PANEL decisions

[presbyter]

I don't see why Concept Music should be criticised for efficiency.

True and, with respect, I'm not doing that. I have not posted one word against this publisher.

[musicus]

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

... but not all of them - only those, as the next sentence says, that have actually been published. In time, as other publications appear, this list will make more sense, for it seems to me that there would be no point in listing works that have been approved by the panel but which have not yet been published. Perhaps something like this might be less ambiguous: "This page lists those settings, approved by the panel, which have been published and copies of which have been received by the Liturgy Office."

I do agree with presbyter that composers should be named, as well as publishers, if for no other reason than to help people easily identify the works.

[HallamPhil]

I agree, Musicus, with all you have noted here. It could also be that the absence of composer's name on the one entry so far is by composer's request? I can't imagine why except that some people might prefer to have their works considered on merit rather than by reputation.

[Southern Comfort]

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

Well, I think a number of us know who Concept Music is — an illustrious member of this list.

I suspect that the rationale is only to mention the name of the person or body submitting the work. In this case it was a publisher. If an individual composer submits, there is no alternative but to print the composer's name. We shall see, no doubt. The fun is going to start when a publisher who publishes more than one composer has two settings with identical names (think "John Henry Newman Mass", which is entirely possible) by two different composers.

One inherent problem, apart from the ones raised by presbyter when he says

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?

and

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.

is that nowhere does this page define what it thinks "publication" and "published" actually means. That's a minefield in itself.

Furthermore,

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?

is one of the reasons why I opined that this list would not see the light of day. I wonder if the Liturgy Office has actually taken legal advice (civil legal advice, not canonical) on this whole area? I know that the legal opinion given to one diocese was that exactly this sort of thing on its website would lay the diocesan trustees open to legal action from a publisher. I don't think we want to see the Bishops' Conference sued if it can be avoided.

Perhaps, as presbyter suggests, it would be wise to take down this page while the whole area is properly considered.

[presbyter]

If an individual composer submits..........

But an individual composer cannot submit. It has to be a publisher.... be that a "kitchen table" one man operation or a large, commercial operation such as Continuum.
What's a composer supposed to do if s/he has composed a worthy Mass setting but cannot find a commercial publisher and cannot set up his/her own imprint? Not everybody who composes has notation software.

[presbyter]

Perhaps, as presbyter suggests, it would be wise to take down this page...

I'd leave it there SC. The fair and impartial thing to do would be not to publish a list at all.

[presbyter]

By the way:

I have now discovered that two settings published by Concept Music have also been through a far more rigorous assessment than that given by the anonymous "gang of five". An anonymous "gang of three" has offered publication in a forthcoming, large collection for national and international distribution by a major publisher. So well done to Concept Music.

[Nick Baty]

Presbyter, your informant is not incorrect. But he is out of date.

[JW]

What's a composer supposed to do if s/he has composed a worthy Mass setting but cannot find a commercial publisher and cannot set up his/her own imprint? Not everybody who composes has notation software.

Seems like a business opportunity for those who do have notation software!

[Nick Baty]

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.

Having received a couple of, admittedly friendly, messages about my naivety on this issue, here's a naive thought which might help:

Last I heard, more than 60 items had been approved by the Panel. So there are three possible reasons why they are not included on the list:
1) They have opted not to be included – that's a clear option on the certificate notes.
2) They have decided to delay publication.
3) They have not yet sent the required copies to the Liturgy Office. This is easily remedied.

And all power to those who have not co-operated because they object to the process. I am currently in the middle of a similar wrangle with the Institute for Learning who have raised our compulsory contribution by more than 200% so I do sympathise.

[Southern Comfort]

I can see the rationale behind requesting copies of a publication when it's a discrete entity, such as an octavo or an individual movement like a Gloria. When, however, you're talking about an entire hymnbook, of which the mass settings affected only occupy a tiny proportion of the whole, I can understand publishers' reluctance to send five free copies of a book, at considerable expense. They would be morally within their rights to say "You've had the proofs: that's all you're getting, 'cos the other 1000+ pages don't concern you and we can't afford to give these things away".

The other very obvious point is that where approved movements or settings only occupy a small part of something much larger, it may well be that the remainder of the volume is not yet ready, even though the movement or settings has/have been approved.

[Nick Baty]

Two very good points from SC. Might there now be a further problem that, by approving X pages from such a hymnal, the Liturgy Office could be seen to be approving a whole collection?

On the other hand, should smaller imprints like Magnificat or Chiswick, be forced to wait because the big boys have chosen to create something much bigger. Larger companies like McCrimmons can have an octavo approved and then include it in one of their collections without further approval.

[Southern Comfort]

On the other hand, should smaller imprints like Magnificat or Chiswick, be forced to wait because the big boys have chosen to create something much bigger.

I think this takes us back to the original question: should there be a list at all? It is virtually impossible, as all the comments so far have demonstrated, to devise a list which does not disadvantage one publisher or another, so the simple answer is to dispense with the list. Now, before actual damage is caused and legal ructions follow.

I imagine that the purpose of the list is to point people in the direction of what the panel considers good and wholesome, and deter them from using anything else. But if anyone seriously thinks that people are going to purchase music based on whether or not something has appeared on a list, they should think again. People mostly purchase out of publisher loyalty or because they like the music of composer X as opposed to composer Y. The appearance or not of a work on a list is not going to make a great deal of difference, as is evidenced by the number of people who clearly do not know who is behind Concept Music. Until they do, they're not going to decide whether to take the risk or not. Nor is the non-appearance on a list going to deter those who wish to continue using "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord", the Israeli Mass or the Clapping Gloria. They will not take any notice whatsoever.

[VML]

Ouch! We were lumbered with that particular 'Holy..' for the Vigil and Easter, Lamb of God from the 'Swedish' Hamson through the season, and will have to clap our way through June. As I ask on another thread, is there any point in attending training days for the new translation?

[HallamPhil]

Those who have attended workshops in the Diocese of Hallam do not, I presume, read these pages. They certainly don't often comment on them. In the safety of a workshop they will raise the fact that they use Israeli Mass and their nationalistic equivalents, but my response is to say that we ought to move to a time when we are singing the agreed texts of the Mass, and they appear to agree.

I do think change will result but it will not be overnight. Even if the Bishops Conference advice/instruction introduces a time limit for transfer to settings of the revised text this will be difficult to police.

Hallam's first bishop banned one setting of the Mass Ordinaries but 15 years after his death and despite the efforts of the Diocesan Director of Music it (and its like) still persists in some parishes. None of us, not even bishops, has the unquestioned authority that existed in the past, and some bishops might not wish to use it even if it existed. People no longer readily obey what is categorically stated/instructed and i do not regret this. In this we are all as vulnerable and powerless as Christ. What was it they said about horses and water? It doesn't matter. What does matter is that alternatives are offered and that these are consistent with current Church expectations. In this we attempt to show our loyalty. What was it that Christ said about having to drink from a certain cup?