "Blessed is he"s, submitted subsequently, sailed through without a problem. Go figure, as our American friends say.

I think the point about all this is that the best congregational composers use repetition and sequence as a good way of providing "hooks" to facilitate memorability for congregations. (Indeed you do it yourself.) The Panel has no business interfering in this area of the artistic process, and when it disapproves on the grounds that it doesn't like the composer's technique in this regard it comes across as nothing less than small-minded.

I have even wondered if there is a whiff of jealousy or even of paying off old scores about all this, particularly when it comes to revised settings. The Panel, if it is at all competent in its field, must know who the composers are of the revised settings that come before it. That is why I wonder exactly what is going on in instances such as example 3 above. If any such sentiments are entering into what ought to be an objective process, then I must say that I don't like the smell of it. This is precisely one of the reasons why the previous process foundered in the early 1970s.

[Nick Baty]

I see myself as justifying my position in as structured a manner as I can with you!

In which case, CC, I will leave you to debate with those who understand you. Thank, though, for the discussion.

[Calum Cille]

This thread started out as a place for people to share panel feedback – hopefully in a constructive fashion. It has turned into a rant from people who (mostly, although not exclusively) have not received feedback but are complaining about the process.

Here is presbyter's original post reproduced. He gives no inkling that panel feedback must be posted by those who personally received the feedback.

I thought it might be useful to post some decisions of the anonymous "gang of five" to help composers.

For example - I have been informed today that

"When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup.........." is acceptable as a legitimate adaptation.

Note the required capitalisation and the necessary inclusion of "and".

If you have any useful feedback to post, please do.

Making a point and justifying it under criticism is not ranting.

[Calum Cille]

I see myself as justifying my position in as structured a manner as I can with you!

In which case, CC, I will leave you to debate with those who understand you. Thank, though, for the discussion.

You're welcome.

[Nick Baty]

[Presbyter] gives no inkling that panel feedback must be posted by those who personally received the feedback.

And I wouldn't ask that either. I am simply asking why the feedback is coming from those who have had textual differences rather than those who have been pulled up on musical grounds, in the light that so many on here are claiming the right to musical integrity.

[Nick Baty]

You're welcome.

Thank you.
Have a good night.

[Nick Baty]

SC, these are good points. And they raise interesting issues. But I'm still baffled about why so many on here on fuming about musical decisions allegedly made about various piece while the composers of said pieces are saying nothing. Obviously, they have a right to keep their own counsel but it's almost becoming a game of Chinese whispers!

This setting of the Sanctus was not only turned down on the grounds of two many Holy's and Hosannas but on the grounds of too many "Blessed is he"s as well. Another setting with the same number of "Blessed is he"s, submitted subsequently, sailed through without a problem.

Interesting point. But, as I said above, I do with we could hear this from the horse's mouth. Still, thank you for reporting it here.

Go figure, as our American friends say.

Please, let's not be overly critical of the developing nations.

I think the point about all this is that the best congregational composers use repetition and sequence as a good way of providing "hooks" to facilitate memorability for congregations.

But you can have sequence without repetition. (The Toys did a superb job in 1964 – but they did base Lover's Concerto on a bit of Bach!)

The Panel has no business interfering in this area of the artistic process, and when it disapproves on the grounds that it doesn't like the composer's technique in this regard it comes across as nothing less than small-minded.

Agreed.

The Panel, if it is at all competent in its field, must know who the composers are of the revised settings that come before it.

Yes, that's bound to be the case. Settings are place before the panel anonymously but, as you say, well-known settings will be known to the panel.

This is precisely one of the reasons why the previous process foundered in the early 1970s.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that, no matter what happens, it won't be allowed to this time.

[Southern Comfort]

I see myself as justifying my position in as structured a manner as I can with you!

In which case, CC, I will leave you to debate with those who understand you. Thank, though, for the discussion.

I think CC's point about having to tailor Amens, and even Memorial Acclamations, to the Missal tone is a valid one. The point is that the Missal tones are being promoted in England and Wales (but not so much elsewhere) as something that priests are being encouraged to use, regardless of (a) whether the Missal tones are any good to start off with, (b) whether they are within the priest's competence to sing, and (c) whether it would be better, on the grounds of the musical unity that the Guide for Composers is promoting, not to use the Missal tones at all!

I would like to see a setting submitted which includes the rubric "The Missal tone cannot easily be used with this setting" (or even "should not be used") at the beginning of all the Acclamations and the Great Amen (or the Doxology if the composer has set it). I wonder what the Panel's judgement would be?

I know a great many clergy who can sing the introductions to the Memorial Acclamations in the Celtic Liturgy and the Gathering Mass, and some of them even the Mass of Creation. They can also sing the doxologies to those settings. They have learned them over a period of years. In addition, some (but not all) of them can sing the current Missal tone doxology. But none of them sing the current Missal tone for "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith", and I doubt whether many of them will be able to manage the new "The mystery of faith" or the new doxology. The chant is not in our clergy's bones any more, whereas melodic/melodious settings can be easier to grasp.

[Southern Comfort]

But, as I said above, I do with we could hear this from the horse's mouth. Still, thank you for reporting it here.

Nick, very few of the conposers we are talking about even read the SSG forum, let alone post on it, hence the second-hand reporting.