PBEH: Coverage
  • Chrism
    Posts: 869
    Understanding that PBEH is primarily for parish use, and need not include particular hymns for every local weekday commemoration, nonetheless here is a reminder that the following Saints days take precedence over the Sunday in the OF:

    Mary Mother of God (Jan 1)
    St. Joseph (March 19)
    St. John the Baptist (June 24)
    Sts. Peter & Paul (June 29)
    Assumption (Aug 15)
    All Saints (Nov. 1)
    All Souls (Nov. 2)
    Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8)
    Christmas (Dec 25)
    Anniversary of dedication of the church (movable) - e.g., Jerusalem et Sion

    ...and, according to my understanding, on particular national calendars in the English-speaking world (hymns for these could be included online):

    St. Patrick, Ireland & Australia (Mar. 17)
    St. David, Wales (Mar. 1)
    Our Lady Help of Christians, Australia (May 24)
    St. George, England (Apr 23)
    St. Andrew, Scotland (Nov 30)

    ...and, according to the 1962 Rubrics (some places follow earlier rubrics), the following also take precedence in the EF:

    Christmas Eve Vigil (Dec 24)
    Precious Blood (Jul 1)
    Annunciation (Mar 25)
    St. Joseph the Worker (May 1)
    St. Michael the Archangel (Sep 29)
    with External Solemnities authorized universally for Our Lady of the Rosary (1st Sunday, October) and Sacred Heart (3rd Sunday after Pentecost).

    Plus, here are the principal devotional months:

    January - Holy Name
    March - St. Joseph
    May - Blessed Mother
    June - Sacred Heart
    July - Precious Blood
    August - Immaculate Heart of Mary
    September - Sorrowful Mother
    October - Our Lady of the Rosary
    November - Holy Souls in Purgatory
  • I disagree with your presumption that this project is aimed at Sunday worship. I think the collection - online PDF or printed and in pews - needs to be as complete as possible. None of us know when a "special" hymn might be desired. IMO one of the things we lost in the '60s was observance of the Sanctoral Cycle. And it starts with the cycle now starting on day #1 of the secular calendar rather than with St. Andrew, the first Apostle, on Nov. 30th - always around the beginning of the Liturgical Year with Advent. I believe they wanted to downplay the saints from the beginning of the "reform". If there are hymns about particular saints, etc., maybe interest will grow into including Masses with music on these days.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    I second Steve.

    I still think we should have at least 500 hymns with everything we "need" (not want).
  • I agree fully with Steve and Francis. I have repeatedly suggested that we need a Catholic hymnal whose contents shadow the Lectionary, but have gotten the impression that few share this view. Is there a scholastic goal in the shaping and editing of this proposed hymnal? Surely it is going to be more than a collection of whatever happens to be public domain and isn't too, too, awful.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 869
    To clarify: I put in my recommendation for large numbers of hymns a while ago.

    But if we end up with 250, then it sure would be a shame if none of the wealth of hymns for Sts. Peter & Paul were included in the final cut.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    Actually, if we are including the controversial hymns that were discussed on this forum then we should create the best 1000 and include everything and let everyone pick and choose from the grand pool. 250 means there is a board who are being selective to their own liking.
  • Actually, Francis, the reason for the 250 has nothing to do with anything you have mentioned so far, and, in addition, there is no board.

    The process that is at work here is much fairer than you may think, and that will become obvious as this progresses.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    I guess I am not understanding the methodology of how and who is deciding content. Please enlighten me! Is there a page perhaps that explains this in detail?
  • That's totally Jeffrey's subject, sorry. I'm sure he'll respond.
  • there is no limit to what appears online. the printed version should not be much thicker than the PBC. however hymns appear, that's important for both price and shape and size.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    So then, we are creating two hymnals? A larger online version and a smaller print version? What are the conditions of inclusion for each?

    (sorry for so many questions. I really want to understand the process and contribute in the best way possible, but I am quite in the dark concerning the perameters of this great project.)
  • 1) commons, 2) solid theology with good texts, 3) non-goofy melodies
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    Thnx JT

    The first two can be judged objectively. The third is why I believe there is confusion over what does and does not belong. There is no criteria (in my mind) to define a non-goofy melody. However, what we could do is create a form that asks all to rate each hymn tune:

    1. Very Goofy
    2. Goofy
    3. Middle of the road
    4. Good
    5. Excellent

    I think this would be telling.
  • There's no accounting for taste, or so I hear.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Some of the goofiest tricks seem to work very well for hymn melodies. Why not just climb the scale? No? Then we've lost Darwall's 148th. Why not just arpeggio a major chord? No? Then you've lost Italian Hymn AND Darwall's 148th.

    What's the simplest, most cliched entry into a tune? The rising 4th, right? Take that away, and you've lost half the tunes in the book. It'd be just as devastating as taking the rising 6th out of the Graduale Romanum.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707

    I beg to differ with those who say there is no accounting for taste.

    The rule that I go by is the historical body of Catholic sacred music. And there is NOTHING in there that spells "schmaltz" which has only appeared in the last 100 years.

    An earlier conversation about the (IMHO bogus) latin phrase everyone throws around about taste:

    M. Jackson Osborn Mar 2nd 2009 edited
    De gustibus non est disputandum..... providing it is 'gustibus' to start with!

    janetgorbitz Mar 2nd 2009
    now that's funny...

    francis Mar 2nd 2009 edit
    I don't know why people use that Latin phrase to justify the improper selection of music in the liturgy... Please explain.

    M. Jackson Osborn Mar 2nd 2009
    Their assertion here is that one 'taste' is as good as another, and that everyone's 'taste' is, thus, equal... just as junky music is as good as Bach (and God doesn't care).
    This is, of course, at odds with objective reality.
    My attempt at humour would assert that there is 'taste' and 'not taste', and that only 'taste' cannot be disputed.

    marajoy Mar 2nd 2009
    haha, Paul, that's funny.
    yes, I realize these tunes are only our preferences, but still, I think this is quite an interesting thread. I think NPM or someone takes a poll on favorite songs, and of course Eagles Wings et al are on it, so this thread is great to see some other ideas of what actually are good songs. (for example, very cool that Love Unknown has been posted by several people!)
    wouldn't that be interesting to take a huge poll on favorite hymns/tunes from the whole CMAA membership? hmm... (well, as long as we could avoid getting into nit-picky arguments over Latin chants verse hymns...oooh, maybe we should have two different polls!)

    francis Mar 3rd 2009 edit
    And which liturgical document or book of the bible sports that latin phrase? Does anyone know it's origin?

    M. Jackson Osborn Mar 3rd 2009
    My source says only that it is of XVII. cent. origin and alludes to a similar prhase, quot homines, tot sententiae, which is attributed to Terrence and quoted by Cicero. (Cf. A Dictionary of Foreign Words & Phrases..., ed. Alan Bliss.)