Chabanel Psalms Year B . . . now complete!

[AntoineDaniel]

St. Noël Chabanel Psalms are now complete.

Download them all for free, along with hundreds of others:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/chabanel/

or purchase the spiral-bound book:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/psalms/

[Southern Comfort]

Alas, the translation of the psalms used, and the version of the responses, are not authorised for use anywhere in the British Isles.

[JW]

The last sentence of Guide for Composers, para. 58 says "any question of adapting the text must be approached with caution and sensitivity". Therefore it appears that the text may be adapted. I notice, for example, there are adaptations of the texts in other published psalm settings. It may be useful to discuss this point further to identify what is actually permitted.

I've used two of the Chabanel psalms in the past two years: on one I altered the the response and verses so it was the same as the Jersulem/Grail but left the verses unaltered; the other, the response was the same as in the Jerusalem/Grail. I suppose that to even change a couple of words on a response so that it matches the Jerusalem/Grail version could be in breach of copyright, though I would argue this is fair use. Generally though, I'm not keen to adapt psalms when there are other good settings available.

Ideally, I think psalms used should be the translations approved but there are times when other settings fit the bill - e.g. all the differing settings of 'The Lord's My Shepherd' in use.

If you are looking for free psalms outside of the major hymnals there are other places to go (as discussed elsewhere) - and these set the approved texts.

[musicus]

The complete paragraph (Composers' Guide, #58) is as follows:

The text in the current Lectionary is the Grail version (1963) (see paragraph 10 on future of Lectionary). It is presumed that composers will set the text as given in the Lectionary. To allow ‘meditation on the Word of God’ the text of the response may be repeated and even in some cases be expanded with further text from the psalm itself. Any question of adapting the text must be approached with caution and sensitivity.

This does strike me as a little ambiguous. Does that last sentence refer to the text of the entire psalm or is it just a further observation about the text of the response? If it is the former, then, bearing in mind the presumption that we will be setting the Lectionary text, I would have thought that the same minimalistic interpretation of 'adapting' the text would apply here as applies to any adaption of the new Missal texts.

[Peter Jones]

Much as I applaud AD's psalm collection - and I do! - SC is correct. We just do not know as yet if current Grail or Grail IV will appear in the revised Lectionary here and furthermore, we do not know if the readings will be NRSV or ESV. (We have to remain in the waiting room for now.)

[JW]

Yes, also Appendix 2 states that the Psalms are not currently included in the permission to publish scheme, but is not totally clear as to whether or to what extent they may be replaced by alternative text, though it seems to suggest that they may be included in the scheme once the new Lectionary is available. (Sorry, I don't have the facility to cut and paste Acrobat text to quote the whole Appendix).

Respected composers are still changing the set texts. For example the Psallite Magnificat (B8) (which we will use Sunday week) sets the Response as:
My soul rejoices in God, all my being blesses God's name instead of My soul rejoices in my God. This is a change to the text, particularly the omission of 'my' before 'God'. The verses are then interrupted by interjections of (1) My soul rejoices in God and all my being blesses God's names [b]in addition to[b] the set response. Many of the Psallite psalms are similarly set. This would appear to be covered by the dispensation to 'repeat the response' as in para. 58 - but is it acceptable to repeat only part of the response? Also, we know that the panel have had views on repetitions and have rejected some settings because of their use of repetition.

Both the SSG Preparing the Liturgy and the Southwark Diocese Music planner contain psalms that can only be described as paraphrases, e.g. the Liturgy Planner includes Joncas 'On Eagle's Wings' for Common Psalm 2 (Psalm 90) next Lent. If such an adaptation can be used, I see no problem in theory with using psalm versions approved for the USA rather than the UK as well as fairly broad adaptations of any of the psalms.

Some clear guidance is definitely needed!

[Nick Baty]

Also, we know that the panel have had views on repetitions and have rejected some settings because of their use of repetition.

As far as I understand it, the Panel is working as an agency of ICEL so would have no input on the use of Grail I or IV unless requested.

[musicus]

Both the SSG Preparing the Liturgy and the Southwark Diocese Music planner contain psalms that can only be described as paraphrases, e.g. the Liturgy Planner includes Joncas 'On Eagle's Wings' for Common Psalm 2 (Psalm 90) next Lent. If such an adaptation can be used, I see no problem in theory with using psalm versions approved for the USA rather than the UK as well as fairly broad adaptations of any of the psalms.

True; however, starting with the last issue, Preparing the Liturgy now cites only psalm settings which are not paraphrases.

[dmu3tem]

I must say, when I hear of problems with copyrights and authorisations over religious texts like this I come close to despair. I myself have frequently felt unduely restricted by this with my own Responsorial Psalm settings. The gift of compositional creativity is a most uncertain commodity and cannot be easily switched on or off like a tap. If people in church are to have access to these gifts then people who are willing to offer them - and for free too - should not be restricted too much. Many people claim that church music compositions often leave much to be desired. If such claims are true then one reason for this must be the bureaucratic obstacles put in composers' paths. No wonder they retreat to texts that are out of copyright, draft texts of their own or concentrate on instrumental music. The result is inevitable - a smaller 'pool' of compositions to choose from with a higher proportion of works that are 'safe' but 'anodyne'.

In addition I have great difficulty with the idea that a text should necessarily be 'set in stone' and cannot be adapted to suit people's local need despite the fact that I know the Catholic church believes in a centralised 'top down' approach to texts. However if the texts are 'set in stone' then the case for removing or at least reducing copyright restrictions becomes very strong.

I also have difficulty accepting the idea of intellectual property as a commodity that can be bought and sold, especially in a religious context. Once an idea is expressed it is, for all practical - as opposed to legal - purposes, 'public property' and intrinscially difficult to manage.

The law, of course, is the law; so we must make every effort to comply with it; but I do think it should be changed.

[alan29]

I must say, when I hear of problems with copyrights and authorisations over religious texts like this I come close to despair. I myself have frequently felt unduely restricted by this with my own Responsorial Psalm settings. The gift of compositional creativity is a most uncertain commodity and cannot be easily switched on or off like a tap. If people in church are to have access to these gifts then people who are willing to offer them - and for free too - should not be restricted too much. .

Many of us do. But we operate only with our own parishes and have no desire to publish. Thats when it gets all legal and, dare I say it, political.

[musicus]

I also have difficulty accepting the idea of intellectual property as a commodity that can be bought and sold, especially in a religious context. Once an idea is expressed it is, for all practical - as opposed to legal - purposes, 'public property' and intrinscially difficult to manage.

Are you suggesting that composers ought to give their work away for nothing? That's a sure fire way of ensuring that less and less music will be composed.

[AntoineDaniel]

Thank you for these thoughtful replies.

[VML]

I also have difficulty accepting the idea of intellectual property as a commodity that can be bought and sold, especially in a religious context. Once an idea is expressed it is, for all practical - as opposed to legal - purposes, 'public property' and intrinscially difficult to manage.

Are you suggesting that composers ought to give their work away for nothing? That's a sure fire way of ensuring that less and less music will be composed.

I think what is meant is that the text of the Mass, once it is set as the definitive form of words, should be in the public domain.

[musicus]

Yes, now that I re-read him, I think you must be right.