Realising Bishop Alan's hope

[johnquinn39]

Bishop Alan 'hope[s] that it (The Processional) will inspire composers to create new songs and chants to enrich the liturgy'.

Okay, here's my 5 cents:

Would it be a good idea to set up a Processional blog, where musical settings could be posted, and people could compare and contrast, and report if they were having any success with these?

Would it be a good idea to combine resources and have musicians from widely different backgrounds collaborating?

Do we at the SSG blog need to reach out to other organisations (JHN etc.) for dialogue?

PS

I have been looking at some psalm responses for 'Common Worship' by James Cullen. If Mr. Cullen is writing settings for the Propers, I think that this bodes very well for the future.

[johnquinn39]

I forgot to say that the Processional is, in my view, an outstanding resource.

Hats off to John Ainslie!

[gwyn]

[*]Would it be a good idea to set up a Processional blog, where musical settings could be posted, and people could compare and contrast, and report if they were having any success with these?

[*]Would it be a good idea to combine resources and have musicians from widely different backgrounds collaborating?

[*]Do we at the SSG blog need to reach out to other organisations (JHN etc.) for dialogue?

Excellent suggestions.

The Offertory Procession texts (at first viewing) seem to present something of a challenge.

[Nick Baty]

Would it be a good idea to set up a Processional blog, where musical settings could be posted...

And stolen!!!

[John Ainslie]

The Offertory Procession texts (at first viewing) seem to present something of a challenge.

I don't think you should feel under any compulsion to use all of a given text from the Missal or Graduale Romanum. In composing some trial chant settings, I discovered that, in many cases, the first phrase of a text contains its gist and can serve as a refrain short enough to be memorable. Professor Dobszay used the same technique in his Graduale Parvum, leaving the remainder of the given text to form a first 'psalm' verse.

Composers, be selective, imaginative and creative!

[gwyn]

That's Reassuring John. Thanks.

[dmu3tem]

Yes, this is an attractive idea. What about text copyrights though? I know this is maddening, but my understanding (no doubt flawed) is that publication on the internet without permission from text (including translation) copyright holders could render the website host as well as the composer liable to prosecution!

Note in particular how with Mass Ordinary settings ICEL is prohibited from granting copyright permissions if the setting has not been 'approved' by the Bishops Conference music panel. My presumption (I hope flawed) is that this system is being steadily expanded to encompass more texts, including Proper settings.

Until the law (and accompanying ecclesiastical policy) is changed publishing settings on the internet without proper permissions looks to me to be a very risky undertaking. Note that if stuff is up there on the internet it can be 'discovered' at any time by those holding copyrights; whereas a hard copy with local circulation and a limited run stands a much better chance of not being tracked down, given that you can produce stuff without going through the Bishops Conference Panel procedure if it is just for use in your local parish alone (Have I got this right?).

If I could be reassured of absolute 'safety' on such points I would welcome the opportunity to disseminate lots of settings of my own. The fact that the position is confusing (and maybe unclear) inhibits me (and no doubt others) from doing so. Copyright law as it stands restricts creativity.

[Nick Baty]

All depend if your are using the text exactly as given or using the psalm suggestions given by The Processional.

[John Ainslie]

Note in particular how with Mass Ordinary settings ICEL is prohibited from granting copyright permissions if the setting has not been 'approved' by the Bishops Conference music panel. My presumption (I hope flawed) is that this system is being steadily expanded to encompass more texts, including Proper settings.

Settings of the Proper antiphons do not come under the scope of the Bishops' Conference 'Panel' because they are not mandatory liturgical texts. Entrance, Offertory and Communion antiphons are specifically excluded from the scope - see the Liturgy Office's Composers' Guide, page 31.

Publication of ICEL texts on the internet for non-commercial use are covered on page 25 of the ICEL Publications Policy document (see http://icelweb.org/copyright ).

The only point on which I am currently checking with the Liturgy Office is the line on page 25 which says:

(3) The ICEL translations and texts must be followed exactly;

This could be interpreted to exclude the pick-and-choose policy I have advocated.

[Southern Comfort]

My understanding is that ICEL has said that it cannot police what is published on the internet and so will not even try, preferring to use its resources for other projects.

My question is, why would anyone want to keep to the ICEL texts anyway? They are not even an option for the Entrance and Communion antiphons, except in the USA. That gives composers the opportunity to think outside the box and come up with something that is rather more appropriate to the liturgical day or week or season than the "proper" texts, which are in fact not proper at all in the strict sense of the word.

In other words, Bishop Hopes hopes that the Processional will inspire composers to create wonderful new things. I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to stick to the ICEL texts in the Processional.

And by the way, I too think that the Processional is a valuable resource. I just don't think we need to take its contents as a literal and verbatim text. It can inspire in other ways.

[Nick Baty]

Hear! Hear!

[dmu3tem]

My question is, why would anyone want to keep to the ICEL texts anyway? They are not even an option for the Entrance and Communion antiphons, except in the USA. That gives composers the opportunity to think outside the box and come up with something that is rather more appropriate to the liturgical day or week or season than the "proper" texts, which are in fact not proper at all in the strict sense of the word.

In my case the answer is quite simple. In the Missal/Misselettes in use in the parishes I go to you are faced with some printed Proper texts. From the point of view of simplicity in getting the congregation to participate the obvious course is to use these.

If you use another text, or a text that has been adapted or altered from the one given in the Misselette, then you have to provide the congregation with copies. This, of course, is often quite simple to do; but it is one more little hurdle for the congregation to 'jump'. I notice that many people in congregations do not really look even at the Misselettes; so asking them to pick up another sheet might just be 'too much for them' (hard though this is to believe), especially if they also have to grapple with a hymnal. The only ways round this are to do what I have seen done in some Anglican parishes - prepare a complete Mass text with all the 'bells and whistles' for that particular Sunday. This is very labour-intensive.

These problems of course do not arise if the Proper is just sung by a Cantor/Choir; but my understanding is that this is not really what the authorities want at parish level. There is no doubt though that in such circumstances the greater flexibility in the choice of text combined with the expansion of specialised techniques made available by having trained singers gives composers more creative scope.

[JW]

My understanding is that ICEL has said that it cannot police what is published on the internet and so will not even try, preferring to use its resources for other projects.

My question is, why would anyone want to keep to the ICEL texts anyway? They are not even an option for the Entrance and Communion antiphons, except in the USA. That gives composers the opportunity to think outside the box and come up with something that is rather more appropriate to the liturgical day or week or season than the "proper" texts, which are in fact not proper at all in the strict sense of the word.

In other words, Bishop Hopes hopes that the Processional will inspire composers to create wonderful new things. I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to stick to the ICEL texts in the Processional.

And by the way, I too think that the Processional is a valuable resource. I just don't think we need to take its contents as a literal and verbatim text. It can inspire in other ways.

A lot of interesting points made in this thread. And our current hymnals are full of scripturally inspired thinking outside the box, so there are good precedents to follow.

There seems to be a demand "out there" for something appropriate for every Sunday. This is partly due to missal publishers including Entrance and Communion Antiphons without making it clear that these are not obligatory texts for singing. Some people (perhaps looking for certainty from the Church) thinks that a Mass is deficient if other texts are used. When texts were prescribed in the Tridentine Rite, very few parishes sang even one of them on a Sunday. And they were sung by the choir, never by the people.

People like singing familiar things and different entrance, offertory, communion and recessional processionals each Sunday would probably have little success in practical terms. Our aim should always be centred on encouraging our congregations to sing. Whilst choir and solo items have their place, most music in a parish Mass should be sung by the people.

[Nick Baty]

In the Missal/Misselettes in use in the parishes I go to you are faced with some printed Proper texts.

Bin the missalettes. They are of no use. Give the assembly a simple printed sheet with hymn texts psalm response etc all in one place. And they really do get used to reading the dots after a while.

This is very labour-intensive.

Perhaps 20 minutes a week?

[John Ainslie]

This is partly due to missal publishers including Entrance and Communion Antiphons without making it clear that these are not obligatory texts for singing... People like singing familiar things and different entrance, offertory, communion and recessional processionals each Sunday would probably have little success in practical terms.

I quite agree. And indeed, as explained on page v of the Introduction of the Processional, considerable latitude is allowed in the use of texts from both the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex, precisely ‘so that pastoral necessities may be more widely satisfied’. So repeat the texts for several Sundays on the trot. No one minds arbitrary choices of hymn for the processions, why cavil at the choice of antiphon texts? At least they in the officially recognised liturgical sources.

By the way, there is no such thing as a recessional processional. Perhaps, as in Italy and Spain, we should obey the priest/deacon's instruction to 'Go in peace' and do so promptly!