Update on GIA / Grail / USCCB
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,655
    I have a meeting to attend tonight and would love it if I could give an update on the GIA / Grail / USCCB situation.

    Is there anyplace I can go to read all the details?
    When will these Psalms come into use?
    Is there any announcement on fees for using these Psalm texts?
  • The Psalms will come into use. GIA has announced no fee schedule. The agreement between GIA and Conception is secret. Many people at Conception feel themselves to be victims of a deal they didnt' understand. GIA is trying to quiet the opposition through symbolic concessions, while making business plans that presumes high revenues. That's about it. Until the lawyer get involved to question with discovery and litigation the very idea that small words changes of a book that has been translated for 500 years cannot be copyright protected in full, I fear that there is no way out.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,655
    What are these symbolic concessions?

    Is there anyone Catholics should be writing letters to so that such fees can be hopefully avoided? GIA? The Bishops? Conception? Vatican?
  • The concession is that you can post one Psalm online with one link per Psalm and not pay a fee.

    Now that's evangelization!!

    What this will mean for the Colloquium, for example, is unclear. Can we record a Grail text and put it on youtube? Maybe, maybe not. Can your parish choir make a CD and raise money without entering into rights negotiations with some for-profit publisher in Chicago?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    all composers in good conscience should boycott the translation. if we participate in promoting their money schemes, would we not be accomplices to simony?
  • Francis, let's be fair and include all composers in bad conscience as well....they may understand the situation better!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Noel:

    Perhaps you are right. Those in bad conscience may also participate.

    NOTE: By boycott, I mean, refuse to participate in the composing of the music for aforementioned text. I presently compose the Psalms strictly for my own parish out of downright necessity (as does JO, Artistotle and the rest of us). But publishing them is an entirely different matter.
  • Perhaps composers should engage in some civil disobedience. If GIA decides to sue someone for doing something in which they gain no monetary profit, then what is their argument? I would then just settle and become a GIA composer, which brings better music to the masses (pun).
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Michael:

    They could give a hoot about the money we would give them. What they really want is that WE VALIDATE THE TEXT by setting it to good music... we should not do so. I cannot believe the abominable quality of the WLP Psalms... I have to recompose them almost every week! (They should decompose instead!) It is a travesty we have to bring them back from the dead. Leave them to their own devices.
  • Can anyone give me a clean and clear answer to this question, with evidence to support it? What translations of the Psalms are permitted for the Responsorial Psalm? More precisely, is Douay etc. forbidden by ICEL or the USCCB or whatever is the forbidding body?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    They must be out of the lectionary. Only the NAB. I think it is specified in the GIRM, around number 60 or so.
  • GIRM 61 says:

    The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.


    Though this is slightly off topic, I was just really struck by reading the rest of this article:

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting;...


    Did the American adapters of this document really not know that Responsorial Psalm antiphons and psalms from the Lectionary are not set to music in the Roman or Simple Gradual... anywhere, whatsoever?
  • Adam, my hunch is that "no" is the answer to your question, as there are other places where it is not clear that the writer of the English really knows what the graduals actually contain. But the other question is how can it be that in place of the assigned psalm in the Lectionary for Mass, the proper psalm of the Lectionary may be used. What other lectionary is there? I will say that there is sometimes a correspondence between the seasonal psalm and antiphon in the Lectionary for Mass and the seasonal ones in the simple gradual (e.g. Epiphany, Easter), but not always (Advent, Christmas, Ascension). My understanding is the individual countries have some say over what the seasonal psalms are in their lectionaries.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    What is interesting to me is their ability to 'sneak' in a scapegoat very similar to the "alius cantus aptus" to allow anyone to misunderstand the preference of the Church in selecting the proper setting of music.
  • So what if you sing the Gradual Psalm set to a different translation or the Simple Gradual in another translation? What is approved in this case? Also, what translation does Paul Ford use in his approved Flowing Waters?
  • Good point, Ioannes. Replacing the "Psalm assigned in the Lectionary" with the "Proper... antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary..." does sound a bit redundant doesn't it? This confusion coupled with the absurdity in the Introit rubric of the same document, as made clear by the 2006 Tietze article, definitely makes one think that the authors had no clue what the Roman and Simple Graduals are, or that they are participating in some kind of conspiracy.

    @Jeffrey -- I have noticed this before but haven't investigated it any further. At the top of ICEL's list of translated liturgical books is the "Simple Gradual" which is filed under "Roman Missal". Is this the translation that Paul Ford uses? I personally wish that there was "Roman Gradual" translation on this list, but I know that you and I have disagreed on this point before.

    I assume that the Roman and Simple Gradual texts can be sung in the vernacular licitly--for the processional chants this is presumably part of choice #1 (..."as found there or in a different setting")--but the problem is that we don't seem to have approved translations of these texts.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Jeffrey:

    Do you not remember this conversation?

    http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=152
  • @Adam:

    I do not think that is a list of books they have translated. I am of the understanding that the Roman Martyrology, the last item on that list, has not been translated.

    They have another page named ICEL Copyrighted Materials which does have The Simple Gradual listed, along with the year 1968.

    Does anyone know what ICEL Lectionary Music: Psalms and Alleluia and Gospel Acclamations for the Liturgy of the Word is?
  • I've been interested in purchasing a nice (not too nice) book of gospels for my parish, but I don't want to shell out money on something just to find out that something is about to be rendered unusable. Is there anything in the New Grail Psalms that might be used in the book of gospels, such as texts of the acclamations?
  • Notes for the Simple Gradual:

    Texts without music.
    "Since these new texts have been selected solely for musical reasons, they are not to be used without musical notation."
    "Introductory information for composers and publishers" (by the I.C.E.L.): p. 10-16.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Noel

    why does that seem extremely manipulative? Can we see the entire page?
  • BI

    In the time Before Internet this entire mess that is the sung English for the Mass could, and did go on its own merry way.

    Now, however, it's the Emperor's New Clothes.

    The Bishops have let commerce, including that of their own publishing house, run without policing itself, building upon a very shaky foundation of pseudo folk music a musical Tower of Babel.

    Rather than setting their sights upon making music in the church even better, as the monks did over the centuries, using "good" chants and discarding "bad" ones, instead we now have to pay to set the text of the Mass to music.

    Tell me how many composers would have written Masses to the Latin text if they had to send an emissary to the Vatican with payment in hand for the use of the text...or even to the local cleric.

    The church used to welcome music.

    Now they welcome...money. Interesting that the Vatican says its finances have improved this year....during a world-wide recession. Someone should have filed that news release in the waste basket.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    I would also reiterate Jeffrey's question along with my own request for clarity: What are ALL the approved, acceptable and authorized translations of the Psalms that are licit for the Roman Catholic liturgy within the United States? I may have to write to Rome to know the answer.

    If I read the GIRM correctly, it says "another musical setting." Well who in the heck determines what that exactly means?!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,349
    I read it as meaning that musical settings approved in the 1970s or 1980s, when RSV and Jerusalem Bible texts were also allowed in the US, are still permitted for use. Also, the 1964 Grail Psalms, approved for use in the LOTH, can be used at Mass if sung.

    Simili modo, I think musical settings of the current Lectionary Psalms will still be licit after the Revised Grail Psalter is rolled out. So all the current Chabanel Psalm settings of those texts will be usable.
  • what translation does Paul Ford use in his approved Flowing Waters?
    The NRSV psalms and canticles, which had received the recognitio before I began working on the project, only to have the recognitio withdrawn at the request of the USCCB in favor of their RNAB psalms and canticles, which then was refused the recognitio!

    Both the NRSV and RNAB psalms and canticles have retained their imprimaturs and, as such, may be used for the singing of these psalms and canticles; these settings may be published only with the permission of the USCCB or of the local ordinary.

    The only text that be recited in the United States is the responsorial as found,in the 1999 lectionary.

    Richard Chonak is correct in his list of those translations that also may be sung.

    Ioannes is correct in his answer to Adam's question about GIRM 61.
  • P.S. In a new, revised edition I will incorporate the changes in the NRSV psalms and canticles that Rome has asked from Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, to bring By Flowing Waters into complete compliance with Rome. I will also incorporate the changes to the Order of Mass that the new English translation requires.

    These changes will be available as a downloadable file for those who have a copy of the first edition of BFW.

    All of this will be discussed and made available (free) at a workshop at the NPM Convention in Louisville July 18 through 22, 2011.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Since we are still missing a listing that has been requested, I am suggesting the following based on the foregoing, and invite correction as necessary:

    Permitted if sung:

    1. Psalms from the Revised Grail Psalter
    2. The responsorial psalm texts in the 1998 Lectionary;
    3. The responsorial psalm texts of the pre-1998 Lectionary;
    4. Psalms in the Revised New American Bible
    5. Psalms in the NRSV
    6. Psalms in the 1964 Grail Psalter
    7. Musical settings of the Psalms from the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible that were approved when those translations were permitted for liturgical used

    Permitted if recited:

    1. The responsorial psalm texts in the1998 Lectionary.
  • When we talk about the Revised Grail Psalter, am I right in presuming that we are talking about more than just psalms? For instance, the 3rd Sunday of Advent Year B has a non-psalm responsorial psalm, which is Luke 1:46-48, 49-50, 53-54, and of course there is the Exodus canticle of the Easter Vigil. Moreover, there are all the non-psalm canticles in the LotH. I'm wondering about the scope of the Revised Grail Psalter, and it was in this vein that I was wondering whether they were also tackling the other regularly sung part of the lectionary, namely the Gospel acclamation.
  • Thank you so much for this list!

    If anyone has time or is so inclined, I would love to see a sample of each from some one passage, to compare the differences among approved versions then to compare with the unapproved versions, just for illustrative sake - only if someone is interested in pursuing this.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Ioannes, to my mind, "psalms" should be understood to include scriptural canticles. I haven't a clue about the Gospel acclamation versicles, since some of them are non-scriptural, like proper antiphons.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Liam:

    So the Douay Rheims is not an acceptable version? That seems odd since it is the translation of the Vulgate.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,349
    I'm assuming that the Revised Grail Psalter only includes psalms, as it was based on the 1963 (I was wrong about "1964") Grail translation of The Psalms, which did not include canticles from other parts of Sacred Scripture.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Francis

    I was only summarizing what preceded my comment, and that's why I expressly invited correction. DR was not mentioned previously. Remember, even the Vulgate has for the purpose of the Lectionary at least been superceded by the Neo-Vulgate. I am not aware of the Neo-Vulgate being imposed on the Gradual and other official books of Latin chant. I wonder if musical settings of the psalms and canticles from the DR were approved in the 1960s and thereafter. Anyone know?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,349
    About the Douay-Rheims: I doubt whether it was ever authorized for readings at Mass during the 1960's transitional period. I have a hand missal published by the Daughters of St. Paul in 1966, and it contains Scripture readings from the "Confraternity Lectionary of Scriptural Readings for Use in Liturgical Books" (1964).

    Liam, the Psalterium Monasticum (1981) uses neo-Vulgate texts for the Psalms and Scripture readings. However, I think antiphons have not been changed. Hey, for that matter, some Scripture texts in the Gradual predate the Vulgate, let alone the neo-.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    Liam:

    Sorry... thought it was mentioned higher up in the post, but that was in the other thread, (which I pointed Jeffrey to above) I believe. My mistake.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Chonak

    Thanks for the additional information!
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,036
    Chonak, that would vibe with what I know. I have a Confraternity New Testament in pocket size. It's my understanding that it was the predecessor of the NAB, but only had the NT finished.
  • The preface of the Revised Grail Psalter vs. RNAB document that the Bishop's voted on does explicitly list the 1963 Grail Psalter as an approved translation for use at mass. I don't recall it making a specific distinction between sung and spoken use.

    As someone who used the 1963 Grail exclusively, I find the new one very familiar, and equally singable. I've always found the NAB very frustrating to set, in general. The RNAB is much, much worse. Since the two choices were RNAB and RGrail, I'm glad they chose the Grail. I can't really say that I personally think one version is better than the other (1963 or 2008, that is), just different versions of the same basic thing. I'm not a language or scripture scholar, though. I'm sure I'm just missing it. I've been using the new translation more and more since it was approved, and in general, I'm pleased with it. There are some places where it has become much wordier--I guess due to an attempt to include more of the original text--and that makes for some interesting chanting when using Gelineau-style tones.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,349
    Does this mean that you've obtained a copy through some special channels? As far as I can tell, the RGP hasn't been published in the US yet: GIA is waiting for Vatican approval.

    (Or have you bought the African office books that use the RGP?)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,930
    I was wondering the same thing.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    I think it was released on iPad yesterday.....
  • ever more question. Yes, Marc, how can you have seen the New Grail?

    And Paul Ford, yesterday when you mentioned recited v. sung, I just thought, oh ok. But today I'm puzzled about where this distinction comes from.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Jeffrey

    I assume it comes from this prong of art. 61 of the GIRM: "...or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop...."
  • They have an indult at the Abbey to use them now for more than a year. We need a Mozart to go and write them down as they chant them...anyone got time to sit through a cycle?

    Yes, >•<, civil disobedience!<br />
    Of course, we could all sign an online statement that we intend to use them and WILL NOT pay copyrights. And then do it. The jails are already full.
  • "...how can you have seen the New Grail? "

    I know of a few people who have it on their hard drives by means of an early distribution... but of course they don't dare leak it!
  • I was lucky enough to be given a copy shortly before it was voted on. I am very frustrated that it's publication is being held up, especially since it's already in use in Africa. I guess the church works in her own time.

    There is a site online that gives a comparison between a few different translations, including the new one--

    http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/305913/Conception%20Abbey%20Revised%20Grail
  • Here is a comparison I put together of Psalm 93 [94]:12-13. Only the first three are copyright protected.

    Grail: Happy the man whom you teach, O Lord, whom you train by means of your law; to him you give peace in evil days while the pit is being dug for the wicked.

    Revised Grail: Blessed the man whom you discipline, O Lord, whom you train by means of your law; to whom you give peace in evil days, while the pit is being dug for the wicked.

    NAB: Happy those whom you guide, LORD, whom you teach by your instruction. You give them rest from evil days, while a pit is being dug for the wicked.

    NIV: Blessed is the man you discipline, O LORD, the man you teach from your law; you grant him relief from days of trouble, till a pit is dug for the wicked.

    NASV: Blessed is the man whom You chasten, O LORD, And whom You teach out of Your law; That You may grant him relief from the days of adversity, Until a pit is dug for the wicked.

    KJV: Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.

    KJV21: Blessed is the man whom Thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of Thy law, that Thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be dug for the wicked.

    NCV: Lord, those you correct are happy; you teach them from your law. You give them rest from times of trouble until a pit is dug for the wicked.

    Darby: Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Jah, and whom thou teachest out of thy law; That thou mayest give him rest from the days of evil, until the pit be digged for the wicked.

    ASV: Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Jehovah, And teachest out of thy law; That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, Until the pit be digged for the wicked

    D-R: Blessed is the man whom thou shalt instruct, O Lord: and shalt teach him out of thy law. That thou mayst give him rest from the evil days: till a pit be dug for the wicked.

    Coverdale: Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him in thy law, that thou mayest give him patience in time of adversity, until the pit be dug up for the ungodly.
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    I am in the process of creating Vespers booklets for the Sundays of Lent for the schola I'm in. I'm using the Ordinary Form, and we are singing the psalms in English. The Liturgy of the Hours uses the Grail Psalms, copyright 1963, so GIA now owns the copyright for this, right?

    So, I emailed them for permission to use them in our booklets, we're making 30 booklets for each of the first 5 Sundays of Lent. First psalm is always the same, second psalm changes with the 4 week cycle. So 5 psalms are used, psalm 110 five times, 114 twice, 115 once, 111 once, and 112 once. I figured maybe this would fall under fair use, but GIA is asking us to pay a $20 license fee.

    In the grand scheme of things, $20 dollars is not that much, but really, should we pay it? Should they really be making money on something like this? Maybe someone who knows more about how copyrights work, and what is considered fair use can chime in? Jeffrey Tucker? :)

    Sincerely,
    Gilbert
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Grail: Happy the man whom you teach, O Lord, whom you train by means of your law; to him you give peace in evil days while the pit is being dug for the wicked.

    Good rhythm, nice repetition of "t" (teach, train), balanced.

    Revised Grail: Blessed the man whom you discipline, O Lord, whom you train by means of your law; to whom you give peace in evil days, while the pit is being dug for the wicked.

    Different rhythm, a bit flabbier, maybe there's a gain in the change to "discipline," but it's small.

    NAB: Happy those whom you guide, LORD, whom you teach by your instruction. You give them rest from evil days, while a pit is being dug for the wicked.

    Execrable, tone-deaf.

    D-R: Blessed is the man whom thou shalt instruct, O Lord: and shalt teach him out of thy law. That thou mayst give him rest from the evil days: till a pit be dug for the wicked.

    This is good. The Tudor English versions sound mannered; some better than others. Coverdale's is awkward.
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    Does anyone have anything to say about my inquiry above? Any thoughts would be helpful!

    Gilbert
  • The 1963 Grail Psalter is owned by The Ladies of the Grail in England. For many countries, the copyrights are administered by HarperCollins. In the US, GIA happens to be the administrator. If I had to guess, $20 is just their minimum fee. (I know that for mechanical licensing, they charge a minimum $25 fee.) I'm sure they take a cut for keeping track of who uses what, but some of that fee is bound to wind up with The Grail. It could also very well be The Ladies of the Grail that prohibit them from allowing free use--as they are just the administrator.

    The 2008 Grail Psalter is jointly owned by Conception Abbey and The Ladies of the Grail. Since it was developed in the US, I'll be interested to see if GIA becomes the dominant administrator for the world, or if they'll continue to just cover the US. I very much like that the permissions policy that GIA has posted for the revised psalter states that non-commercial use in a parish setting incurs no fee.

    As a side note, if your parish happens to have a OneLicense.net subscription, there would be no additional fee for making the booklets. If you think you might continue to do LOTH in your parish after lent, it might be more economical to get a year-long license. Further, if you would be doing nothing by the Grail psalms, you might be able to negotiate a year-long Grail-only license at a lower fee than OL.net.