PANEL decisions

[Dom Perignon]

I am sure that I heard that the choir of at least one of 'our' cathedrals uses the English Hymnal for singing hymns in parts. Now, back to the topic....

[NorthernTenor]

I am sure that I heard that the choir of at least one of 'our' cathedrals uses the English Hymnal for singing hymns in parts.

Fascinating and quite understandable.

Now, back to the topic....

Thanks for the forebearance with a pleasant discursion into something that achieves excellence because it is part of a living tradition, not something manufactured by the overbearing meddling of enthusiasts excited at being able to lay down the law and not have to account for it.

[PaulW]

How ironic: the panel's reply for one of my pieces recently submitted for consideration has misspelt my name. Perhaps I should return it: "withheld - editorial"...

[Southern Comfort]

Have just noticed that the melody/accompaniment edition of Phil Jakob's "New Wine Mass", which received Panel approval, has the end of the Doxology incorrectly notated (twice, on two successive pages) as G-F-F instead of G-A-G. (G-F-F was a much earlier draft version of the ICEL chant which was subsequently changed in response to international pressure, long before the Panel process was in place). One wonders how this happened. Phil, any clues? Is there a revised edition?

[Peter Jones]

Anyone received anything as a result of the panel meeting on 13th September? I'll wait for another day or two before I ask what has happened.

[Nick Baty]

Nothing yet. But I hear the whole staff has had an appendix removed so we should be patient!

[Peter Jones]

Nothing yet. But I hear the whole staff has had an appendix removed so we should be patient!

Oh right - thank you for that. I hope he's not too sore post-op and is recovering well.

[HallamPhil]

Thanks SC ... just in the nick of time as I was about to run off another 5000 copies!

Seriously though, it may have been an oversight on my part and I'm certain I would have just notated the priest bit as I have heard it on numerous occasions. I don't think it changes much at all as the Presider would not be reading from my incomplete rendering of the plainsong doxology. I don't hold a stock and only print on demand so I'll update the present edition and contact the Panel with the 2-note amendment.

[Southern Comfort]

You're welcome! I suppose I was really wondering how you got Panel approval with that mistake still in place (not that it would be the first time the Panel has approved things which don't conform to its apparent strictures).

[quaeritor]

. . as G-F-F instead of G-A-G. (G-F-F was a much earlier draft version of the ICEL chant . .

Aha! - maybe that's why my choir constantly messes up the Amen on the rare occasilons when the PP braves the sung version of the Doxology - half start on the note he ends on and half on the one below! - I've been racking (wracking?) my brains to work out why.

Incidentally (if I'm reading this right and G-F-F- and G-A-G refer to the final "ever") wouldn't the preceding "For ever" have to be wrong as well in order to lead into the G-F-F version?

Q

[HallamPhil]

SC, I wonder if the main thrust of your question should not be addressed to me but to the Panel ... unless you are insinuating some foul play or back-hander on my part?

But since you have addressed it to me and I have a moment ...
I suppose it does meet the Panel's strictures (from memory) in that it does give an indication of how the plainsong introduction relates even though I had been unaware that the end of it had been changed.
I suppose also that if this had been picked up by the Panel then they would have included it in the 'withheld editorial' list or general musical advice but that would have been dealt with easily. It's not as though anything of my composition was being overlooked in this regard. Although the scrutiny of time will tell.
I think there are far more serious questions regarding repetition and interpolation of extraneous texts to be asked about some settings which have been passed by the process. In America recently I was proudly shown a setting passed by their Panel and ICEL where a whole section had the earlier text. Back in UK I was also shown a setting passed by ICEL without any reference to the Panel. But having mentioned these I'd still wish them best of luck. At the end of the day I'd accept that composers, publishers and dare I say it even the Panel may be guilty of human error. Thank God!

[Peter Jones]

SC, I wonder if the main thrust of your question should not be addressed to me but to the Panel ... unless you are insinuating some foul play or back-hander on my part?

errrrr - I don't think he's insinuating anything Phil. I think the question is best addressed to the Panel. It is only the Panel that knows how the Panel works. Did ICEL - post-Panel - notice your mistake? Both the Panel and ICEL are fallible. The editors of the Glory to God collection discovered two errors after this had been approved by the Panel and by ICEL, for example.

[Southern Comfort]

Phil, I was certainly not insinuating that you had been bribing the Panel or anything like that. I just wondered if you knew how they had managed to approve your setting despite the errors in it (for example, you might have made some modifications post-approval to correct errors that you had found yourself and in so doing had accidentally introduced new ones).

I suppose that the underlying question might be rephrased like this:

How can the Panel justify being so pernicketty about tiny details which, rather than falling within the purview of textual fidelity, are actually often editorial matters for publishers, questions of house style, etc, when at the same time the Panel are approving things which clearly do not confirm to their pernicketty-ness because they contain egregious errors?

It seems to me that there are several strands to this question. One is about Panel inconsistency, one is about Panel policy, and one is about the problem of people's evident lack of respect for the process.

There are still composers out there who have consistently boycotted the process, which cannot be good for the Church at large; and there are certainly numbers of unhappy composers and, I think, publishers who did not boycott the process but who wish that it had been carried out in a different manner. From what I have been told by others, there does not seem to be a willingness to engage in a serious discussion about this — indeed, there seems to be a defensiveness which might be construed by some as an admission of guilt.

[musicus]

I suppose that the underlying question might be rephrased like this:

How can the Panel justify being so pernicketty about tiny details which, rather than falling within the purview of textual fidelity, are actually often editorial matters for publishers, questions of house style, etc, when at the same time the Panel are approving things which clearly do not confirm to their pernicketty-ness because they contain egregious errors?

Is not the most likely answer human error? That is, that these egregious errors were, for whatever reasons, simply missed by the Panel.

[Peter Jones]

It is hoped that Martin Foster will return to his desk in early October.