Dunnow the source of this but it fits the tune "Repton

[gwyn]

Dear Lord and Father of mankind
forgive out foolish ways.
For most of us when asked our mind
Admit we still most pleasure find
in hymns of ancient days.

The simple lyrics from the start
Of many a modern song
Are far too trite to touch the heart,
Enshrine no poetry, no art
And go on far too long.

Oh for a rest from jollity
And syncopated praise!
What happened to tranquility?
The silence of eternity
is hard to hear these days.

Send the deep hush subduing all
Those happy claps that drown.
The tender whisper of thy call;
Triumphalism is not all
For sometimes we feel down.

Drop thy still dews of quietness
'til all our strummings cease;
take from our souls the strain and stress
of always having to be blessed;
give us a bit of peace.

Breathe through the beats of praise guitar
Thy coolness and thy balm
Let drum be dumb, bring back the lyre,
Enough of earthquake, wind and fire,
Let's hear it for some calm.

[musicus]

Nice!

[gwyn]

Mmmmm, indeed.

[Dot]

I wonder why it took five months for this witty lyric to provoke a response. I can see where Gwyn is coming from, and he is probably expressing a personal preference/aversion to particular musical styles, or perhaps to their inappropriate use. He happens to have struck a particularly sensitive chord with me at the moment, concerning how much one should adapt music to the style of ones own music group at the expense of the composer’s original intentions. “Repton” on praise guitar is a rather extreme example of this, but I have other examples I could quote if anyone were to take up this thread.

Dot

[Tsume Tsuyu]

Gwyn seems to have edited his original post on the 1st July which might be what provoked the response. I don't know which bit he's edited though!

I suppose how much you adapt depends upon what you have available to you in terms of singers and musicians. I should think there are lots of songs out there that are not being performed anything like the way the composer originally envisaged. It's a bit like poetry. You can buy a book of poems, but the poet can't make you interpret them the way he/she intended. Or art. You can look at a piece of abstract art, but what the artist intended you to see might not be obvious to you at all. People see and hear things in different ways.

If there are 'performance' notes, these can be helpful in pointing musicians/singers in the right direction, but it would still depend upon what resources one has. But whether there are guidelines or not, I think what's on the page is open to interpretation.

I'm sure some composers must cringe at the way their work is delivered but, once they've written a piece and had it published, I can't see how they can have much control what music groups do with it. Or can they impose conditions? I've not come across this before - except in theatre where playwrights can insist on plays being performed in a certain way.

TT

[gwyn]

Yes, I did a little edit, I added an extra line-break at the very bottom - it looks better that way.

I don't know the source of poem but is does say something though I'm not sure exactly what.

[contrabordun]

Legally, yes composers can. Copyright (in both words and music) covers performance as well as reproduction, and I once read that even improvised "last verse in unison" reharmonisations are technically illegal if the melody is still in copyright. (The logic of this is that, since the audience will be unaware of the rearrangement, the piece will still affect the original composer´s professional reputation).

I´m not sure how this would apply in practice in a liturgical context. After all, the ´audience´ is generally less aware of the composer´s identity than would be the case in a concert, and is certainly not interested in forming a critical assessment of their musical qualities. Further, I would guess (but wouldn´t want to assume or take for granted) that liturgical composers would be well-disposed to local arrangements that allowed local resources to perform their work.

But - remembering that there was a time when few people really thought twice about photocopying copyright music - maybe we should be more careful about this? I´m not a composer - opinions please from those who are?

[Benevenio]

For my own compostitions, I see what is on the page as a 'performance opportunity', and would be quite happy for anyone else to think the same. You can put that down to my Jazz leanings... and the fact that I am not at all precious about what I write... and that fact that I am praying whilst I play in church. Augustine may well have said who sings prays twice, but I extend that to my extemporisations - which is how I pray too.

If people are to use it, then I need to allow them to use the tools they have - Viola, Guitar and Tuba in one parish I served in! As a composer of Liturgical Music, I need to enable people to pray in whatever way suits them best... which might not be to my taste...

I'd rather people didn't photocopy my music; I am happy for them to formally rearrange (if they ask); but I am most happy if what's there is a launchpad for something else, as the Spirit leads you on the day.

[Tsume Tsuyu]

Legally, yes composers can. Copyright (in both words and music) covers performance as well as reproduction.....

Gosh! How on earth would/could this be policed? I take the point that a composer's reputation might be tarnished by a poor arrangement of something but, if composers are that concerned about this, then they need to be very specific in performance notes.

I think Benevenio has a point about not being precious about one's work, but then I'm not a composer so that's easy for me to say!

Surely, the purpose behind composition of liturgical music must make composers less precious about their work, as long as it fulfils the task of supporting the liturgy wherever it is being used? I'd be interested to hear the views of other composers.

TT

[contrabordun]

Gosh! How on earth would/could this be policed?

Guess the point is it can't be - which puts the onus on us as honest folk to only 'interpret' music in a way of which we can be honestly confident the composer would approve. The difference between poetry or abstract art, and theatre or music is that the latter two require an intermediary between the creator of the art and the 'audience'. In the context of the liturgy, the equation is further complicated because we're not giving a concert - the humans in church are most definitely not present as an audience (as anybody who has ever played a concluding voluntary will testify...).

Surely, the purpose behind composition of liturgical music must make composers less precious about their work

I would think so too, and what Benevenio wrote might back it up (though I think 'precious' is a slightly perjorative term: necessarily a composer, or an author, has spent time and thought choosing a particular sequence, whether of notes or words, and may well have considered and rejected our proposed amendment / update / improvement for some good reason). But I don't think we should assume so, absent at least some concrete evidence. That's why I used the photocopying analogy: I've lost count of the number of times I've been solemnly assured that liturgical composers compose only for the glory of God, and would be only too delighted to learn that St Etheldreda's By The Gasworks had adopted their Mass Setting as standard, despite lack of funds to purchase the printed copies. Strangely, nobody ever seemed to want to delight said composers by actually telling them about it...

There is a legal point, albeit of minority interest, but we should be operating in a moral, not a legal, frame of reference. If a piece of music is being delivered in a way that might cause its composer to cringe, then we should ask ourselves why we are doing it, and perhaps choose something different, by a composer more in sympathy with our musical preferences (or indeed, technical competence - better a simple setting done well, than a complicated one done badly). If individual composers take a very liberal line, then all well and good, but surely that's their permission to give, not ours to assume?

[Tsume Tsuyu]

....we should be operating in a moral, not a legal, frame of reference.

I think this is right but, again, it's open to interpretation. A music group might do the best they can with a piece, adapting it to suit their resources and ability. They may feel they've done a good job and stayed as faithful as possible to what was written - but what they've done might still make the composer cringe.

I think that, when composers release music for mass consumption, they must trust that people will be sympathetic to their intentions, assuming their intentions are clear; some pieces give very little in the way of direction.

And I can see why, sometimes, a group would choose to use a certain piece. For instance, the words might be particularly relevant to the readings that week. That would be a good reason to use the piece, even if some adaptation might be needed to 'deliver' it.

TT

[Dot]

Contrabordun wrote

I think 'precious' is a slightly perjorative term

The correct use of "precious" is made in the following quote from the Papal letter on the centenary of Tra le sollecitudini, overviewed by John Ainslie in Music & Liturgy Vol 30 no 1:

On various occasions I (Pope John Paul) have recalled the precious function and great importance of music and singing for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations.

If something is precious, we should use it with great care. Elsewhere in the same document, we read:

“…the sacred context of celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.”

Being careful, considered and well prepared in our use of liturgical music is not being "precious" in the pejorative sense used above, it is acknowledging the preciousness of what we're doing. We plan, we consider carefully, we decide what's best for each piece of music and we prepare it in a way that our music group may deliver effectively. This may mean arranging something for instruments for which it was not written (eg. a four part hymn setting on three woodwinds and bass) which, in my opinion, does no one a disservice. There is a wonderful example of effective arrangement enhancing an existing piece in Chris Walker's instrumental setting of "Yahweh, I know you are near" recorded on "Sisters in Song Rejoice" (see review of same in Music & Liturgy Vol 27 no 2). We have used a transcript of this in our parish. It requires around five instrumental lines.

Performance opportunity is for those who have the talent to create on their feet. This talent was not given to me, nor to the majority of the musicians in our group. Thus, I choose to be well-prepared, not just for Mass, but for the rehearsal in the week of the Mass. To be deprived of that opportunity for me devalues the service of our ministry.

I do not know where we stand legally or morally over musical licence (as in poetic licence) with arrangements. I just know how it affects me in my parish situation. I feel that the singers should take precedence, and whatever we do with the instruments should be primarily to support them. Secondary to this is the addition of variety and musical interest. In my opinion, inappropriate adaptations would add layers, not intended by the composer, without providing any benefit to the singers.

Happy note to finish: last time (and I think every time) we used Repton for "Dear Lord and Father" it was accompanied, appropriately, by keyboard alone, and we could experience the "still small voice of calm". So, the thread may have wandered but I have returned to Repton!

Dot

[Tsume Tsuyu]

Firstly, I think we know what Benevenio meant by not being "precious". He is happy to let his music go and not impose a performance style on anyone who wants to use it. That's his choice.

Thus, I choose to be well-prepared, not just for Mass, but for the rehearsal in the week of the Mass. To be deprived of that opportunity for me devalues the service of our ministry.

In an ideal world I'm sure most musicians would wish for this but, because a different 'programme' has to be produced for mass each week, there is not always the luxury of time. Also, what might seem right when the parts are distributed before a rehearsal may not necessarily come together at the rehearsal, requiring musicians to be flexible. There may be instrumentalists who are unexpectedly absent, or it just might not work.

I agree that, sometimes, the singers can seem lost in the arrangements. This can be a problem in our parish where the musicians outnumber the singers. As a singer, it can sometimes feel that I am a lone voice, singing against a barrage of sound. It is something that need to be considered when music is being arranged. On the whole, I think we are quite sensitive to it in our parish but, occasionally, the singers are swamped.

I think there are ideals which are not always possible. Most of the time, what we deliver at Mass is the best we can achieve with the time and resources available. What is most important is never to lose sight of why we are doing what we do.

Do I need to mention Repton again, to let the Moderator think we're still on topic?

TT

[musicus]

Gwyn seems to have edited his original post on the 1st July which might be what provoked the response. I don't know which bit he's edited though!

Actually, since you ask, I used the "Show all unanswered posts" facility to see if there were any interesting topics hiding away. This was one of about a dozen that turned up - hence my reply (which, if the time-stamp is to be believed, pre-dates Gwyn's edit, of which I was unaware).

M

[musicus]

Do I need to mention Repton again, to let the Moderator think we're still on topic?

I think all the posts have been on topic. Folks have been discussing the content of Gwyn's text, rather than Repton.

I must add that for me the discussion of "precious" conjured up a mental picture of the composer-as-Gollum: "My preciousssss..."

M