PANEL decisions

[presbyter]

I thought it might be useful to post some decisions of the anonymous "gang of five" to help composers.

For example - I have been informed today that

"When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup.........." is acceptable as a legitimate adaptation.

Note the required capitalisation and the necessary inclusion of "and".

If you have any useful feedback to post, please do.

[JW]

I have been informed today that

"When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup.........." is acceptable as a legitimate adaptation.

Note the required capitalisation and the necessary inclusion of "and".

I was not aware that there are "legitimate adaptations" apart for the repetition of words, which is mentioned in the Guidance for Composers. Traditionally, words have tended to repeat immediately, not with the intervention of other words. Presumably this example is legitimate because it is interpreted as a repetition of 'when we'? Would the panel agree extra insertions of 'I believe' in the Creed, for example?

I'm struggling to set the Gloria at the moment and am reconciled to a Refrain/Chant structure (a la Duffy or Lourdes), as the words are so irregular, I'm now wondering if I've missed a trick somewhere. There is a problem with psalm tones in that they've probably all been composed already so I might get a message from the likes of Henry Purcell, William Croft or Dom Gregory Murray, not to mention all the still alive and kicking composers

I wonder if Vox Clara will eventually decide that, whatever the panel agree, if it ain't the way they like it, it's an abuse? Thanks for this feedback, Presbyter, I hope all of us will be able to share feedback given by the panel as it could save a considerable amount of work and heartache.

Johnquinn39, you were frustrated at this type of discussion in another thread and seemed to hint that you were getting frustrated with Catholicism in general: don't give up on us! These discussions are part of our attempts to understand and get settings of the new translation right, so that our liturgies give g(G?)lory to God. Our church has always been frustrating (think of how Da Vinci must've felt in papal confinement) - and, to me, it almost seems an aberration to have the word "holy" in the Creed - but it was ever thus. Over the years we have done far more good than harm - and that also applies to our liturgies and the words we use in them. I'm sure all of us know quite a few living Saints in the Church, so be of good cheer

[presbyter]

Oh my - I've just noticed this one. If you're setting a Greek Kyrie - there's a comma.

Kyrie, eleison.

Christe, eleison.

I'm sure salvation does not depend on this minute piece of punctuation but I bet publication does.

[presbyter]

I've had a thumbs down on an exclamation mark. It seems we really do have to be exact in the wording, capitalisations and punctuation. Oh well - editing time.

[HallamPhil]

I am disappointed to read from presbyter that divergences from the given text however small are now acceptable. I fail to understand why such adaptations are considered unless the composer is finding a good tune before honouring the text. I think a greater discipline for composers would be to follow what it says in the Composers Guide. Otherwise where will this newfound licence end?

Still travelling back from India so I haven't received results yet from my submissions.

[presbyter]

I am disappointed to read from presbyter that divergences from the given text however small are now acceptable. ........ I think a greater discipline for composers would be to follow what it says in the Composers Guide

Ooooops - I've given the wrong impression somehow. This repetition (not divergence) is indeed based on the Guide for Composers - 5.A.20. I posted it as an example of what that paragraph allows so that readers have an example.

Prescribed text:

When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.

set to music as

When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.

is OK because it's a repetition of "When we". It's an adaptation of the text, not a modification.

However

When we eat this Bread[,] [ ]when we drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again

No "and" in that one and a comma after Bread - that's a modification and is not allowed.

Does that make sense? My acceptable adaptation has not altered the text, just repeated two words.

[Nick Baty]

Who was it who said, "The French don't mind what they eat as long as the pronounce it properly"? Suspect it might have been Edmund Blackadder. Could we soon be in a position where we don't mind what the music's like as long as the punctuation is correct?

[presbyter]

Oh groan - someone has just asked me if I am a member of the anonymous "gang of five". I most certainly am not - and have no desire to be.

[presbyter]

Another repetition of mine that has been accepted (Guide for Composers - 5.A.20) and the contraction of Heaven has passed scrutiny.

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Heav'n and earth, heav'n and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes
in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

[Southern Comfort]

Some repetitions that have been turned down, but which will be appealed against:

Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.

Blessed, blessed, blessed, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.

And some that have been approved:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, holy Lord God of hosts.

Heav'n and earth are full, heav'n and earth are full, heav'n and earth are full of your glory.

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest. Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.

Blest is he who comes, blest is he who comes, in the name of the Lord.

There seems no rhyme or reason to this.

[Mithras]

Some repetitions that have been turned down, but which will be appealed against:

Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.

Blessed, blessed, blessed, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.

And some that have been approved:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, holy Lord God of hosts.

Heav'n and earth are full, heav'n and earth are full, heav'n and earth are full of your glory.

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest. Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest.

Blest is he who comes, blest is he who comes, in the name of the Lord.

There seems no rhyme or reason to this.

I can understand the first example being rejected as the word holy appears five times, deviating from its biblical source and (by extension) disturbing the Trinitarian implications of its position in the Mass, echoed or reflected at the end of the EP with "through him, with him, in him". For the same reason I would have expected the second example to be rejected as holy appears four times. As you state, no rhyme, no reason.

M

[presbyter]

.......as the word holy appears five times, deviating from its biblical source and (by extension) disturbing the Trinitarian implications of its position in the Mass

I do not possess the mens legislatoris in regard to the author(s) of the Guide for Composers and I have no firm idea as to how the panel are approaching the seraphic dialogue alter ad alterum. The Guide does allow limited repetitions of words/phrases though and the angels (in Rev 4:8) are continually bouncing back and forth an infinity of "Holy, Holy, Holy".

It is true that there are a few patristic references that give a Trinitarian interpretation to the thrice-Holy (Origen, for example - but forgive me if I refrain from finding the exact reference - no time) but that's not how Isaiah would have thought. In Biblical thought, three is the number of absolute perfection (as seven is the number of spiritual perfection and twelve the perfection of governance of a theocracy). The nature of God is perfect.

I have been informed by an OT scholar that the Hebrew of Isaiah 6:3 itself is unclear. The seraphims' song "Holy, Holy, Holy" may be interpreted as acclamatory, descriptive or attributive (or any combination thereof). Yet my friendly scholar does think that if "holy" is repeated, it should be in groups of three, reflecting the perfect nature of God.

The panel do not seem to have any dogmatic view on a strict number of "holy" - and, for example, if we call to mind Bach's B minor Mass, there's a more than generous portion of Sanctus presented. The panel seems to be generous in its allowance too.

[Nick Baty]

The panel do not seem to have any dogmatic view on a strict number of "holy" - and... seems to be generous in its allowance too.

That's interesting. Do we know of any pairs or quadruplets of Holy which have got through? I'm thinking of Bill Tamblyn's New Community Mass which has either two or four Holys, depending on how you look at it. And I think the reason for its deviation is that New Community Mass was, itself, a reworking of Bill's earlier Community Mass which was a setting of an earlier text, rather closer to what we have now. To quote Shirley Bassey (who, as far as I know, was not at Vatican II) it's history repeating!

[gwyn]

Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.

Five is pushing it a bit.

[Nick Baty]

It looks as though repetition is OK but there is a limit to how much. Perhaps it's a question of context.

Some that have been approved:
Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, (repetition)
For you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, (extra word)
Heav’n and earth, heav’n and earth are full of your glory. (repetition)
Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest. (repetition)
When we eat this Bread and when we drink this Cup, (extra words)
Save us, save us Saviour of the world, (repetition)

It's had to know exactly how the Panel thinks. I suppose it's just a question of looking at what has been passed.