Responsorial Psalms and Cantor / Organist Scores

[AntoineDaniel]

Here are some upcoming Responsorial Psalm scores:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2012/apr/14/free-responsorial-psalms/

All scores are free, and come withe video recordings.

And here are some scores for organists who function as cantors (out of necessity):

http://musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/6732/

[nazard]

Jeff,

Unfortunately the translation is not the one used in England and Wales, which limits their usefulness over here. I think that the plan is that one day we will use the same version (eventually).

Thank you for all your efforts.

[AntoineDaniel]

Ah, yes. I forgot. Does that mean that in England, everyone sings the SAME words for the Psalm each Sunday?

I wish that were true in the USA.

[Southern Comfort]

Ah, yes. I forgot. Does that mean that in England, everyone sings the SAME words for the Psalm each Sunday?

I wish that were true in the USA.

Where the psalm is sung (which is probably less than 50% of weekend Masses), people will almost always sing what is in the Lectionary unless they happen to be using a setting such as Bob Hurd's As the deer longs or Marty Haugen's Your love is finer than life. Not only is our psalm translation different from yours (though that may change if both countries adopt Grail IV — the US has already said it will do so, and when it does Watershed will have to scrap all its existing psalms and provide new ones), our responses are also different from yours (yours are currently ICEL, unconnected with any translation, ours use the words of the psalm translation itself, or Jerusalem Bible where the response comes from elsewhere in the bible).

[AntoineDaniel]

Southern Comfort, thank you for the information. I am willing to bet the English version is more beautiful than the American (knowing the English!). That being said, I have not been impressed with the Revised Grail.

However, regarding this statement:

when it does Watershed will have to scrap all its existing psalms and provide new ones

The USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship has said this is not the case (at least for another "20 years"):

http://musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/6596/

In the USA, we have hundreds and hundreds of "variant" texts approved as Psalm translations, most of them created by composers.

[alan29]

Ah, yes. I forgot. Does that mean that in England, everyone sings the SAME words for the Psalm each Sunday?

I wish that were true in the USA.

Where the psalm is sung (which is probably less than 50% of weekend Masses), people will almost always sing what is in the Lectionary unless they happen to be using a setting such as Bob Hurd's As the deer longs or Marty Haugen's Your love is finer than life. Not only is our psalm translation different from yours (though that may change if both countries adopt Grail IV — the US has already said it will do so, and when it does Watershed will have to scrap all its existing psalms and provide new ones), our responses are also different from yours (yours are currently ICEL, unconnected with any translation, ours use the words of the psalm translation itself, or Jerusalem Bible where the response comes from elsewhere in the bible).

... and in many parishes the response is printed in the newsletter, making it difficult to use different wording for fear of providing traps for the unwary worshipper.

[Southern Comfort]

In the USA, we have hundreds and hundreds of "variant" texts approved as Psalm translations, most of them created by composers.

Yes, you have hundreds of variants, but I'm willing to bet that nearly all of them are not approved. They just happen to have been published because composers set them like that.

The approved text is currently NAB for the psalms, as Msgr Hilgartner has confirmed, but Grail IV is now also authorized for use, it seems, alongside the two extant NAB versions. This is certainly the understanding of publishers, offices for worship and liturgy commissions, who are all aware not only that Grail IV is now authorized for use but will be what is used in any forthcoming revision of the Lectionary, whenever that happens to be. This is, after all, not only the latest English psalm translation but the only one that Rome itself has approved.

Msgr Hilgartner confirms that NAB will continue to be permitted for use [i.e. alongside Grail IV] for some considerable time, but everyone in the States who is commissioning new psalm settings is requesting Grail IV as the version to be used, not NAB. The implications of this are that the change could be effective more quickly than we think, even without a revision of the current Lectionary. If all new settings are using Grail IV, who is going to want to continue using such settings as Chabanel for very long?

[musicus]

A related question: are we in a position to know exactly what the responses to these psalms will be? It would be good to be able to get on with some new settings.

[Southern Comfort]

A related question: are we in a position to know exactly what the responses to these psalms will be? It would be good to be able to get on with some new settings.

It is thought that the response wording will be taken from the psalm text itself, as is the case now. If the response actually occurs in the verses, it's the only thing that makes any sense. The ICEL Lectionary responses were misconceived from the word go.

[Nick Baty]

This might be out of date, but the licence from GIA which administers the new Grail (RGP) states: "This license is restricted to countries or regions in which LICENSEE obtains the imprimatur, or other permission to publish, required by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority of said country or region. LICENSEE must observe the regulations established by the Roman Catholic conference of bishops, or its liturgical commission, in each country in which publication or distribution of the RGP is licensed."

However, after a little emailing backwards and forwards, GIA told me that as RGP "has a recognitio from the Vatican, approving it for liturgical use worldwide in the English-speaking world. It should not need further approval by English bishops."

They then decided they wouldn't need territorial approval before giving permission to publish a setting of, for example, Psalm 41(42) for a Communion Song but would if it were included in a collection intended for the Liturgy of the Word.

[AntoineDaniel]

If all new settings are using Grail IV, who is going to want to continue using such settings as Chabanel for very long?

We believe that people will continue to appreciate and prefer hearing the same words that are in our Lectionaries and Missalettes.

The USCCB Secretariat has hinted that it may be 20 years before a new Lectionary is printed in the USA.

[festivaltrumpet]

We believe that people will continue to appreciate and prefer hearing the same words that are in our Lectionaries and Missalettes.

Many clergy and laity have said exactly this regarding the translation of the Missale Romanum. It is not an argument which has been received sympathetically.

[Southern Comfort]

This might be out of date, but the licence from GIA which administers the new Grail (RGP) states: "This license is restricted to countries or regions in which LICENSEE obtains the imprimatur, or other permission to publish, required by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority of said country or region. LICENSEE must observe the regulations established by the Roman Catholic conference of bishops, or its liturgical commission, in each country in which publication or distribution of the RGP is licensed."

However, after a little emailing backwards and forwards, GIA told me that as RGP "has a recognitio from the Vatican, approving it for liturgical use worldwide in the English-speaking world. It should not need further approval by English bishops."

They then decided they wouldn't need territorial approval before giving permission to publish a setting of, for example, Psalm 41(42) for a Communion Song but would if it were included in a collection intended for the Liturgy of the Word.

I think you're muddying the waters, Nick. You're asking them questions they don't know the answers to, so they're improvising. They're publishers. They don't know about Roman / territorial issues. The use of a psalm translation in the liturgy would certainly need the votum of the local episcopal conference before it could be authorised. That's why the Kenyan bishops, who got in early, are using the pre-corrected version of Grail IV (if only we could have done the same!).

And that last sentence is just nonsense. Did they really say that?

If I were you, I would just leave it alone until our bishops have worked out what they want to do, which won't be anytime soon. In the meantime, the US bishops have decided for themselves, which is the point I was trying to make to Antoine/Jeff.

[Southern Comfort]

We believe that people will continue to appreciate and prefer hearing the same words that are in our Lectionaries and Missalettes.

But you yourself said that hundreds of different variants are being used. Clearly people don't mind that at all. As long as there's a decent cantor, any version will work, even if it doesn't tie in with what's in the missalette. People soon learn to listen and respond instead of reading along. I've been there myself and know that it's true.

(Of course, that means that they will still put up with Chabanel, even when you have changed to Grail IV!)

[Nick Baty]

Water muddying not intended, SC. In 2004 I wrote a piece which proved quite popular. Fount kept refusing permission to publish – I was using the text as it appears in the lectionary – they would only give permission for the full text as in the psalter. It's one of the texts which is unaltered in RGP so I asked permission of GIA and a licence was issued – and I discovered the paragraph I quote. That's how the conversation came began. And, yes, the final par is correct.