It's deeply troubling. I look forward to your follow up.

Compare that to the generous and dare I say evangelical treatment of the Book of Common Prayer, for which no permissions are required for congregational use.

See No. 9 here: https://www.churchpublishing.org/rightspremissions

The more it's about money than conformance the more it raises the issue of simony.

The USCCB is also really pathetic when it comes to, say:
-- evangelizing about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and
-- standing behind TLM attendees in the US, many of whom are under siege from their bishops.

[Asking just out of curiosity, and without respect to the injustice of the policy]

How steep are the licensing fees, and how are they calculated?

Thank you for your service.

@ServiamScores

I can see why there might be concern on the part of the USCCB. If your psalm and gospel settings are from approved sources, that is the sources approved by the USCCB, then I don’t see a why they would object. However, if you are using text that is only appropriate for the TL and someone is using them in the NO, then I can see a concern. Just to clarify, I am not say that someone is using them in the NO. I don’t know if the psalm text for TL is the same as in the NO but I suspect there are differences because the two liturgies are different. It must be very difficult and disheartening to have to deal with this.

I've always used the lectionary text straight from the USCCB's own website (or more recently, AP&C for the verses). Never doing anything untoward. They just don't want composers having free reign, as best I can tell. And they want to make a buck.

"121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.*" —Sacrosanctum Concilium
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(*Terms and conditions apply. See USCCB legal for details.)

I'm sorry to learn of this situation, does it mean that when composing masses or psalm settings for liturgical use, the approved texts can only be used after paying a fee --is that what this thread is about?

WillWilkin, it would seem so.

Truly the Responsorial Psalm must rate as one of the most poorly conceived aspects of the entire liturgical reform.

The singing of the antiphon between each psalm verse strikes me as as originating from a Sixties idea of participation: perhaps the liturgists behind it thought that the assembly would absorb its meaning only through multiple repetitions. Anyone care to share what the thinking was?

If USCCB’s issue really is text integrity, make an AI tool that can review composer submissions and determine text integrity. You could have instant approval of your score.

My point stands - the multiple repetitions of a single line of text.

Fr Joseph Gelineau devised a style of congregational psalm singing in the fifties, characterised by a short, congregational refrain and a number of verses sung alone by the cantors/choir.
He was also on the team behind the translations of the Jerusalem Bible, as well as the Grail psalter, which was later used for the English Liturgy.

His psalmody was very popular.

I believe that he was very influential in the reforms following the Second Vatican Council.

His book, Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship (1964), paved the way for (for example) the re-introduction of the responsorial psalm form into the Mass after an absence of some 1500 years.

So the same priest popularised a particular psalm form and later wrote a book that influenced the implementation of the responsorial psalm on the New Mass?

Hmmm...

Following up on WillWilkin.... Is this USA only? For English translations of the Psalms as copyrighted by (whoever)? Am I right to expect that Latin & Mass liturgy are public domain?

https://sacredmusiclibrary.com/blog/zero-cost

You may find this useful, if so, please click THANKS.

$150 x 3 is steep upfront but isn’t as bad as it could be. I hardly see how they’re trying to make money from that.

^that would be outrageous, because yeah, if that’s the case, I think that’s ridiculous and geared to shut out anyone not charging or charging only modest fees for their work.

just to clarify: was that $150 once for each year in the 3-year cycle [peace be upon it]?

Or $150 a year, every year, until you stop publishing your musical settings of the scripture readings?

$150 a year, every year, even if I were to post them here for anyone to use for free.

So you have to PAY TO GIVE SOMETHING AWAY FOR FREE. Great.

Does anyone have any specific questions for the powers-that-be? I have a zoom call in an hour, and I will ask them.

Best wishes

"So, for parishes that have found the offerings of major commercial publishers to be lacking in quality, would the USCCB staff prefer that the Ordinary and the responsorial psalms to be recited rather than sung, because the burdens on (a) individual non-commercial parish composers who are not selling their compositions but crafting them for their own congregation's use and (2) the USCCB staff, would appear to function in practice as a strong disincentive...."

Thanks for having this meeting with them, Serviam.
This situation is disheartening at best and needs great clarification. I understanding honoring and respecting the exact texts, but this is going to squelch creativity and deprive of us the beautiful work of many composers who can’t justify these fees. Keep us posted. Pax!

Liam asked the apt question:

"So, for parishes that have found the offerings of major commercial publishers to be lacking in quality, would the USCCB staff prefer that the Ordinary and the responsorial psalms to be recited rather than sung, because the burdens on (a) individual non-commercial parish composers who are not selling their compositions but crafting them for their own congregation's use and (2) the USCCB staff, would appear to function in practice as a strong disincentive...."

The preferences of the USCCB staff as such really should not matter, as the policies ought to be set by the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship.

Chonak

And staff preferences that have the practical effect of frustrating or even subverting the conciliar reform's promotion of congregational singing of the Ordinary and psalter of a quality that at least aspires to be inspired by the Church's treasury of music . . . should be given a more public review by the bishops themselves in dialogue with the American Catholic faithful who are not - or would not choose to be - beholden to major commercial publishers, publishers that have vested economic interests (and the commercial power to invest further in managing those interests) in longstanding relationships with the staff. Policies that appear to be "neutral" in formal terms can be quite biased in practical effect.

Hi friends—
I had a good (2h!) meeting with Mary. I will be formulating my thoughts a bit more formally in the coming days and will report back. Suffice it to say for now, it appears that the fee schedule (speaking at least for the USCCB side) is a reasonable flat rate, if I'm understanding everything correctly. I'm going to seek clarification on the language that I can share on that matter before posting details publicly.

There were interesting takeaways from this meeting. The first is that they don't relish in this system, either. They are bound by certain canonical norms and things like Magnum Principium and Liturgicam Authenticam. The fees that they do assess are strictly to help fund their function, and the office still operates at a loss. So this is not a price-gouging scheme. This is a relief, to put it mildly. I confess I am not bothered by the proposed fee formula (at least for psalms).

It may come as a surprise, since I've made some very irked comments, but I am sympathetic to their side of the issue. They are trying to make the best of the situation just like we are. As it happens, in the wake of the council, certain things were not copyrighted, and then abuses happened by bad actors, which caused genuine problems. The then cardinal legate urged the Bishops to copyright things to prevent further abuses. (I do think we could still argue about whether or not the bishops should simply budget the running of the office in such a way that fees would not be required to support its function, particularly where furnishing readings in worship aids is concerned... but that's a slightly separate discussion from the music issue.). I was furnished very real-world examples of the abuses they prevent from happening, and it is indeed good that they are doing some gatekeeping, to be perfectly honest.

The second takeaway is that the new lectionary is not coming for a while. We are looking Advent 2028 at the earliest. This certainly changes the calculus for me as a composer, and I will begin the process of having my extant settings regularized. I was under the impression that things were further along than they are, and I was trying to hold out for the new lectionary. I was also told that the bishops recently agreed to a formal 3yr grace period after the official promulgation of the new lectionary. That means that current psalm settings are slated to be licit for a good 6 years or so, possibly longer depending on how it all plays out.

We discussed the possibility of doing a public webinar to help clarify some of these issues. I have also asked for permission to type up a blog post to offer some broad-strokes guidance. I will formulate this and make sure that the language I'm using accords with their policy and how they choose to present it, and report back later, hopefully to everyone's benefit. There are essential details that it is helpful to know, that are not easily found, like the fact that you have to send things to the Secretariat for Divine Worship and the USCCB copyright office first, before contacting ICEL. There is a proper sequence to events, but again, you'd never know this without being directly told.

__________
I feel compelled to offer this initial reflection, since some of my posts in the past have been sharp and critical, and I now feel compelled in Christian charity to try and diffuse the situation to some degree. The age-old wisdom of "there are two sides of the story" certainly comes into play here. There's no doubt that it is regrettable that we are where we are... but that's also not to say that those working at the USCCB are doing so in bad faith or trying to make it difficult. It just... is what it is, as best I can tell. I certainly do not intend to tell anyone how to feel, and I do not begrudge people still feeling saucy about the whole thing. But the human element needs to be factored in now.