Society of Saint Gregory

VML wrote:'blessed' rather than 'happy.' I wish I could understand how the happitudes came about

It's a valid, literal translation of Makarioi

Thank you for the explanation, Presbyter, but in that case, why were they beatitudes before?

VML wrote:Thank you for the explanation, Presbyter, but in that case, why were they beatitudes before?

I'm not sure the question makes sense. The name Beatitudes comes from the Latin beatus, meaning, well, the same as the Greek makarios, something like 'happy' or 'blessed'.

We've had this conversation before, haven't we?

M.

Martin Foster wrote:Any change needs to be balanced with the risk of reducing the congregation’s familiarity with a canonical text.

I wonder if you'd say the same if we were talking about a musical setting of [bible]Mt 5:3-12[/bible], say, or [bible]Phil 4:4-9[/bible]? Should the composer feel obliged to stick to a form of words found in a translation authorised for liturgical use? I'm not sure that one could really claim that, e.g. the Jerusalem Bible text is optimised for setting to music. A composer and/or lyricist might need to rework the text to help it to coalesce with a melody. Is it any different with the translations of the Psalms? They don't necessarily come ready tailored for setting to music.

And, pace Contrabordun, neither do they need to - a translation of a particular psalm might be just right for reading silently, or reading aloud, or for singing, or for chanting. There's no reason why any translation could be expected to be suitable for all those purposes straight out of the box. That's why the composer and/or lyricist exercise their craft in adapting the text, and why (IMHO) it's appropriate for them to do so.

M.

To be pedantic - the Liturgy does offer a text intended for singing for Phil 2 in the Divine Office Sunday Evening Prayer 1. Whereas the Beatitudes are not given in the liturgy as a text for singing. I would make (and perhaps should have made) the distinction between texts given in the liturgical books and setting scripture.

One of the criteria for liturgical texts has been there suitability for singing (cf. Liturgiam Authenticam 60). Now whether that has always been succesful may be a matter for debate but one of the reasons we use the Grail psalter is its suitability for singing.

One thing I am unclear is what makes a text suitable for singing? Or is it easier to say what makes it unsuitable?

Perhaps I should offer a pint (or other tipple) at Summer School for those who can help me!

Martin

Martin Foster wrote:Perhaps I should offer a pint (or other tipple) at Summer School for those who can help me!

Genoito moi kata to rhema sou. (:-))
M.

Something to do with an Italian trifle?

In my missal the psalm verses are either not numbered or just numbered 1,2,3 regardless of what verse they are in reality. If we are very specific in our request to HarperCollins, i.e. "I want to use the text of Psalm998(999) as laid out in the Roman Missal/Lectionary(1963)", why should HC prevent this?

Still hoping for an answer to my query above.

Martin Foster wrote:what makes a text suitable for singing? Or is it easier to say what makes it unsuitable?

In answer, isn't it something to do with metre and rhythm? Poetry often features this - it's what gives it the lilting flow that is frequently so easy to attach music to.

Grail texts don't always feature metre and/or rhythm, but as they are the agreed translations, I think that's what we should be using at the appropriate point in the mass, not our own interpretations. It does mean we have pull the stops out to get the music to fit the words without losing the message.

Unfortunately, HC now seem to be preventing this, through what appears to be a misunderstanding of certain liturgical instructions i.e. structure of the mass.

Sill obsessing about Grail psalms and copyright.

Being a complete anorak and having nothing better to do, I'm sitting here comparing Psalm 117(118) in Grail and in The Psalms, A New Translation for Workship (Collins).

The following verses are identical in both translations:
1. Give thanks to the Lord for he is good.
7. The Lord is at my side as my helper.
8/9. It is better to take refuge in the Lord…
12. They blazed like fire among thorns…
21. The stone which/that the builders rejected

So, publishing the above lines would contravene which copyright?

This thread has been dead for a bit, perhaps for obvious reasons, but as I was looking into the issue on the web I thought I'd tell everyone about those nice people down at the liturgy office who help us pretty neatly at this link:
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Copyright/Info.html.
I was curious that the music posted on the forum referred to "ICET", not "ICEL", and wondered what was the difference. More significantly is my new knowledge that Psalm texts (Grail versions anyway, thus I suppose, those in the Missal), while published by HC, are administered by Calamus. Now that I know this, I can take any copyright issues to Calamus (aka Decani Music), with the certainty that they will understand what HC, clearly, do not.

That's how I understand it anyway. Please let me know if this is wrong.

martin foster wrote:I understand that the query has been passed on to the Bible Department for clarification.

Has there been any response yet? It has been some time.