PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

I must take the opportunity to observe that the Liturgy Office in the person of Martin Foster has been polite, helpful and efficient in all its dealings with me. The combination of new process, vigorous public debate about it and a greater than expected workload make all this more commendable.

[Nick Baty]

Well one composer I know happens to be pretty distraught that his fine melody for a Memorial Acclamation is not acceptable because it does not relate thematically to his Sanctus melody... Aren't we in the business of serving the texts well, so that their prayer is enhanced?

Most certainly and I can imagine this must be a most distressing for the composer.
On the other hand, if the rules say "Do A,B,C" and we do "X,Y,Z" can we complain?

[musicus]

Well one composer I know happens to be pretty distraught that his fine melody for a Memorial Acclamation is not acceptable because it does not relate thematically to his Sanctus melody.

So, let's be crystal clear about this: a submitted piece has been refused permission on purely musical grounds. Is that correct? If so, this is completely outside the terms of reference!
In the short time this process has been underway, there seems to have been no shortage of anomalous and inconsistent instances (not all of which have been made known on here). It begs the question of how viable and sustainable the process really is.

[presbyter]

So, let's be crystal clear about this: a submitted piece has been refused permission on purely musical grounds. Is that correct?

No. The composer knows it won't get through so he has not submitted it.

[presbyter]

I must take the opportunity to observe that the Liturgy Office in the person of Martin Foster has been polite, helpful and efficient in all its dealings with me.

And also with me - thank you Martin.

[Nick Baty]

No I didn't. Presbyter did!

[presbyter]

On the other hand, if the rules say "Do A,B,C" and we do "X,Y,Z" can we complain?

Yes we jolly well can, if we come up with something better - musically and pastorally. (Don't you break "the rules" if your donkey falls down a hole and gets stuck on the Sabbath?)

[Southern Comfort]

One typo/very small mistake - seems to get "withheld editorial"
Four typos/very small mistakes - seems to get "withheld"

Even that is not consistent. One piece with a dozen typos was given "withheld editorial".

One publisher got a complete set of Eucharistic Acclamations "withheld" just for using ICEL's own graphic of the doxology which (of course) has no 'u' in the word "honour". The publisher was trying to show willing by indicating what would be included (i.e. how the doxology missal tone fits with the Amen, as the Panel requests) not necessarily the final artwork itself. So much for trying to keep the Panel happy....

[presbyter]

It appears that "thou shalt not" is to be the watchword of the Catholic musical world in England and Wales

CC - let's say you composed a chant setting of the new ICEL texts and set yourself up as a desk top publisher in Edinburgh. To whom do composers in Scotland submit their work?

[presbyter]

[
One publisher got a complete set of Eucharistic Acclamations "withheld" just for using ICEL's own graphic of the doxology which (of course) has no 'u' in the word "honour"

Preposterous! Why not "withheld editorial"?

[Southern Comfort]

I have in front of me a copy of the Mass of St Benedict by Margaret Rizza, published by the RSCM, and now listed on the Liturgy Office website. It is a handsome production. Slipped inside the front of it is a facsimile of the certificate of approval, signed by Bishop Alan Hopes.

Unfortunately it contains two major errors. On pages 30-32, the Missal tones for The mystery of faith and the doxology "Through him..." are completely wrong. Instead of being in the "modal minor", they are in a major key.

And yet this received a permission to publish!

The publishers were alerted to the problem, and promptly pulped all their stock and reprinted it rapidly. I also have in front of me the reprinted and corrected version. Not quite so handsome this time — just the inner pages without the glossy colour cover.

You won't be surprised to learn that this edition still has errors.

In The Mystery of faith, the first note is a C without a leger line (as indeed it was in the first printing) instead of a D.

The doxology has a more serious error: the music it still at the wrong pitch! It has been printed a tone lower than it should have been, in F minor, instead of in "G minor" which would have enabled it to join smoothly with the following Amens in D minor. Now there is an unpleasant bump between one tonality and another.

And yet we must assume that this, too, has received the Panel's blessing.

With major errors like this allowed to pass unfettered, why the concern about the odd comma or capital letter or even a typo?

PS: The original edition is going to be of considerable historical interest in the near future, I suspect.

[presbyter]

With major errors like this allowed to pass unfettered, why the concern about the odd comma or capital letter or even a typo?

Not the only musical howler that's received "accepted" status, I'm afraid.

[Nick Baty]

Yes we jolly well can, if we come up with something better - musically and pastorally.

For years the SSG and other groups have worked to persuade people to sing the correct texts.
Now the bishops have found a way of enforcing this – or beginning to.

And this is where I'm beginning to feel as though I've fallen through the looking glass.
All that is being asked is that composers stick to the text – yes the comas and capitalisation are a pain but most copyright holders insist on this. HarperCollins insist on exact reproduction of the psalm texts.

(Don't you break "the rules" if your donkey falls down a hole and gets stuck on the Sabbath?)

So does this mean I can use Clap-Clap Gloria and Israeli Mass on Sunday?

[NorthernTenor]

All that is being asked is that composers stick to the text

No it isn't (see various, above).

[Nick Baty]

It has been printed a tone lower than it should have been, in F minor, instead of in "G minor" which would have enabled it to join smoothly with the following Amens in D minor. Now there is an unpleasant bump between one tonality and another.

On the other hand, I had pitched a Doxology starting G–Bb, therefore landing on a G as the organ intro began with a chord of G major. The Panel suggested starting A-C which would have meant the priest's final note (-ver) being an A, landing on a chord of G. This was, however, just "an observation", so I ignored it as I did with another observation which suggested adding guitar chords to a set of acclamations written for piano!