PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

Acclamations 8: Accepted
Acclamations 9: Withheld: Editorial. "First 'Hosanna' missing hyphen. Doxology – spelling of 'unity'.
Acclamations 10: Accepted
Gloria 3: Withheld: Editorial. "Spelling – 'Begotten. glory lower case". Observations: "Might 4th chord by Bm7?"

[Southern Comfort]

No idea which acclamations, etc, you're talking about, Nick, (are they really titled just by number?) but the panel's "withheld editorial" reactions seem as childish as ever. When we descend to the level of a missing hyphen, I think we're totally misunderstanding how publishers work, especially in the light of some of the published major howlers that the Panel apparently have not noticed at all.

[Nick Baty]

are they really titled just by number?

Not at all, SC. Just keeping to the original purpose of this thread which is to share feedback comments – so the titles don't really matter. All corrections done and resubmitted in the hope of getting approval early next week.

in the light of some of the published major howlers that the Panel apparently have not noticed at all.

And if published works are to set a precedent, this could be fun!

[NorthernTenor]

are they really titled just by number?

Not at all, SC. Just keeping to the original purpose of this thread which is to share feedback comments – so the titles don't really matter. All corrections done and resubmitted in the hope of getting approval early next week.

in the light of some of the published major howlers that the Panel apparently have not noticed at all.

And if published works are to set a precedent, this could be fun!

The most enjoyable and thought-provoking conversations are usually those that explore a subject, our experience of it and their ramifications. Attempts to straight-jacket conversation in order to ignore issues and experience with which some are ideologically or emotionally uncomfortable are boring and limiting.

In this case, it is perfectly natural to examine Panel decision-making from many different angles, including underlying issues of purpose, implementation, efficiency and justice; especially when such discursion relates to particular submissions, and so isn't really discursion at all. That's true of SC's observations above, as it is of my own reports of the manifest failings of the Process in the case of my own Capel-y-fin Mass, culminating in my notice on the previous page that I've decided to publish and be d****d:

Shares may be down but Alium Music's website is up, replete with downloadable:

• Capel-y-ffin Mass, in editions for choir, organist and congregation.
• Our Father, for congregation and either/both choir/organ.
• Hail, holy queen, which can be sung by choir or choir & congregation (editions are available with & without organ accompaniment).

More to come, from the hon. prop. & others.

For the interest of those following the disaster-in-slow-motion that is the Permission to Publish process in England and Wales, the Gloria setting of the Capel-y-ffin Mass has received permission to publish from both ++Ecclestone Square & the copyright holder, ICEL. All other texts from the 2010 translation of the Roman Missal are in the public domain - but are nonetheless followed with scrupulous fidelity.

[HallamPhil]

How generous of you to make your music so available to all. It is good to be able to match the musical voice to that of written comments here. I am surprised however that the Panel gave permission to a setting of the 'Sanctus' without the other required eucharistic acclamations.

[Southern Comfort]

I think NT's point is that the Panel has not in fact approved anything. He appears to have been waiting several months for an appeal process to get off the ground, but nothing has happened.

I agree with Phil that it is good to be able to see the musical voice behind the name. It is an interesting one.

It is also good to be able to see engraving skills (or lack of them) in action. The Our Father, to examine just one item, demonstrates misplaced hyphens, inconsistent and unrefined slur shapes, amusing word divisions ("dail-y", for example), incorrectly positioned fermata and tenuto marks, etc. Some of these — plus barlines that do not appear at the end of the stave but further to the left — may of course be due to the limitations of the processing program he is using, whose identity is not clear. It's certainly not Finale, and it doesn't look like Sibelius. (If only it had been! The fact that an entire phrase from Finlandia has been pinched for use in the middle of the Our Father would be a not-so-subtle pun!) Whatever software it is (Noteworthy Composer?), it cannot produce an acceptable left-hand choral brace. This one appears to have tails that do not match the main bar in width (blow it up to a large size to see this more clearly).

[musicus]

How generous of you to make your music so available to all.

Agreed. I shall certainly be exploring these in more detail. Thank you, NT.

[musicus]

It is also good to be able to see engraving skills (or lack of them) in action.

Speaking for myself, I might have thought twice before posting that (and the detailed critique that followed). It's as well that Beethoven wasn't terminally discouraged by his publishers' repeated complaints about his musical handwriting!

[HallamPhil]

I coodent agroo maw, monstrum.

[contrabordun]

Yes. I've often disagreed with NT, but I think SC's comments above regarding the 'engraving' are not in the best tradition of this forum. Comment upon the music is fair, given that NT has chosen to publicise it here. But the scores are perfectly readable and to my eyes SC's comments about the typesetting came over as rather petty.

Even twenty years ago it would have been entirely uncommentworthy for somebody in NT's position to have been offering to post photocopies of MS scores out to interested parties.

[NorthernTenor]

How generous of you to make your music so available to all. It is good to be able to match the musical voice to that of written comments here. I am surprised however that the Panel gave permission to a setting of the 'Sanctus' without the other required eucharistic acclamations.

Thank you, Phil. The Panel didn't give permission for a Sanctus setting without the eucharistic acclamations. That's the nub of my disagreement with it: I believe that to be an arguable issue on which we may agree to disagree, and outwith the scope of the the Panel's purpose as stated unambiguously in its terms of reference: textual fidelity. As it happens I believe that the Mass should be sung when possible, and that it doesn't make sense to sing the Sanctus without also singing other related elements of the text. However, it doesn't follow from that that one must sing all from the same setting. That's a matter for the judgement of the local clergy and/or liturgical musician (in my own case I am happy to combine my Sanctus setting with music from the Missal). The Panel's approach displays a lamentable lack of intellectual clarity and an unfortunate impulse to control of a kind that would give the most hide-bound Ultramontane pause for thought.

In a sense, this wasn't a problem for me. I had separate permission from the Panel & ICEL to publish the only part of the setting subject to ICEL's copyright; and quite apart from that, ICEL permits free internet publication of settings that are faithful to the text, without their having gone through a local Bishops' Conference permission to publish process. However, I believe the Liturgy Office should have a role in encouraging liturgical music that is faithful to the letter and spirit of the liturgy, so I did my best to work with rather than agin it. Unfortunately, that hasn't worked out so far. I look forward to that being corrected whenever it deigns to get its *beep* into gear. It could begin by communicating with me.

The generosity isn't as generous as you might think. I'm sufficiently clear-eyed about these things to know that the only people with a chance of making a comfortable living out of new liturgical music are commercial publishers, and even they might think twice about combining their enterprise with liturgical principles (some might suggest they often do). What I want is for people to sing my music in service of the liturgy. The combination of Commons licence & digital distribution achieves that end (I hope). Also, in the unlikely event that someone works out how to make money from my settings, they'll need my permission first.

[NorthernTenor]

You really are your own worst enemy, SC.

For what it's worth, thanks for the feedback on the engraving. The advantage of digital distribution under a Commons licence is that I can take that feedback and use it to improve the product. The Our Father was engraved in Sib version 2 (ancient, I know, but it's an expensive asset). I'll take your advice into account. Perhaps you might do the same when I proffer the following: be more positive, let us know who you are, stand less on your dignity, be willing to learn from others and who knows - we might even warm to you.

ps well spotted - the melodic phrase was indeed from elsewhere, though the realisation was my own fault. Of course, it's well-nigh impossible to write tonal music without unconsciously falling prey to such memories (I discovered one in a degree submission many years after the event - fortunately, the assessors weren't familiar with that bit of Poulenc). Equally, it's only novel, romantic, modern ideas of originality that suggest that's remarkable (not to mention shallow, Mammon-serving notions of intellectual property).

[Calum Cille]

... inconsistent and unrefined slur shapes ... barlines that do not appear at the end of the stave but further to the left ... Whatever software it is ..., it cannot produce an acceptable left-hand choral brace. This one appears to have tails that do not match the main bar in width ...

Thu May 12, 2011 9:02 am "... the focus on the kind of minutiæ that we are seeing here is, quite frankly, unbelievable. ..."

[NorthernTenor]

Transferred from another thread at the not unreasonable request of the effervescent DP:

"composers don't trust the process nor the panel"

Ooh, that's a bit harsh on Martin Foster, Paul. I thought we were all on the same side....

My comment has nothing to do with Martin Foster, who is simply administering a scheme under rather trying circumstances. I hear nothing but compliments about the way in which he has dealt with composers and publishers.

What I was referring to was the scheme itself. We all know that there are composers and publishers who don't trust the process, nor the panel. NT has said so himself on many occasions, and I think Colin Mawby's views are pretty well known to readers of this forum; and of course there are others. We can all think of one publisher who said he would boycott it (the grapevine says that he has since relented, but who knows?).

I am bemused by [s]Paul's[/s] SC's comments. He is aware of allegations of Liturgy Office incompetence in its framing and administration of the permission-to-publish process. In my own case, this is backed up by analysis of a fundamental flaw in its terms of reference, and by reports of specific instances of problems in the process, arising from failures of organisation and communication. On the face of it, responsibility for this car-crash lies with the Department’s Acting Secretary and those responsible for managing him.

Now, [s]Paul[/s] may believe my analysis to be flawed and my reports to be either inaccurate or not the whole picture. If so, he should say so, with appropriate explanation, which I would be delighted to read. Without this, [s]Paul's[/s]SC’s implication that it’s all the fault of someone other than a hard-working and able Acting Secretary leaves one scratching one’s head for a possible motivation. Does [s]Paul[/s] SC know something we don’t? Has he worked through his own problems with the process, and it’s now a matter of “I’m all right, Jack, b****r you”? Or is he still in the midst of them and hopes that public praise will oil the wheels?

While we’re on the subject, have any of you noticed the apparent changes in the Panel’s terms of reference since they were published? I believe that one of those changes relates specifically to a matter which I have appealed on the grounds that the Panel has gone beyond its stated purpose. I fear the change was made after I raised my objection, in advance of the hearing of the appeal (whenever that might be). Now if that’s so, it will look suspiciously like an attempt to pre-empt and influence the appeal by quietly ‘clarifying’ the terms of reference in a way that lends support to the Panel’s interpretation. Such an action would be underhand and an abuse of position, so I asked Mr. Foster for a version history of the document, in case my memory was playing tricks with me (if it is I'll be as public in my apologies as I have been in my criticism). When he got over his evident confusion about what that meant, he promised me a copy of the document as authorised, so that I could compare it line by line with the current version (this was the very conversation in which he admitted to me that he’d waited until receiving an appeal before thinking about how it might be organised). Since then all has gone quiet. I have not received the promised material. In fact, not a word have I heard, either from Mr. Foster or his Episcopal management, either about the promised information or my own appeal, which seems to have disappeared into a black hole somewhere between SW1 and Leeds.

It’s all very rum.

[NorthernTenor]

I hasten to add that I posted on the other thread in the first place in response to others' comments, and that I readily understand (a) how a conversation about good tunes and new texts ended up mentioning the elephant in the Liturgy Office waiting room, and (b) why DP would prefer it moved elsewhere.