PANEL decisions

[alan29]

Have I misunderstood? I thought the panel was approving on behalf of the Liturgy Office. If not .......?

[presbyter]

In my innocence and naivety, it has just struck home that the panel process seems to be two processes.

1. A judgement as to whether or not the composer has understood the nature/form/prayer/style of the text and brought out that understanding in music suitable for liturgical use. Assisting the full, conscious and active participation is a paramount principle. (So any "withheld" appraisal arises here.)
2. A kind of proof-reading exercise to highlight errors in spelling, punctuation and non-conformity to the ICEL house style. ("Withheld editorial" arises here.)

But on page 29 of the Guide for Composers (para. 14) there's no mention of an interim "withheld editorial" assessment, useful as that assessment is.

And......

There's no mention at all that a Permission to Publish certificate cannot simply be transferred should one publisher agree to licence another publisher to include works of the first publisher in a collection produce by the second publisher. Of course, the composer can simply give permission for his/her copyright work to be published by any publisher under whatever terms and conditions he/she negotiates BUT each and every publisher has to submit their own type-set edition of the work for separate certification.

I do hope the panel is reading this. For it means that because this is not at all clear in the Guide for Composers, for the next round of submissions, the panel is going to have to plough through an entire book of some 180 to 220 pages. I wish them every joy.

[Southern Comfort]

There appears to be nothing to prevent a publisher from submitting and gaining approval for a version which the panel, in its inconsistency, deems approvable, and then subsequently doing the routine editing just referred to before publication.

True. Except that one must submit five copies of the published piece to the Liturgy Office so they do see what you've done.

I can't see anyone taking much notice if they tried to make a publisher withdraw a piece (or an entire hymnal) just because of a comma or a capital H in Hosanna......

I wonder if this is a case of we Brits being over-scrupulous in applying the rules and regulations (which, I am told, is not something of which the Romans could ever be accused!).

That's very probable. I remember the late and great Pierre-Marie Gy rolling his eyes at some of the the ways we tried to make ourselves jump through hoops in the 1980s and 1990s. He said that the Anglo-Saxon approach to law was very different from the Mediterranean one and (deploying his hands in a side-to-side wave-like motion) that on the Continent they had ways of dealing these things....

[presbyter]

It's a bit odd, don't you think, that two major publishers still have no mention at all on their websites of soon-to-be-published settings of the new texts and that they still list current text or paraphrase settings for sale.

[Nick Baty]

Well you don't need permission to publish a paraphrase.
Could this whole thing backfire?

[alan29]

What would be the point of publishing a paraphrase if they aren't permitted.

[Southern Comfort]

The fact is that none of the paraphrases will be submitted because they are not liturgical texts and so do not have to be submitted! They do not come within the purview of the process. So their publishers will continue to publish them "because that's what the punters want", and people will continue to use them. And yet the Israeli Mass and the Clapping Gloria are precisely what this new process was presumably supposed to deal with, rather than those of us who set liturgical texts, albeit sometimes with slight modifications (and cf. Gelineau on that topic).

I find myself in an idle moment wondering if, in addition to the list of approved settings that we are told is going to appear on the Liturgy Office website, there should also be a list of settings (paraphrase Masses, etc) appearing in hymnals, etc, which are not approved!

However, my suspicion is that neither of these lists will appear. I am sure that the Liturgy Office knows that the moment they put up any list at all, whether of approved or unapproved settings, they will find themselves on the end of some hefty lawsuits that they would have extreme difficulty in defending, not only because of the law regarding restrictive trade practices but because of the resources that the litigants would be able to command. They do not need this and neither does the Church in this country. Collisions of canon law and civil law are already too frequent.

[presbyter]

the list of approved settings that we are told is going to appear on the Liturgy Office website,

For legal reasons you hint at, the wording could simply be something such as: "These settings have been accepted by the Bishops' Conference and have been given a Permission to Publish certificate."

there should also be a list of settings (paraphrase Masses, etc) appearing in hymnals, etc, which are not approved!

Errrr..... no! Decay of paraphrases will come through instruction and formation. Parish priests will have to be the instrument of communication, methinks.

[Nick Baty]

What would be the point of publishing a paraphrase if they aren't permitted.

Well, it's not stopped anyone using them so far!

As a couple of priests friends remarked when asked how they planned to introduce people to the new texts, "Well, we haven't yet managed to introduce them to the present ones!"

[NorthernTenor]

the list of approved settings that we are told is going to appear on the Liturgy Office website,

For legal reasons you hint at, the wording could simply be something such as: "These settings have been accepted by the Bishops' Conference and have been given a Permission to Publish certificate."

there should also be a list of settings (paraphrase Masses, etc) appearing in hymnals, etc, which are not approved!

Errrr..... no! Decay of paraphrases will come through instruction and formation. Parish priests will have to be the instrument of communication, methinks.

it may be helpful to distinguish between the two purposes of the process. The first is to “review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text” (Composer’s Guide, Appendix 1, Para 2). The second is to certify conformity to ICEL for those elements of the liturgy subject to its copyright, as part of ICEL’s process for granting permission to publish.

In the case of those major elements that are in the public domain - Kyrie, Sanctus, Our Father and Agnus (ibid, Appendix 3), i.e almost a missa brevis – it is therefore entirely up to publishers whether they take any notice of feedback from the review, or indeed submit items to it in the first place. Of course, some publishers might think it advantageous for their mass settings to be on an approved list (albeit quite a long one) in their entirety. Others might have as much interest as the majority of their paying customers. Given the track record, I believe that presbyter is right to sugegst that Parish Priests will have a key role here. On the other hand, if more of the clergy had in the past been as scrupulous as presbyter, this cumbersome process might not have been thought necessary.

[JW]

this cumbersome process might not have been thought necessary.

The only real advantage for composer in this process is that composers have a free review of their work - perhaps not the way that the Bishops Conference should be spending their money. Surely, Bishops have a better way of impressing on their priests that paraphrases are not acceptable - music should be considered as part of parish visitations and it could be part of performance reviews for priests

[alan29]

NT said: this cumbersome process might not have been thought necessary.[/quote]

The only real advantage for composer in this process is that composers have a free review of their work - perhaps not the way that the Bishops Conference should be spending their money. Surely, Bishops have a better way of impressing on their priests that paraphrases are not acceptable - music should be considered as part of parish visitations and it could be part of performance reviews for priests

Priests have performance reviews? Struth!!!

[JW]

OK, apart from two spelling errors I had the following editorials:

"Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the highest" should have lower case 'glory' (presumably except the first one)

The order of the Memorial Acclamations in the Missal must be followed - I had set them in order of 1, 3, 2.

The observations were constructive:

Kyrie - indication of ministry might be helpful.
Penitential Act B & C - layout is a little cramped.
Penitential Act C - unclear how 3 syllables Kyrie are sung to one note.
Gloria - in the chanted verse they made a suggestion as to where to change pitch on one particular syllable
Incorrect guitar chord pointed out.

[Nick Baty]

Well, I've defended the process up to now, disagreed with Southern Comfort here and there but

layout is a little cramped

seems way out of the Panel's remit. The house style is, surely, up to the publisher and noone else.

[NorthernTenor]

Well, I've defended the process up to now, disagreed with Southern Comfort here and there but

layout is a little cramped

seems way out of the Panel's remit. The house style is, surely, up to the publisher and noone else.

I'm afraid it's down to the terms of reference. As previously observed, once you get past the statement of purpose they're so badly drafted that those in a position to do so can easily drive a cart and hobby-horse of their choosing through them. And all under the cloak of anonymity. The question is: was this deliberate, or just a problem of competency?