PANEL decisions

[Nick Baty]

Let me put that more plainly. What sort of prayer is this text? What's your heart and mind engaged in when you pray it in song?

"Why have they now banned the tropes which once enabled us to link Table to Word at this point?"

Or, occasionally, "*beep*, I didn''t time the introduction properly so that the song truly accompanies the Fractio". (Apologies, it's beeped the word ****. Must be an American programme!)

{Slightly modded. Please do not circumvent the board's text filter, which is there for a reason.]

What's in yours?

[Nick Baty]

In the EF it is a stand alone song with no other liturgical action taking place. I'll post the rubrics if you really want me to.

But didn't it once have a function from which it has since been detached?

[presbyter]

Or, occasionally, "*beep*.......

In which case I will end this conversation with assurances of my prayers for you.

[Nick Baty]

Kind of you.
And I fear the bear might have noticed we've gone a tad OT.
Did we mention John 1:29?

[Southern Comfort]

http://www.romanmissalscotland.org.uk/the-ministry-of-sacred--music.html

Interestingly, this has been "borrowed" verbatim, without acknowledgement, from one of the resources available on the E&W Liturgy Office website.

[Southern Comfort]

[
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"?

Having been sent the certificate in question, I now see that it is indeed "Withheld editorial" and not "Withheld" tout court. My apologies for misleading readers of this thread with incomplete information.

However, I still think that the adult way of dealing with this and many similar instances would be not "Withheld editorial" but "Accepted, subject to the following minor editorial amendment[s]".

[Nick Baty]

That sounds much kinder.
And if it's only "Withheld: Editorial" the whole thing can be corrected and "Accepted" certificate issued within the hour.

[Dom Perignon]

I would just like to thank SC for bringing us back on topic!

[Calum Cille]

Surely the question is one of principle, not of whether or not Nick Baty would write for the EF or not.

As for the thematic linking of items which accompany an action to items which do not accompany an action, the idea that it is inappropriate to link them musically is scuppered by the evidence of the words themselves which clearly link the two items thematically. "Cultic use" or otherwise does not restrict verbal thematic inter-connection, therefore there is no reason for restricting the inter-connection of musical themes, regardless of what is going on in England and Wales. The judgment that verbal themes may cross liturgical function and that music may not is wholly arbitrary.

[mcb]

"borrowed" verbatim, without acknowledgement, from one of the resources available on the E&W Liturgy Office website.

The pdf version has a copyright notice and "used with permission".

[NorthernTenor]

As for the thematic linking of items which accompany an action to items which do not accompany an action, the idea that it is inappropriate to link them musically is scuppered by the evidence of the words themselves which clearly link the two items thematically. "Cultic use" or otherwise does not restrict verbal thematic inter-connection, therefore there is no reason for restricting the inter-connection of musical themes, regardless of what is going on in England and Wales. The judgment that verbal themes may cross liturgical function and that music may not is wholly arbitrary.

The problem is not that the Panel is restricting inter-connection, but insisting on it; not only insisting on it, but decreeing that all elements of the unity be included in a setting or none; and by extension claiming the right to necessarily subjective judgement on the degree to which a setting is successful in establishing continuity. You only have to step back and consider to see it for the meddlesome nonsense on stilts that it is.

[Calum Cille]

The problem is not that the Panel is restricting inter-connection, but insisting on it; not only insisting on it, but decreeing that all elements of the unity be included in a setting or none; and by extension claiming the right to necessarily subjective judgement on the degree to which a setting is successful in establishing continuity. You only have to step back and consider to see it for the meddlesome nonsense on stilts that it is.

It's all part of a bundle in a particular mindset which tends towards overlegislation on the grounds of subjective opinion masquerading as irrefutable argument: there is no justification for linking the Gloria thematically with the Agnus Dei because of a putative thematic clash between 'cultic use' and 'praise'; and you must link the Sanctus with the memorial acclamation because of a putative musical concordance engendered by the context of the Eucharistic prayer. What substandard spirituality they must have had before they copped on to the use of unifying musical themes at mass. Fortunately, we can now legislate to ensure that such poverty of meaning does not afflict us moderns in our music. Oh, and God help the poor Greeks and Copts.

[Nick Baty]

I do agree with you about the Gloria and the Agnus and in my earlier comment I intended just to raise the question. Apologies if I snapped!

....and you must link the Sanctus with the memorial acclamation because of a putative musical concordance engendered by the context of the Eucharistic prayer

On this one, however, I cannot see that Panel can do anything but ask for musical unity for the Eucharistic Prayer. The bishops have been asking for this for some years (and it was reiterated in CTM) but many simply ignored them. Given that the Panel is an agency of the bishops, it couldn't really go against the bishops' requests. Also, I honestly don't see why one wouldn't want to create some sort of musical unity in the Eucharistic Prayer. Chris Walker does this rather well in the original Celtic Liturgy – there is no specific melodic reference between the items but their tonality and "feel" really does link them together.

I couldn't imagine the Sanctus and Amen not being matching bookends but I can see a case for a more subtle relationship with the memorial acclamtions – particularly "Save us, Saviour of the world..." my favourite of the three.

[Calum Cille]

... I intended just to raise the question. Apologies if I snapped!

Me too! Although I have used themes in mass settings, I have big problems on the issue of legislating for musical unity or chordal harmony and things like that. Is Holst's The Planets a musical unity and, if not, is it therefore a failure as a musical diet? Does Grease fail to be a success as a musical because of a dearth of leitmotif or is the text served perfectly well by the music? There is a principle at stake in relation to liturgy. Are traditional mass settings to be seen as primitively deficient because Sanctus sets don't match the prayer tones?

I honestly don't see why one wouldn't want to create some sort of musical unity in the Eucharistic Prayer.

Richard Dawkins also doesn't see why anyone would want to believe in God but does that mean that he should legislate against believing in God? Incomprehension, in the face of reasoned expression of other viewpoints, is hardly a secure basis on which to back the English and Welsh bishops on this one. If you can't acknowledge that I've previously given an argument for not wanting to create thematic unity (you mention "musical unity" here) in the eucharistic prayer, why would I expect you would acknowledge that such argument might possess its own logic?

Creating thematic unity between a Sanctus and a memorial acclamation does not necessarily create musical unity in the Eucharistic Prayer but, more importantly, the Sanctus and Benedictus does not do the job of the words of institution and vice-versa. The texts say different things. Perhaps I don't necessarily want them to sound the same or thematically connected because they have different atmospheres to me. Perhaps a change of musical atmosphere between a Sanctus and the words of institution heightens in a particular way the change happening between these sections of the mass. Perhaps the words of institution can be imbued with even more meaning through a link with the theme used for "Behold the Lamb of God", which (like the words of institution) mentions the supper and the call to participate, the removal of sins, none of which is in the Sanctus. The mass, textually, is thematically very rich and any legislation built to limit the potential of modern mass settings to explore and symbolise this richness is shooting liturgical music in the foot.

Chris Walker does this rather well in the original Celtic Liturgy – there is no specific melodic reference between the items but their tonality and "feel" really does link them together.

And well done to Mr Walker. Which eerily echoes my previous point about the potential for this to develop into legislating on modes. Not being much acquainted with the English church, I don't know if it is the English and Welsh bishops who have this great concern for thematic unity or whether in fact there is a cadre of influential musicians plying them with intellectual admonitions of a limited and limiting nature which have more to do with the concerns of personal musical taste than concern for musical quality or what any given composition does really add to the liturgical experience. I'd far rather have the panel approve a set of good individual tunes that make each word live for me than a thematically intertwined but melodically turgid Eucharistic Prayer that drains the words of all concentration or jerks them around like the puppets of a poor showman. Give me Holst any day. The words of the mass are what are most thematically important, not some musico-intellectual abstraction that the less musical might not even be cognisant of.

Hope I'm not snapping!

[presbyter]

I think we should pause and read what is actually said in the Guide

The Eucharistic Prayer forms a complete unit from the Preface Dialogue to the Doxology and Amen. Any musical setting should respect and enhance that unity and therefore provide a complete set of acclamations (Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Amen). This might be conveyed by the use of common motifs in the acclamations, use of the same metre (time signature) or at least by a sense of unified tonality throughout the prayer, i.e. by the use of the same or related keys.

It's not as hard and fast as we might imagine. But as to how the panel might interpret the paragraph - who knows?