PANEL decisions

[musicus]

It is good to see this at last.

At a first, very cursory glance, their Composers' Guide appears to have a good deal in common with England and Wales', though I think I detected quite a few instances of the E&W text being clarified and elucidated.

[Calum Cille]

Thanks for that, auchincruive.

... settings should respect complete units of text. So settings of the Eucharistic Acclamations should offer the Sanctus, Memorial Acclamations and Great Amen as a unified setting.

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.

What on earth is a "liturgical unit of text"? Or "related keys" even? Since when did Catholic tradition demand unified musical settings? And yet the Guide wants the preface dialogue to be normatively chant.

This setting should be regarded as the norm or the foundation for participation by the assembly. Though other settings can, of course, be composed nevertheless any other settings of the dialogue and preface together should allow for the dialogue to be replaced by the chant setting. The chant setting should be printed as an alternative at a pitch which is suitable for the presider and in a related tonality to the rest of the setting.

So we're also supposed to unify musically with the chant of the preface dialogue. The mass isn't in an orchestral symphony.

Settings which include both the invitation and acclamation together should allow for the invitation to be replaced by the Missal setting. The chant setting of the invitation should be printed as an alternative at a pitch which is suitable for the presider and in a related tonality to the rest of the setting.

Yep. We're also supposed to unify musically with the chant of the Mysterium fidei.

As with the Dialogue before the Preface, composers may, of course, create their own settings of the doxology. However, since many presiders will be limited to the Missal version, it may be wise to compose a setting which allows that as an option. The Missal version may need to be transposed into a suitable key and indication of this should be provided in any published setting.

And with the Per ipsum. Yes, you read right.

The Missal provides music for the embolism which may be sung at any pitch. Ideally there should be a musical continuity from the setting of the Lord’s Prayer, through the Missal setting of the embolism, to the acclamation, ‘For the kingdom, the power and the glory...’

Yup, right again, the chant for the embolism too.

The Gloria may be sung in directum (straight through) or with a refrain(s) for the people.

Here we glo, here we glo, here we glo.

It is not recommended that the Missal texts for the Preparation of Gifts (Blessed are you...) are set by composers. The Missal gives a preference for these texts to be said quietly either underneath singing or with silence. Any music at this point should not detract from the Eucharistic Prayer.

I'm confused. So how do the people know when to join in with "blessed be God forever"?

The notes on the Opening Antiphon apply (42–43).
Musical settings should be suitable to be sung in procession; memorable so that people are not encumbered by participation aids.

Like hymnbooks 'n' mass sheets 'n' stuff?

Music settings are to be submitted by the publisher for review either electronically (pdf) or on paper together with the Application Form.

And the website says,

Manuscript copies should also be sent in hard copy rather than on email.

If composers wish they should consider including audio copies of their work on CD. Composers may wish to send six copies of the CD but if this is difficult one copy will suffice.

So, it's a virtual free-for-all for musical fashion but musical themes and modulations are being clamped down on in a way quite modern and alien to centuries of ecclesiastical musical tradition. At certain junctures, that will only work if an organ is doubling up with the priest to keep him in tune. Assuming he can achieve the written pitch.

[Peter Jones]

My copy has just landed..................

Some strange copyright acknowledgements of the text

And music in one case. McCrimmons have attributed a copyright of one work to themselves, whereas the composer is only fairly recently deceased and the copyright is administered by his niece. If anyone involved in the production of the supplement is reading this, PM me and I'll point out the error.

[Peter Jones]

Perhaps another expression of contempt for the permission to publish procedure (there's no ICEL copyright acknowledgement) - or, in charity, this Mass of the Healing Lord might yet have to appear on the list of approved publications. http://www.mikeanderson.net/Mass%20of%20the%20Healing%20Lord/MOTHL.htm

As it's from the Mayhew stable, why has Mayhew not published it? Nothing on the Mayhew site, as far as I can see. Anderson may be a Marmite composer - love him or hate him - but considering his popularity, I am surprised this Mass seems only to be available on the web, without any keyboard realisation. I am also saddened that, if it's true, the panel process has been ignored. Time to change your publisher Mr Anderson?

And if you were wondering as to what happens now to the clapping Gloria - it's a Gathering Song

http://www.mikeanderson.net/Gloria%20-%20a%20gathering%20hymn.pdf

[Nick Baty]

As it's from the Mayhew stable, why has Mayhew not published it?

Possibly because he's publicly said he wants no involvement with the approval process?

[Peter Jones]

- or, in charity, this Mass of the Healing Lord might yet have to appear on the list of approved publications.

Errrrrr no. Having browsed through most of this now, there's incorrect text in the Penitential Rite. Anderson has used an earlier draft of the Missal text here that has been subsequently rejected.

[Nick Baty]

I see the Panel has now published a report – apologies if someone's already posted it elsewhere. Attached below.

[johnquinn39]

Nick,

I'm getting 'you do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.'

Is there another way in?

Gedackt Flute

[Nick Baty]

Try it from here: http://www.romanmissal.org.uk/Home/Musi ... ing/Report

[Peter Jones]

I see the Panel has now published a report......

Excuse me........ how many publishers am I reading????? FIFTY-THREE different publishers??? (Not including Mayhew, who is not taking part in the process) What on earth is going on here?

There are TWELVE publishers listed here http://www.romanmissal.org.uk/Home/Music/Published-Music-Settings so who are the missing forty-one? How do I access these works? How are they being made available - being advertised - being distributed? It's a bit of a paradox, don't you think, that published seems to mean not available to the general public.? Would the Liturgy Office please care to clarify what publisher and published means, lest we all suffer from a surfeit of terminal definition?

All my own, now published, settings have been submitted to the panel through recognised publishers, not by myself as an individual. (Decani and McCrimmon) Therein is the pre-panel filter for submissions - a publisher/editor has made a judgement that the setting is worthy for submission (and in the case of the Decani collection where I am a co-editor, that pre-panel assessment has been made by the other editor and Stephen Dean (I received one rejection slip.)) But if anyone can set themselves up as a publisher (desktop variety) and be therefore considered as a true publisher by the panel, there's no pre-submission editorial "quality control", so it's no wonder that the panel (reading between the lines) has had to wade through a certain amount of unmusical tosh and dross and bottom-feeding, dyslexic fish of the genus Cyprinidae.

Surely the panel should not have to do this. If any Tom, *beep* or Harry can set themselves up as a publisher, doesn't that make a nonsense of the submission procedure? It's effectively allowing individuals, not publishers, to make submissions, which, I think, is exactly what the panel did not want to happen. SNAFU - as I understand the US army used to say.

[Peter]

FIFTY-THREE different publishers??? (Not including Mayhew, who is not taking part in the process) What on earth is going on here?

Presumably many are composers looking for permission to promulgate their own work without necessarily wishing to publish anyone else's.

[Peter Jones]

Presumably many are composers looking for permission to promulgate their own work without necessarily wishing to publish anyone else's.

Well OK. I think Phil Jakob and Nick Baty have shown this is possible ..... and their promulgation mechanism is to be found among the twelve listed publishers. Their tins read published by and they've done what it says on the tin. Good for them.

Where's the other 41 promulgation mechanisms that could hint at there really being 41 other publishers offering their works? I'd like to see, sing and play this music - even buy it - but I cannot if 'published' really means 'not available'.

[Peter Jones]

Of course, a certificate of panel approval for publication does not mean permission to publish. Is there any information available about how many of the 41 publishers have completed stage two - the submission to ICEL?

[Nick Baty]

If any Tom, *beep* or Harry can set themselves up as a publisher, doesn't that make a nonsense of the submission procedure?

Not necessarily as the Panel is concerned with the text – surely it's a good thing that folk are making these submissions rather than just churning out any old textual variation.

I'd like to see, sing and play this music - even buy it - but I cannot if 'published' really means 'not available'.

Of course, items could still be in the pipeline. Many of the pieces listed on the Published Settings list were sent to the Panel back in February and March. And/or it could be that the other 41 publishers have chosen not to be included on the Published Settings list.

[JW]

I don't really understand the problem - "if any Tom, Richard or Harriet can set themselves up as a publisher"...

So that our parish could hit the ground running with the new translation, I decided to publish from my desktop, then got panel approval (after a 'witheld - editorial') from the Panel, then obtained ICEL copyright permission.

The result is that my parish has a usable free setting tailored to our resources.

Any other parishes who show an interest are sent PDF copies gratis - I can do this without running foul of the Church authorities because I have the required permissions. The liturgy Office list links to my email so that anyone who wants to can contact me.

For the record, my setting was later submitted to Stephen Dean but, quite understandably, rejected.

One of the many advantages of the digital age is that anyone, recognised or not, can put their art into the ether and it allows us to publish without cost. Its then up to people whether they want use it or not.

If the argument is that only compositions that are accepted by the big publishers should be subjected to the approval process, this appears somewhat elitist. I am not recognised, everyone starts somewhere (otherwise I'm not sure what was the point of my studying music, including composition and orchestration and music technology, at university). I'd go even further and say that one doesn't need a formal musical education to compose. Not everyone who submits to YouTube has a degree in media studies!