Liturgy Office - unjust prejudice?

[Peter Jones]

http://www.romanmissal.org.uk/Home/Videos/Gloria/Gloria

That the Liturgy Office has seen fit to endorse one particular commercial product in this video, rather than the Missal chants, is, in my opinion, unfortunate.

Do we not expect this agency of our Bishops to be without bias?

I'm sorry but there's manifestly one huge conflict of interest in this presentation.

[quaeritor]

That the Liturgy Office has seen fit to endorse one particular commercial product in this video, rather than the Missal chants, is, in my opinion, unfortunate.

Perhaps it was an attempt to make the rich variety and interest of the Missal setting stand out by comparison!

Q

[keitha]

I think that this was misguided - although, to be fair, I couldn't see anything identifying the setting.

[SAUnison]

Speaking as one of the 'congregation' from this video, I understand that the purpose of this video was to demonstrate good liturgical practice and the possibilities of simple sung settings for the average congregation - hence a simple unaccompanied Gloria. The setting used was a simple one that works well (we picked it up very quickly on the morning of filming). In other clips, music by other composers is used. I think it rather unfair to suggest a particular bias on the part of the Liturgy Office!

[Nick Baty]

Do we not expect this agency of our Bishops to be without bias?

But as we don't know which setting is used is this bias?
And if they'd used the Missal chants would this itself be bias?

[JW]

I couldn't see anything identifying the setting.

The cantor gives it away though. As for bias, I would have thought that the Liturgy Office could well be accused, as it has been above, of promoting one particular composer's setting.

Personally I have nothing against this setting. However, while playing it through there arrived an unsolicited denigrating comment on this particular soundfile from Mrs JW. Now Mrs JW doesn't like chant, never has done and never will do. If chant is presented as the only good liturgical practice, folk like Mrs JW will become even more alienated than they currently are! I suppose I should be grateful that a metrical hymn, 'Come Praise the Lord', is used for the entrance procession. Presumably the Liturgy Office aren't suggesting that metrical hymns are the best musical accompaniment to the Entrance Processional.

Fortunately there seems now to be a wide variety of usable settings drawn from many different traditions, listed on the Liturgy Office website.

Listening to the Kyrie: is it me or is the assembly out of tune with the cantor? I don't have access to the music. The Kyrie by the assembly sounds almost a semitone out. It may be an average congregation but I don't think we need to encourage congregations to sing out of tune? By the way, this congregation isn't an average one. The average Sunday congregation is nowhere near as well dressed, and will contain a number of children, and a greater ethnic, cultural and age mix. Also, not everyone sings in the average congregation though it will be much noisier!

It's far better to go to a church if you want to know what the new translation is about.

[mcb]

The cantor gives it away though.

Is it just me, or at 0:38, does he sing Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Mother??

[MaryR]

The cantor gives it away though.

Really? Do composers only cantor their own settings? May cantors only cantor settings they have written themselves? It only gives it away to people who both know the piece and recognise the cantor. I suspect that's not very many people at all!

Does anyone have anything else to discuss that doesn't involve bashing the Liturgy Office? I've not visited the forum for weeks because it was getting so tedious. I come back, and nothing's changed.

[mcb]

Agreed, I can't see anything unfortunate or misguided about this at all. What are you asking for, Peter - that only the Missal chants are used in illustrative materials? I can't see anything healthy in being as prescriptively minimalist as that. Or that the Liturgy Office be required to make one video of every published setting?

[Peter Jones]

Personally I have nothing against this setting.

I too have nothing against this setting and have made people aware of / promoted it in workshops. (And anyone who doesn't know what it is can always telephone the Liturgy Office and ask.)
It's a good example of a chant style of setting that works well.

Yet I truly am stunned by, what seems to me, to be an amazing act of naivety by the Liturgy Office staff ....... the person directing the music is (as far as I am aware) a member of the Formation Committee of that Office/Department and also, the person who is the main, commercial distributor of this music in E & W. He might possibly even be the composer of the music.

This is not good ethical practice, surely.

[SAUnison]

I think some people are reading far too much into these video clips...

My understanding is that they were intended as a help for people - ie. show the possibilities of using the new texts with sung settings or unsung. It wasn't meant to be prescriptive and shouldn't be read that way - just that here are some possibilities for your parish. As I remember the Missal tones were used for the Holy Holy and Acclamations but those clips have not yet been put up. As I see it, the Liturgy Office were trying to do something helpful and promote good practice - surely something the SSG should commend.
I wonder if there is an unjust prejudice against the Liturgy Office from some members of the forum...

[JW]

The cantor gives it away though.

Really? Do composers only cantor their own settings? May cantors only cantor settings they have written themselves? It only gives it away to people who both know the piece and recognise the cantor. I suspect that's not very many people at all!

Does anyone have anything else to discuss that doesn't involve bashing the Liturgy Office? I've not visited the forum for weeks because it was getting so tedious. I come back, and nothing's changed.

I suspect that most composers, if asked by the Liturgy Office to prepare a video of settings of the new translation, would take the opportunity to promote one of their settings - I certainly would (and I have been accused {once} of not promoting my setting enough, believe it or not!). Is it really the Liturgy Office's function to upload videos of random settings? If this forum is a vehicle for liturgical discussion, then constructive criticism will be a part of it.

Don't worry Mary, I'm steaming at publishers as well - there'll be a post in a second!

[Dom Perignon]

I have edited one or two postings on this thread because they go too far towards identifying persons/publishers. We need to keep an even hand between all composers/distributors/publishers, so please try not to make identification easier than it might otherwise be in this context.

[MaryR]

Yet I truly am stunned by, what seems to me, to be an amazing act of naivety by the Liturgy Office staff ....... the person directing the music is (as far as I am aware) a member of the Formation Committee of that Office/Department and also, the person who is the main, commercial distributor of this music in E & W. He might possibly even be the composer of the music.

This is not good ethical practice, surely.

Oh for goodness sake, Peter! Read SAUnison's post; this is meant to be an aid for people. I fail to see how this is a promotion of a certain composer's piece when there is absolutely no mention of the composer or the piece itself! Honestly, I'm fair ready to explode, only there isn't an emoticon for that!

[Peter Jones]

Or that the Liturgy Office be required to make one video of every published setting?

I think the Liturgy Office qua liturgy Office should make no videos whatsoever of commercial products.