PANEL decisions

[presbyter]

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.

NT has highlighted the greatest anomaly in this whole process. The panel has shot itself in the foot here.

[NorthernTenor]

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.

NT has highlighted the greatest anomaly in this whole process. The panel has shot itself in the foot here.

I don’t think it’s so much that the Panel has shot itself in the foot, as that its form and terms of reference have obscured its simple purpose: to “review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text” (Composers’ Guide, Appendix 1, [2]). Given the history of composers and publishers playing fast and loose with the text of the previous translation, it’s not a bad idea to have such a review process, irrespective of copyright considerations, especially if our Bishops encourage clergy and musicians to use material that has the mark of approval. However, once the process was loaded with considerations that have nothing to do with textual fidelity, and which include liturgical and non-liturgical issues which are open to debate, the process began to look unattractive. Add to this the anonymity and apparently open-ended scope of the group entrusted with the review and the whole business begins to look more trouble than it’s worth. Speaking as one who’s putting together a Misss Brevis (penitential rite, Gloria, Sanctus & Agnus) which is so faithful to the text it doesn’t even have repeats, I’m seriously considering only submitting the Gloria, as the one item that’s subject to ICEL copyright.

[presbyter]

No Mystery of Faith NT?

[NorthernTenor]

I assume all else will be chanted in English, Latin or Hebrew, presbyter

[Southern Comfort]

Having just completed some in-depth work on the ICEL Exsultet English chant (which is not terribly well done, by the way — lots of false accents through sticking too closely to the neumes of the Latin), I have noticed a number of missing commas required to separate off subordinate clauses. It makes me wonder what the point is of requiring people to adhere strictly to ICEL's punctuation when it clearly contains errors.

ICEL's punctuation is not a new problem, of course. Eucharistic Prayer I, for the past 41 years, has contained this:

We offer them for your holy catholic Church,
watch over it, Lord, and guide it;

Leaving aside the question of whether there should be a comma after "holy", the comma after "Church" is manifestly incorrect: two complete sentences separated by a mere comma. A heavier stop is needed: a semicolon, or colon, or even a dash, would do it; but that comma has offended me ever since I first set eyes on it.

PS: The Exsultet text contains this:

O truly blessed night, when things of heaven are wed [sic] to those of earth, and divine to the human.

This is American usage, similar to "fit" where we would use "fitted". The English is "wedded" (as in the current ICEL text, "heaven is wedded to earth"), which is also acceptable in the US and seems to be given as the first of the two usages in dictionaries that I have looked at. I wonder what the Panel would do about this?

[musicus]

If I were publishing a setting, I'd be very tempted to use "wedded", along with a footnote pointing out the error. It would be interesting to see if the Panel threw it back.

(If it did, I'd use "wed", along with a footnote pointing out the error - and saying whose it was!)

[presbyter]

the list of approved settings that we are told is going to appear on the Liturgy Office website...........However, my suspicion is that neither of these lists will appear.

Your suspicion is unfounded for material has indeed appeared. It's very strange that the composer(s) are not mentioned, only the publisher. Why no mention of the composer(s)?

http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Music/Published.shtml

[presbyter]

This page lists those settings which have been approved for publication.

Errrrr no, no, no, no, no. The page lists those settings approved for publication in England and Wales by our own Bishops' panel, ratified by Bishop Alan Hopes.

It makes no mention of the many USA published settings that are available as individual items here, and that are not subject to the BCEW panel process, unless they are reprinted and published here as either individual items or as a part of collections. I could buy, for example, Christopher Walker's St Paul Mass and start using it next week, if I wanted to.

The Liturgy Office page could give the wrong impression that the items listed on it are the only approved settings for use here, don't you think?

[presbyter]

And who on earth are Concept Music?

The first Googled result is http://www.conceptmusic.com/main.html - that's not them!

[presbyter]

And who on earth are Concept Music?

Clicking on the not that obvious link on the page reveals this http://www.conceptmusiconline.com/

I wouldn't be surprised if the Liturgy Office is now bombarded with letters of complaint from other publishers and distributors, as the Office seems to have strayed unwittingly into the field of advertising commercial products and by publishing this list in an incomplete form, has de facto given a commercial advantage to one particular publisher. Is this legal?

I think there is a matter of justice here and respectfully request that this web page is taken down until the list expands to include many publishers and distributors, so that no bias towards any particular publisher is implied. I'm sure the panel reads this.

[NorthernTenor]

The Exsultet text contains this:

O truly blessed night, when things of heaven are wed [sic] to those of earth, and divine to the human.

This is American usage, similar to "fit" where we would use "fitted". The English is "wedded" (as in the current ICEL text, "heaven is wedded to earth"), which is also acceptable in the US and seems to be given as the first of the two usages in dictionaries that I have looked at. I wonder what the Panel would do about this?

I grant this usage might not be comfortable in parts of the Realm, but it makes sense in others.

[presbyter]

I think there is a matter of justice here ............ I'm sure the panel reads this.

I think it would be much more equitable if the Liturgy Office listed settings that have been accepted by the panel, and ratified by Bishop Hopes.

Publish an "accepted" status list and transfer these titles (with their composers) to a "published" list when the titles are indeed published and the five copies have been submitted.

At the moment, the impression given is that the panel has approved only the work of one composer and I know that's not true.

[NorthernTenor]

Oh dear, oh dear. Still, I'm sure it will be comical in retrospect.

[presbyter]

Still, I'm sure it will be comical in retrospect.

I'm sure it will NT, when the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

[HallamPhil]

Or maybe it's just that Concept Music have got their act together and got the second round (ICEL approval) sorted before the rest. My ICEL approval arrived only today but I won't be able to deal with this and send the necessary 'voucher' copies to the Panel and ICEL straightaway. I don't see why Concept Music should be criticised for efficiency.