PANEL decisions

[alan29]

Has the signal inadvertently been sent out that anyone who uses Sibelius etc to construct a setting for their own community is therefore publishing and therefore "required" to submit their stuff for approval all the way up to ICEL?
Or is that in fact the case?

[Ros Wood]

Like JW, I wrote a setting of the Eucharistic Acclamations to get my parish up and running. As soon as I was confident that they worked locally, I submitted to the panel and have now received approval and permission from ICEL to distribute it freely to anyone who expresses an interest. In the past I have shared my compositions within the Deanery and Pilgrimage. I wanted to make sure everything was in place before any requests came in. I would never consider my work good enough for commercial publication but if it helps others ...

[musicus]

Has the signal inadvertently been sent out that anyone who uses Sibelius etc to construct a setting for their own community is therefore publishing and therefore "required" to submit their stuff for approval all the way up to ICEL?
Or is that in fact the case?

I don't think so; the guidance has been clear on this from the outset: exclusively local use does not require submission.

[musicus]

Like JW, I wrote a setting of the Eucharistic Acclamations to get my parish up and running. As soon as I was confident that they worked locally, I submitted to the panel and have now received approval and permission from ICEL to distribute it freely to anyone who expresses an interest. In the past I have shared my compositions within the Deanery and Pilgrimage. I wanted to make sure everything was in place before any requests came in. I would never consider my work good enough for commercial publication but if it helps others ...

Further to alan29's query, you were, of course, quite correct in submitting your work to the panel, precisely because you anticipated it being used (albeit at no charge) outside your parish.

As to your last point, if your setting works in your parish, and if others are requesting copies, it seems to me that your point about it not being good enough for commercial publication is quite possibly moot. Most composers and authors have experienced rejection by publishers, and this is by no means always connected with how "good" it might be.

[quaeritor]

the guidance has been clear on this from the outset: exclusively local use does not require submission.

A masterpiece of "non-clarity" if I may say so, good Musicus. What is "exclusively" and what is "local" in this context?

It's very tempting to slip into "barrack-room lawyer" mode on these copyright matters, but try this for a moment of light relief (or excruciating boredom maybe):

I am choir master in one parish, but occasionally "moonlight" at another which happens to be the one in which I now live, and therefor "my" parish. I occasionally take settings written for the one (when that was "my" parish) to the other. Meanwhile one of the singers in my choir also "moonlights" in his own parish and wishes to introduce one of my settings for use there. Where do the boundaries of "local use" fall there?

(For your peace of mind I should point out that these settings pre-date the new texts and the submission process, but I'm sure the principle is the same.)

In another thread which I apologise for not tracing now someone was expressing disbelief that there could be so many "publishers" submitting settings for approval. The reason is simple - some have publisher status thrust upon them (sadly, not necessarily thereby "greatness" as in the original quotation)

Q

[musicus]

the guidance has been clear on this from the outset: exclusively local use does not require submission.

A masterpiece of "non-clarity" if I may say so, good Musicus. What is "exclusively" and what is "local" in this context?

Just trying to help! This is the clear message I took away from our many diocesan training session events and from my reading of the Composers' Guide (e.g. 'Many who compose music for the liturgy wish to pass on the fruits of their creativity to others, beyond the particular community for which it was first created.' #36). My situation is similar to yours, Q: I live (and occasionally minister) in one parish and minister regularly (I.e. play, sing and compose) in another. If I wish to use settings I composed for the latter in the former, then they need to be published. That's my understanding, anyway.

[Nick Baty]

And it's all much less complicated than some would have us believe: Use the authorised texts and all will be well. Try to publish a paraphrase and it won't be.
The complication arises when one wants to publish a paraphrase – as it's not an authorised text one doesn't need permission. And my head hurts!

[Nick Baty]

The reason the above makes no sense it that I may have written it after a large amount of scotch. Apologies!

[alan29]

So ........ if I set the authorised text, as I do, publish it for my parish and a visitor walks away with a copy ..... etc, etc.

[musicus]

Then they have stolen it. If they make copies they are in breach of your copyright. If they use it in the liturgy they are using an unauthorised setting (as they would be if you had given or sold it to them). That they may well get away with it doesn't make it right.

[NorthernTenor]

Still no sign of an appeal process. Six months now, and not even a mention of the issue in the Liturgy Office's self-satisfied review of its own activity. The Bishops' Conference of England and Wales is apparently a disorganised farce, and a dishonest one at that. In any organisation that aspired to term itself functional, this would be a matter for resignation.

The failure of the Society of Saint Gregory to make a public issue of this problem suggests that it's an establishment organisation more concerned with not rocking the boat than natural justice and good order. Why should anyone tale it seriously?

[keitha]

Given that this thread on this forum is (a) very public and (b) has enabled you to air your grievance about the appeals process in public, I'm not sure how much more the Association can do whilst continuing to act within its constitution. The views expressed on this forum (and on this thread in particular) about the Panel process (including the issues raised by you in relation to the appeals process) have been brought to the attention of the relevant organs of the Bishops' conference. Following the publication of the report to which you refer, we are currently looking at what, if any, role the Association could play in order to improve the process for all concerned.

[NorthernTenor]

It could publicly observe that a department of the Bishops’ Conference has consistently failed to act according to its own rules, in a matter of concern to liturgical musicians; that its review of its own process has made no mention of this; and that it is apparently using this secretive, unaccountable process for purposes other than that described unambiguously in its terms of reference. These are matters that concern honesty, competence and good order in the administration of activities central to the Society's interests, and which are the responsibility of senior members of the Conference. I understand that it would be painful for the Society to comment, but given the department's continuing failure to communicate on the matter, let alone apologise and explain, it would seem reasonable for it to do so. What prevents it?

[Peter Jones]

Six months now, and not even a mention of the issue ..........

I feel your frustration NT.

This statement appears on the Decani Music website:

A REVISED PEW EDITION OF LAUDATE IS ON ITS WAY

It contains the masses that have been revised in accordance with the 2010 English translation of the Roman Missal, and about twenty eplacement hymns. You can see what is new by looking at the contents of the Supplement. Most of the hymnbook will stay from the previous edition, even down to the numbering. We would like to have it available now, but we are awaiting a Nihil Obstat, a new requirement for hymn books that says that the contents are in line with church teaching. The last time this was required was in 1966! it was requested at the beginning of October and we have no date for when it will be given, and whether any changes will be needed. Once we get the go-ahead we can go to press, which will take 7-8 weeks because the pvc covers are only made by one firm in the UK.

[NorthernTenor]

Appreciated, Fr. The news about Decani is fascinating. Were I in their shoes - i.e. having my money-earning trade restrained - I would send a solicitor's letter to the Conference.

What a carry on!