There are some instructions in the beginning of the book and in #6 it addresses this exact point. It says that these are chants that are already so widely available in many other books that it’s not aiming to reproduce what can very easily be found in other publications. The Brébeuf Hymnal is focused on metrical english hymns that the congregation will be able to sing well and contains hymns that are not widely available elsewhere. Here is a quote from the book:

“For parishes wishing to incorporate Latin, as mandated by the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §36), we include many Latin hymns. They can be sung to metrical tunes or plainsong settings. Some believe plainsong hymnody is better performed by the choir alone, since large congregations often lack the requisite fluidity. When this is done, the congregation should utilize the “Assistance in comprehension,” printed opposite the Latin. Plainsong settings do not belong in our book, since they are abundant in the Liber Usualis, Cantus Selecti, Parish Book of Chant, Liber Hymnarius, Cantus Varii, Liber Antiphonarius, and so on.”

Hope that helps!

I’m happy to have a copy for reference. It makes an excellent academic reference. I wouldn’t be happy to have it in the pews, personally. I also am interested in how the soft-touch finish on the cover will hold up over time. It looked a mess after my using the book for just a few min.

Neat book, though.

Marc

I've always been a fan of WESTMINSTER ABBEY for Tantum Ergo... At a nice, stately clip.

Although in its original form, as a jubilant "Hallelujah" tag, it is perhaps most effective.

Gregorian plainchant isn’t really for congregational singing anyway

?

Gregorian plainchant isn’t really for congregational singing anyway

?

Adding my own ... ?
Or perhaps ... ??
(to the sentence in red, especially in the context of Gregorian-plainchant hymns)

Clarification: melismatic plainchant. It doesn’t flow well in congregational singing.

If you proof read and have looked carefully at it, I’m sure you’ll agree the scholarship is excellent.

Clarification: melismatic plainchant. It doesn’t flow well in congregational singing.

Calling Julie Coll.…… or Stimson.....Or Jackson, for that matter.

Yes, indeed.

My congregation sing several melismatic chants: Kyries VIII, XI, XVII A & B, Sancti VIII & XVII, and the Alleluia and its jubilus of "Alleluia: Dies sanctificatus", and they sing them quite well.

My biggest qualm about this is (and perhaps this should be on the other thread): how long will this hymnal even stay in print before it goes the way of the Vatican II Hymnal, etc., and a completely new book comes out?

What sort of copyright restrictions would there be if I want to take some of the texts from the SJB Hymnal and format them myself with SATB public domain hymn settings?

Yes, but early authors say it is not for the congregation but for God.

Thus St. Jerome (In Psalm. xxxii, P.L., XXVI, 915) defines: "That is called iubilus which neither in words nor syllables nor letters nor in speech can utter or define how much man ought to praise God". Similarly St. Augustine says (Psalm xcix, P.L., XXXVII, 1272): "He who sings a iubilus, does not utter words, but the iubilus is a song of joy without words." And again (in Ps. xxxii, P.L., XXXVI, 283): "And for whom is this iubilatio more fitting than for the ineffable God?"

Of course we have no idea how complex the iubilus was at this period. And we can contrast that comment with Jerome's condemnation of those "plaster neck and throat with ointments like stage players, churning out theatrical tunes and songs in church". And I am not sure whether this would refer to Mass or to other services.

Whoever put this hymnal together obviously didn't know about the V2 Hymnal, because they refer to their confused method of typesetting as "revolutionary" when it's been used for a few years already. Not that this could be deemed revolutionary in any good sense of the term.

Alongside that, the awkward attempt to combine stems wherever possible and the ugly music notation means that I'll be passing on what could have been a very promising hymnal.

I will echo the sentiments of Gamba... the voice leading is quite odd. And, yes, I do not like the every verse for a different harmony approach. Would like to see the entire hymnal in my hand if I could get a complimentary copy.

@AndreaLeal... what is your association with the hymnal... you seem to have a lot of inside scoops?

I recently saw somewhere that CCW needs money and the article implied some financial difficulty. I don't know about that, but I do know they are wedded to a format in those hymnals that I certainly don't want, and wouldn't buy.

What sort of copyright restrictions would there be if I want to take some of the texts from the SJB Hymnal and format them myself with SATB public domain hymn settings?

None if the texts themselves are not listed as being copyright.

I don't find the "standard" way of notation difficult at all. This organist doesn't welcome the new hymnal because it is different for the sake of difference. I don't get it and don't know what they were thinking.

This hymnal is woefully inept. We have gone from the days of printing the music at the top of the page and the words below it (until it was determined that people were too daft to make sense of it). Then to having the text within the music, which gives no one (daft or not) any excuse to complain that he or she can't figure out what words go with what notes. Now, again having decided that people are even more daft than was originally thought, we print the music over and over again so that each stanza of the text is aligned with its own melody. One would never consider such an inept arrangement, such an unsightly layout, which, I think, would discourage rather than encourage the singing of these hymns.

To begin with, far from making it easier to match text and music, it is more difficult because of the cluttered page in which the text gets lost. Further, it is much easier to match text and music when the text appears below the music, not above it. But, never mind that: each single line of text gets lost in the clutter of notes, slurs, and the profusion of non textual stuff.

On the positive side, there are some very interesting new weddings of text and tune which are unusual, but for the most part really nice. To highlight only one - I was initially perplexed (as in really put off) at the eccentric pairing of the hearty Easter chorale tune Christ ist erstanden (an example of those chorales known as 'leisen' because of their 'kyrieleison' or 'kyrieleis' refrain) with the sacramental hymn, 'Come, All Ye Holy' (Sancti venite); but after singing it less 'heartily' and more slowly and thoughtfully, it is surprisingly effective. It does work. (One may, though, question the literary integrity of adding the 'kyrieleison' refrain to the VIth century text to which its attachment is a presumptuous novelty.)

Just for the unusual pairings of text-tune from which to get ideas I might acquire a copy for reference, but I would never think once (let alone twice) about putting this hymnal in the pews or in the choir stalls. We don't need to 'dumb the people down' any more than they already have been.

(Oh, and one also did notice the absence of tune names and their composers or sources and dates, and of hymn authors or sources and dates. And, are there indices? By now all these are surely standard in any hymnal that would be taken seriously.)

There is a caution on the first page that @Gamba linked to on April 10.

The harmony edition doesn’t make any sense without the Pew Hymnal.

Photos here showing index, and here in which it looks as though sources etc. are provided. One can also see a much more congregation friendly layout, (assuming that nobody in the congregation is going to sing harmony). I am not sure how I would feel if I were in the choir, probably daunted by the weight of the book.

[NOTE: I was a proofreader on this hymnal as well.]

Holding a copy of the Pew Edition in my lap, I can say that they put the first three or so verses under the melody line, and then the rest as text blocks. I like the book as source material (for worship aids, possibly), but I don't see how to get copyright usage, as the book says,

"THE TEXTS in our hymnal - all of them - have undergone editorial revision, ranging from minimal to substantial, and as such are under copyright."

It seems that if I go to the original texts and use those, then I'm able to print those, but not the "edited" texts in the hymnal.

I sort of understand what the creators of the book were trying to do (make a "Catholic" hymnal), but to me, the Westminster, New Westminster, St. Andrews, and other UK hymnals, as well as books like HPSC, St. Paul's, and With Angels and Archangels went about it far better. My personal opinion with some of the translations chosen is that in exchange for overt faithfulness to the Latin, they got rid of singability and poetic quality. I also agree with the sentiment that the English Hymnal/Hymnal 1940 approach is better, and at times (Conditor Alme, for example), I'd solely use the plainchant. Finally, I believe that by focusing solely on the office hymns, at the neglect of the many other theologically-sound hymns that have entered the Catholic repertoire of hymnody, a church would probably not be able to use this as their primary hymnal.

Personally? I'd like to see some of the "faithful" hymn translations used in the hymnal, along with the more common-place translations, added to a new hymnal that covers the 2,000-year-history of church music. For me, though, this hymnal sits as a book of source material.

So, if someone alters a public domain text then that altered, derivative text is considered private property subject to copyright protection? That can't be. Suppose it's just changing the text in a minor way like changing "thou" to "you". Nobody else is allowed to make the same alteration himself to the public domain text and use it freely? I would think that revisions to a public domain text would have to be so substantial as to constitute a new creative work instead of a derivative work in order for that revision to be protected by copyright. Seems to me that derivative works of public domain items should also be public domain, just as a copyright owner retains rights to derivative works of his copyrighted piece.