Revised Grail Psalter: Approved for Liturgical Use in US
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    the first volume of what?

    And, by the way, the Conception Abbey "giving" the copyright to GIA --- doesn't that defeat the purpose of what a copyright is??
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Ah yes, the first volume.

    How useful.

    /
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,498
    GIA's memo said that they'll publish it when the imprimatur comes through.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Release the text to public domain. Act as fiduciary agent for Conception in charging compensation for use of tweaked passages for a finite period of time, then put it all in the public domain. Conception Abbey gets compensated for its labor, GIA gets the prestige and a little on the side, and eventually the faithful get the Psalms of David in a non-embarrassing translation with wide currency in the Church. Church composers rejoice. People in the pews wonder what the fuss is about. Everyone is happy.

    Everyone but the greedy, that is.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,244
    Charles:

    I have a printed copy of the original. I wonder how different the revised will be?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,498
    GIA says that they're the "agent" for the copyright holders (both the Abbey and the Grail organization).

    Jeffrey sounds convinced that GIA is therefore going to make all the decisions about who gets to use the text, etc., as if the Abbey and Grail have given up all their rights to set policies. Is that how such "agent" deals work? Or perhaps is that how GIA always works? I don't get it.
  • Well, you can be the copyright "owner" but so long as there is a publisher with agency rights, you have ZERO say about how the text is used so long as the deal continues, which in practice means nearly forever. Any author who has worked with a major publisher knows this. For that matter, composers know it too. Not even their own choirs can sing the music without buying it from the publisher. Imagine this situation for the whole English speaking Church. Everyone will be hock to GIA, utterly dependent on their decision making.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Possible typo: "Not even their own choirs can't sing the music without buying it from the publisher"
  • madmc
    Posts: 1
    I am confused, it seems to me that the past fourty years we have had all kinds of horrible translations by those who had an agenda of their own. We have had inclusive language forced down our throats and if they were told not to use it, they used it all the more. They being those who wrote the horrible translations of what was to be pleasing to God. We have been waiting for a long time for the "Church" to step in and say what is to be used and what is not. This is God speaking not some monk. Haven't we been long enough with the experimentation on the people in the pew. Most of them don't know enough to know good from bad and they learn from what they hear. God did not speak to men and women, he said man or mankind which meant the same. Today the feminist movement has also infiltrated the Church and wants all to be their way. Can't everyone wait and see before stirring the pot and causing trouble before the final product is even available? This is the first time I have posted here, be nice don't jump all over me. I love sacred music and I especially love when I can sing and teach at the same time. It is amazing to watch the reaction of some people when the words jump into their hearts and they understand. It is true that to sing is to pray twice?
  • It is crucially important that the final product actually BE available, not as the captive possession of a gouging for-proft company but as the true possession of the Catholic people.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,244
    Amen, JT.
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Jeffrey - Just what do they charge?

    If, say, I wanted to write some music for the Psalms and post them on my website for free use, what would I have to pay them? To be honest, if they want a one-time $50 fee I won't consider it outrageous. If they want $5000 (or $50 for each creation) now I might consider calling them a "gouging for-profit company"!!
  • So far as I know, the Grail doesn't permit posting at all. For printed stuff, they want 10% (like God).
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I know that the Anglican Use parishes have an indult to use their own Scripture readings.

    I wonder if we could get enough people who want the Douay Rheims Psalms, and write to Rome asking for an indult.

    This could be an indult for "English Speakers who do not want the Psalms to keep changing" --- we would be going with a tried-and-true translation that has stood the test of time.

    I wonder if the "liturgical diversity" in the Church would allow this --- how great it would be to have a translation that will not change every few years

    ...just a thought....
  • Jeff, that is an intriguing thought... and a solution that somehow doesn't seem so far-fetched. In the long run, that is.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Aristotle,

    As long as we are dreaming, I wish we could make a big database with digital pictures of old chant MSS.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,498
    Does anyone know the rules for publishing psalms from the Ignatius Catholic RSV? Some Caribbean dioceses adopted it for their lectionary.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,244
    JO:

    I will gladly add my signature for an indult.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,244
    Well said, JT.

    This is why I refuse to participate in any way with composing new music for Psalms that a particular organization THINKS they have the rights to own.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Slightly OT

    At Valle Adurni, a commenter called "The Cardinal" has posted this interesting information about the new Mass texts in English:
    A significant number of composers published by OCP have indeed had access to what were assumed to be the new texts. They were sent them in March 2007, with a request for settings by the middle of May 2007, so that OCP could be ahead of the game.

    However, those who went to the trouble of writing new settings (or adapting old ones) will have been disappointed to see that the new texts as recently provided by Rome are not identical with those that the US Bishops submitted for recognitio - for example, the first line of Sanctus is different - so there will have been more than a little time-wasting and (presumably, now that they know the texts are not what was previously thought) much weeping and gnashing of teeth. At least one distinguished American composer has been testing out a complete Eucharistic Prayer setting and will now have to go back to the drawing-board.

    As a matter of fact, Paul Inwood is on record as saying, on various fora over the past 18 months, (a) that he did not intend to waste his time doing anything at all until such time as it could be certain what the final texts would actually turn out to be, and (b) that what the US Bishops have posted on their website is most probably not the end of the story.

    His wisdom turns out to have have been well-placed, in the light of what has happened so far. It is still not clear what the final position will be on the 40 amendments that the US Bishops asked for along with their request for recognitio. For example, the word on the street is that "Christ has died", currently omitted from the latest recension, will be reinstated. There may yet be other changes to the text that Cardinal Arinze sent to the US Conference. (The Bishops of England and Wales have not yet received anything. It is believed that the same text is sitting on Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's desk, awaiting his return from absence at World Youth Day and subsequent holiday, but who knows?)

    Because the Order of Mass will not be implemented until the entire Missal (and Lectionary - but that's another story) is ready, and because the US Bishops have rejected a large part of the Proper of Seasons, it now seems quite likely that the earliest starting date for using the new Order of Mass texts is Advent 2012. Anything could happen between now and then. (As the late John Tracy Ellis said, there is nothing wrong with the Church that a hundred good funerals wouldn't fix.) If Mr Inwood sticks to his guns, he may have the last laugh.

    As far as paraphrases are concerned, I think you will find that ICEL, acting under instructions from the American BCDW, will be much fiercer about not giving permission for paraphrased texts than it has been in the past. I think you'll also find that ICEL is not currently granting any permissions at all precisely because of the uncertainty surrounding what the texts will finally be, and not for any sinister reason such as restricting permissions to particular favoured composers. Anyone is free to set these texts. It's just that they might be unwise to do so just yet.

    So, yes, a certain cynicism is in order, but I don't think it's correct to say that any of the major composers have had the kind of head start that Pastor in Valle is implying. If the new texts in fact never come to pass (as another word on the street, this time in Rome, suggests), then all the "approved" composers who have spent time working on them, whoever they may be, will have egg on their faces.
    This is stated too strongly. Speed off the mark is important. Setting draft texts to Gregorian melodies is not as time-consuming as putting together the absolutely ridiculous amount of print paraphernalia surrounding a typical Catho-lite Music Inc., production. It is definitely "unwise" for the big publishers to invest a lot in setting draft texts. The traditional musicians of the Church? Not so much. Not so much at all, in fact.
  • Jeff O: The AU tends to use the RSV-RC version. Originally published by Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, back in 1970. It was what we all used until the NAB Lectionary was completed and published. Permission for any Catholic parish to use it was probably no more abrogated than the TLM, but certainly the bishops pushed the use of the work they had paid for! I believe the newer publication of the RSV is permissible now. The AU does not have permission to use either the KJV or Douay. Even though the latter had been read from for generations at the beginning of the Sermon, from the pulpit, it was never used to proclaim the Readings in Mass, so far as I know. It would, indeed, be an indult to allow it now!
  • http://www.paulinesafrica.org/catalogue2/new_in_liturgy_of_hours.html

    Does this mean NGP is now in use there and not here?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,498
    Yep: here, it's awaiting CDWDS approval.
  • I hadn't realized until someone on this blog alerted me to the fact that the 2nd edition of LotH was never translated into English. Will a new English version come out with NGP before the 2nd edition is translated, or will they come out in one fell swoop in 8-10 years?

    Also, in the piece quoted by Pes above, it says, "Because the Order of Mass will not be implemented until the entire Missal (and Lectionary - but that's another story) is ready...it now seems quite likely that the earliest starting date for using the new Order of Mass texts is Advent 2012." Is the lectionary being tinkered with again in addition to the reworking of the psalms? I've been thinking of donating a book of the Gospels to my parish, but I don't want to donate one that will be obsolete in three years.
  • The NAB is one of the great stumbling blocks for Protestants & Anglicans who wish to enter the Church. The AU parishes were blessed by provision in the Book of Divine Worship to use the RSV-CE or the Jerusalem Bible. And currently the Catholic Church in the Caribbean uses RSV-CE2 in their Lectionaries. I keep praying that the American bishops will authorise RSV-CE2 as an alternative to the NAB.

    Surely it matters when the translation of the Scriptures authorised by a nations' bishops is an actual impediment to the New Evangelisation to which we were all called by Pope John Paul II.

    The authorisation of Conception Abbey's New Grail is a great development, and I pray that Jeffrey will be successful in communicating to them the importance of Creative Commons and the accessibility of the text for composers.
  • The pressure on GIA is intensifying to 1) release the details of their agreement with Conception, which GIA has held in secret, and 2) follow the NAB practice of not charging royalties for printing. Justice demands Creative Commons for liturgical commons but that is the goal and not likely to happen in the near future.
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    jeffry
    wanna bet theres a picture of you on a dartboard in the gia executive washroom?
  • Don,

    Dollars to donuts, I’ll bet there is no such thing as an executive washroom there.

    I personally suspect people who work for Catholic music publishers rarely get rich on it. Most composers make very little from music they publish, and I doubt that the publishers, after paying all the middlemen etc., make much themselves.
  • No kidding. The business is so ruthless precisely because the stakes are so small.
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    Felipe
    great to hear from you, hope all is well!
    your probably right although i suspect upper manegement does better then us. Nevertheless, the ocp-gia-wlp monopoly rakes in megabucks that have to go somewhere and we Catholics are getting a lousy return on our investment!!!!
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    Has anybody heard about the RGP text being published? It looks like it received the recognitio from Rome back in April, but this and this doesn't seem too promising.

    Is someone allowed to send me a copy of the text?

    EDIT:
    I found this as well at GIA. I guess there are "changes" in the recognitio that need to be incorporated. Blech.
  • "The NAB is one of the great stumbling blocks for Protestants & Anglicans who wish to enter the Church."

    ?? please explain, vincentuher. the NAB is very close to the douay rheims (word-for-word in many an instance)

    "I personally suspect people who work for Catholic music publishers rarely get rich on it."

    felipe, you're certainly free to speculate, but unless they choose to be transparent on this issue, we have no point of reference whatsoever. it is actually more likely that GIA will make tens of millions selling these psalms, because just think about how many english-speakers use the Mass texts day-by-day. remember, english is spoken in every part of the globe. english is now the international language.

    "The pressure on GIA is intensifying to 1) release the details of their agreement with Conception, which GIA has held in secret,"

    i happen to know one of the monks at conception abbey. they use these psalms every day, but no one else is allowed to. this priest has intimated to me that GIA paid a hefty sum when they purchased these psalms. basically, he claims that GIA would have been out *millions* of dollars, had the Vatican not given the recognitio.
  • I am reminded that Benedictines do not take a vow of poverty.
  • Also, royalties must still be paid to the UK monks for the portions of the grail psalter that are unchanged, royalties are only paid for the changes made to the US monks....
  • The word I heard is that the changes that accompanied the recognitio are being fought, because they make the volume unusable--things like indiscriminate use of Find/Replace in Word to "fix" one thing, that then broke 100 other things. I don't think we're going to see a final copy of this any time soon.
  • 150 psalms - 341 changes....seems to be major problems!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,498
    Noel writes:

    royalties must still be paid to the UK monks for the portions of the grail psalter that are unchanged

    What UK monks? The Grail (in the UK) is a secular institute. I can't tell how many there are from their web site, but it looks pretty small.
  • Assmed they were monks. The seculars still get paid.