Query re illicit sound recordings during Mass
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Though this may seem an odd query, my searches of the forum to date have not revealed previous discussion of it (if it has indeed been discussed, then I stand corrected); and I should like, if possible, an expert opinion on the topic. The topic in question is clandestine sound recording during a Missa Cantata.

    Epiphany Monday 2014 was my final session as an organist at a diocesan EF Mass in (I obviously have to hedge identification here) a large Australian city. I had in fact resigned from this job already, after eight years; but because no other organist was available amid a southern hemisphere summer, I stepped in belatedly as a supply organist just this once. In previous posts I have mentioned the resident choirmaster, while carefully censoring his more repellent characteristics:

    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/109211#Comment_109211

    On this occasion, however, the problem was created not by the choirmaster - who, typically, waited until two minutes before the Mass before clarifying whether he would even turn up - but by a chorister (with quite a nice voice) whom I had only very occasionally seen over the years. Before Mass began, this chorister showed me a dictaphone about the size of a brick, presumably with a built-in mike, and said to me "I'm going to be recording this Mass."

    At this point I shall pause to let you think about that. He did not say "I've asked Father X if I may record this Mass, and Father gave the all-clear." He did not say "Would you mind if your organ-playing was recorded this evening?". He simply presented me with a fait accompli.

    Let me stress that he was physically, if not perhaps mentally, an adult. I was strongly tempted to kick him down the spiral staircase that connects the choir loft with the main church. But doing this would have caused problems with diocesan public-liability insurance, so I muttered to him something politely non-committal instead.

    As mentioned a few paragraphs ago, I'm not going to be playing the organ again there anyway. So strictly speaking it isn't my problem. But does anyone know whether the 1983 canon law code has anything concrete on forbidding sound recordings without explicit sacerdotal permission? It would be useful for my successor as organist to know.

    Perhaps to Americans this whole thing will seem incomprehensible. Chesterton rightly called America "a nation with the soul of a church"; Australia, in ecclesial terms, is more like a nation with the soul of a southeastern Queensland beach party which has been commandeered by the inhabitants of public housing projects. For example, in no land except Australia - indeed, at this particular Australian EF parish - have I heard cellphones ringing during the Elevation of the Host. But I would appreciate any advice.
  • Perhaps to Americans this whole thing will seem incomprehensible.


    It is incomprehensible. Certainly no one here would ask before recording anything.
  • Certainly no one here would TELL you they were doing so; they would do it, usually secretively.

    People here document everything - "What? Someone just got pulled over by a cop for speeding in what I feel should be a 35 mph zone but isn't? I'm going to excercise my constitutional right to stand on the sidewalk and audio and video record the whole thing!"

    Anyway - to answer your question - I don't think it violates any canon law or anything like that.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    I can't make myself type the internet letters for laughing out loud, but lordie I am LAUGHING OUT LOUD at what Andrew said. That's great. :)
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Thanks for feedback. I guess I might be simply showing not merely my provincialism, but my age.

    When a 12-year-old (and not particularly bright even by 12-year-old standards) I thought it screamingly funny to record parental conversations with guests in the lounge room. This was right at the peak of Watergate, so even in Australia, people were jumpy about hidden microphones etc. My mother tore strips off me, and was, of course, correct to do this.

    But even at the age of 12 I never imagined that I had an inalienable right to make illicit recordings in a house of God. Supposing I had proclaimed this right, my parents (though atheists) would have given me such a pummeling that a coroner's certificate might well have been required.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,946
    Btw, Father's permission is not necessarily sufficient. He'd also have to be sure under federal and state law that other performers don't have to provide consent AND also get consent of copyright holders of works performed, if still under copyright. Obviously, these are rights that are often more honored in the breach, but there can be occasions that result in surprisingly forceful enforcement.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Is there prohibition against making sound recordings at Mass? I only know of prohibitions against playing sound recordings...
    Thanked by 1Choirparts
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,946
    There's no liturgical rubric against it: if there were, we couldn't see Mass televised. The limitations would come in terms of civil law.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    illicit recordings in a house of God


    Ok, I'm sorry, this is seeming a bit sensationalist.

    Why in the world would you believe that there's anything wrong with recording? I frequently record Masses on my own (for musical purposes, usually, to see how my schola is sounding), and at our Cathedral, the homily is always recorded, and posted online. And not infrequently, they are video recorded as well (or at least they used to, not so much any more, but that had to do with staffing changes, not the realization of "illict recordings").

    I have absolutely no clue why one would even think twice about this, provided you're not placing the recorder on top of the chalice or something asinine like that.
  • Since I'm usually both the person playing the organ and the person doing any recording, I've never thought much about the etiquette of the thing. I can see it being a bit rude to record someone else without their knowledge or permission, but it's just that and not a violation of Church law.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696
    I don't think about it anymore since one of my Masses is on TV, radio, and internet... But last year if I made a noticeable error my first thought would be, "well, that'll end up on YouTube..."
  • Routine Reminder.....Please turn off the cellphones, don't cough, and don't drop the kneelers while recording.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    ...cellphones ringing during the Elevation of the Host

    I can easily beat that. "But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit."
    Ring.
    Ring.
    Ring.
    Ring.
    Ring.

    (In fairness, I might not have picked up either.)
  • I'm pretty patient when cellphones go off at Mass. It's annoying, but I get it: mistakes happen and people screw up.

    It's the second time the same phone goes off that makes me want to strangle someone.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    I've heard a cellphone ringing during the Elevation, in the priest's pocket. He disregarded it.

  • A smart priest will use the sound of coughing for their ringtone.
  • As Adam implied earlier, the problem is not usually in the recording, but rather the playback and observing copyright laws.
  • A smart priest will use the sound of coughing for their ringtone.


    Or crying children (which for some odd reason seem more prevalent when guitars are present... maybe that's just me... or maybe it actually is me)

    I am in agreement that recording the music is not a problem but maybe his attitude could be a concern.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Thank you all. I must admit that when writing my original post I had not considered the copyright question. This question presumably wouldn't have been relevant to the Mass anyway for the most part, since with one organ piece possibly excepted, everything sung and played was in the public domain.

    Richard Mix's anecdote about the Crucifixion suggests that the diaspora of Australians is wider than I had previously supposed.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    RJ, I'm not convinced that Andrew's advice is simply to be regarded as the libertine American disregard for observing the letter of laws.
    The simple reality is that when/wherever one watermarks the public access to duplication of word, sound, video through ever-emergent technologies, the proximity to the copyright police is diminished even further in its obsolescence.
    It's what I call the Xerox/Digital Maxim- when TPTB at IBM, Xerox et al realized that the electronic transfer of data would still require, much less encourage the use of more hard copy (aka "paper") their concerns about being the middlemen of copyright infringement became a non-sequiter. For every development in recording/documenting hard and software, the companies that reproduce and store that data have products in place to replace supposedly obsolete products that they just unveiled last month.
    Now, if you want to market your schola's recording of Richard Rice's Choral Communio on iTunes for income because you have a Zoom and it's so easy.....do so knowing that you very well may hear from Richard's attorney in likely a most unwelcome manner.
    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >>As Adam implied earlier, the problem is not usually in the recording, but rather the playback and observing copyright laws.

    That's not quite what I observed.

    There is civil law regarding making recordings in the first place (copyright), only in the event there is copyright material (which there usually is, but whatever). The law is broken (if it is) when the recording is made, whether or not you listen to it later.

    Playing back a recording only violates civil law if you are doing so publicly as in an exhibition. Listening privately to an illegally-copied recording is not itself illegal. (From a copyright standpoint, that is. There may be other issues, such as obscenity or national security laws). This makes perfect sense: if you photocopy something, you don't get a separate fine everytime you read it.


    The Church specifically prohibits the playing of "mechanical" recordings within the context of liturgy. It is hard to tell if the prohibition was specifically prompted by people using recorded music or recorded sermons. Neither are allowed.
    Thanked by 2Choirparts Liam
  • Since the church does not say much at all regarding music, I imagine it has more to do with recorded sermons. However that's just conjecture based on your post, Adam.
  • 93. Recorded music lacks the authenticity provided by a living liturgical assembly gathered for the Sacred Liturgy. While recorded music might be used advantageously outside the Liturgy as an aid in the teaching of new music, it should not, as a general norm, be used within the Liturgy.


    -Sing to the Lord
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Andrew, I think you may have misconstrued RJ's concern: he's concerned about any individual's right to personally record the audio at Masses and the like. He's not concerned about employing recorded music to assist by playback the music portions of the Mass.
  • Oh, I know RJ's point. I was addressing ClergetKubisz above, implying that the prohibition against using recordings at Mass was likely about sermons and not music. Unless I misunderstood CK (which is always something I'll allow for).

    As I said above, I don't think there's a standing moratorium on recording music at Mass (legal issues notwithstanding), but standing in front of an organist who is about to play and saying "I'm going to record you" without asking is, at the very least, rude.
  • I think he was replying to me, melo. And thank you for the info, Andrew.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 892
    Anecdote: I was once singing in an opera made up of all volunteers (the leads were paid professionals, but it was an all volunteer chorus). Most of them had been volunteering for years; still it was a hobby as they all had other day jobs. Since none of them were fluent in Italian it was common place for some of them to record chorus rehearsals to help learn their parts and particularly the diction. On one occasion, the "professional" director who was hired in from outside, saw a small recording devise (probably still a cassette from back in the day) and threw it across the room, erupting in a tirade about intellectual copyright and clearing all recordings in writing via his agent, etc. etc. ....sadly the company lost several dedicated volunteers following that incident.

    I have absolutely no clue why one would even think twice about this, provided you're not placing the recorder on top of the chalice or something asinine like that.


    Not quite, but just a few weeks ago, I witnessed a choir member place an audio recorder in a little nook behind the altar (the choir sings up front behind the altar). Apparently, that same little nook was where the acolyte was accustomed to place the empty cruets. He looked dumbfounded when he discovered his spot was taken. Meanwhile, I was attempting to sing the offertory motet without laughing.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    My bad, gentlemen, please forgive early senility, can't seem to tell the playas without a scorecard.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • To my knowledge the only prohibitions involved in recording liturgy would be those of musicians' unions and professional musicians who play on special ocassions. Specific permission to record such persons is nearly always contractually forbidden without specific arrangements and permission (and added fees), and is often prohibited period.

    I do think that Andrew's initial comment above is priceless. The moreso for being true.

    Actually, I have yet to hear cell phones go off during liturgy, and would regard as uniquely depraved anyone responsible for such.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I don't care about recordings so much, its the mad photographers who get to me. They seem to want to migrate to the loft and take pictures. They are so distracting, I throw them out unceremoniously.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Yes, CharlesW, I have seen mad photographers too at one particular Catholic parish which I shan't name. They were routinely stomping around with their unwieldy equipment throughout Mass (I'm not talking about cellphones' built-in cameras).

    On one occasion when I queried the necessity for having every single priestly movement near the altar captured for all time by the hyperactive paparazzi, I was very firmly rebuked (by laypersons) and told that such hyperactive paparazzi were inevitable - indeed were actively desirable - if the parish was to have enough photos for maintaining an up-to-date website. Since we all know that in NewChurch, maintaining an up-to-date website long ago took precedence over preaching the Gospel, paying for adequate musicians, condemning contraception or even abortion from the pulpit, etc., etc., I interpreted this response (correctly) as a more elegant version of Ring Lardner's celebrated put-down: "'Shut up', he explained." So I shut up.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Charles:

    Do you throw them OVER the balcony? If so, can you record THAT so we can watch? (copyright permission granted!)
    Thanked by 2Liam JulieColl
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Not over the rail - that's a 20 foot drop. I have told them to get out of the loft, and no one has argued with me. I have let a few pros that I could trust get in a corner of the loft away from the organ where they wouldn't be a distraction. They understood that they would be leaving if they didn't comply.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Of course, it occurs to me that I have "illicitly" recorded six years of Colloquium Masses and posted them on the internet. The "permission" I asked for was minimal - I think I may have talked a little with Jeffrey and Arlene the first year, but that would have been for a general "is this a good idea and do you think it will cause any problems."

    I have, on occasion, been asked to make clear that some selections are not to be reproduced without permission. I had a lecturer last year request that I not post his presentations.

    But overall, people have been fantastically supportive of this as a learning and means of supporting sacred Catholic music.

    Does anyone think this has gone beyond the limits of propriety or legality?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    No.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    No Carl- and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around any composer getting upset because someone sang their piece in a Mass and it was recorded, ostensibly for either one's own education or edification. I'm all for just compensation and acknowledgement, but...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Mainstream publishers probably consider it their job to insist on getting every fee possible.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood Liam francis
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Mainstream publishers probably consider it their job to insist on getting every fee possible.


    Quite.


    I have recently been looking for work, and - because of one interesting possibility that crossed my path at a music publisher - I thought it worthwhile to look into what sorts of jobs were available from other music publishers.

    When I'm interested in a job in a particular industry sector I try find the connecting points: professional associations, educational resources, popular blogs, etc. (That's how I first found the CMAA.)

    In both sacred and secular, popular and academic music publishing, there are (as you would expect) a couple dozen such organizations, associations, and professional groups, catering to big companies and solo singer-songwriters. Every single one of them that I could find (and I mean, really, every one) was dedicated entirely to some aspect of copyright protection and fee extraction.

    Nothing about trends int he industry, technology standards, improving notation software, training new people to work in the industry, advancing the culture of printed music, or any of the other things I would think such organizations would care about.

    Copyrights. Fees. Period.

    It made me kinda sad.
  • The Church specifically prohibits the playing of "mechanical" recordings within the context of liturgy.

    Not to derail, but has anyone actually experienced this? I have. Over the homily no less. It was the priest's last service there (not because of that).
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    I have. It's always been during individual confessions during communal celebrations of the sacrament of penance.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    I was at a daily noontime Mass here in Rome, and during Communion, a recorded song was played over the audio system.
  • Not to derail, but has anyone actually experienced this? I have. Over the homily no less. It was the priest's last service there (not because of that).


    isn't, but

    I have. It's always been during individual confessions during communal celebrations of the sacrament of penance.


    is addressed in Sing to the Lord:

    94. Some exceptions to this principle should be noted. Recorded music may be used to accompany the community’s song during a procession outside and, when used carefully, in Masses with children. Occasionally, it might be used as an aid to prayer, for example, during long periods of silence in a communal celebration of reconciliation. However, recorded music should never become a substitute for the community’s singing.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    Way back in the early 80's, the Cathedral I attended played a recording of Barber's "Adagio for Strings" as the "Gathering song" for all 4 Sundays of Advent.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    Wow. I haven't heard Barber 4 Sundays in a row since the 90's, after an organist gave a month's notice.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    There once was an organist in town who played the Pachelbel Canon every Sunday for months.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    And that's a bad thing CharlesW??? :)
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    I once stepped in the sacristy after Mass in a parish I substitute occasionally at, when the sacristan was working with some audio cassettes. I found out that they always record the Mass on Saturday evening to distribute it to the homebound sick of the parish. I was glad I didn't know that before.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Jani, it is good to have more than one piece to play.
    Thanked by 1Jani
  • rmerkel
    Posts: 15
    I don't think there is any hard and fast rules here, but I would've thought it was simply a courtesy (at any event/liturgy) to let the organisers know you are recording it. You don't need to inform everyone present (which could be hundreds of people).
    In these days of portable digital recorders, miniature video cameras etc it certainly is infinitely easier than in days gone by, but that shouldn't take precedence over common courtesy in my mind.
    Thanked by 1R J Stove