Hi Ian:

Sorry to keep pushing this button... but are you a composer? If you are a composer who has been published, then you can speak from experience such as those of us who have been in these trenches for many years.

My concern was that your seemed to be on the verge of suggesting that composers of liturgical music should not make money from it. Janet wrote: "How very generous of you to offer your compositions so freely". In reply, you said: "This is the way of the Church. It should never require copyrights, constraints, etc. This is all tied up in the desire for money, power and control, and has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God and His Church." It was this statement that Nicholas seemed to be responding to, in defence of the copyright on his CD of liturgical music... ...And it's probably not true to say that if the publisher "sells out", they can do what they like with the music - it's unlikely that the composer will have given away all rights.

Ian... PLEASE send money!

I have dealt with many publishers all throughout my career. The Catholic publishers were very demonstrative in that they dictated how to compose, what texts to use (especially the inclusive trash), what level of difficulty, etc. I wasn't bending to their wishes just to be marketable, nor was I signing my rights away as did many of my colleagues. Signing away rights is exactly that. You no longer have ownership or authority over any part of the music you have signed away and you cannot get it back! And just as you mentioned, publishers can then 'strong arm' authors to alter the original work, or even do it themselves! This is dangerous territory when it comes to sacred music because the Mass and sacred music is not about anyones opinion about religion or espousing 'my way to God'. It has to do with the approved texts of the Church--period. Many of the original works of my colleagues have all been converted to inclusive language and remain that way today. They all rose up at one point in resistance, but that didn't stop the publishers.

I am totally in agreement with Nicholas. He should maintain TOTAL ownership of his work and give it away or sell it to who and where he pleases. All of my work is available for free on sibeliusmusic.com. Right now I am not limiting who utilizes it because I don't have the mechanism to dictate who or who does not print it out. But if I was able, my music would only be utilized in the Catholic Church. Think about it. If Catholic musicians only had their music in the Catholic church, our musics wouldn't homogenize, or "new-agize" a generic understanding of The Faith, which is a BIG theological issue with me. I won't even take a post in a different church. A few years ago a conductor wanted to premier one of my large scale Masses that I had composed at St. John Divine in NY with the Brooklyn Phil. NO WAY JOSE! I am totally devoted to the OHCAAC. I feel I must remain true in this time of confusion, even if it hurts me financially.

You then went on to suggest a different problem: that church has made " 'church' a business", by getting involved with copyright. This can be true of text: I understand some composers have had problems with ICEL. I'm not sure of the extent to which it's true of music, unless perhaps you believe that the Bishops need to distance themselves from publishing operations. This is an interesting area of discussion.

That's just the tip of this iceberg.

I can't agree with your contention that the Church should look carefully at who has written the contents our hymnals. Such an approach is likely to become moralistic, judgemental and divisive. We should stick to assessing the worth of text and music.

This is where you and I differ greatly. First of all, NO ONE is judging any of the text or music except the publishers themselves! There are NO checks and balances with regard to quality of music, or the texts being sung. You ARE what you EAT, and you BELIEVE what you SING.

Oh yea, babe! I definitely insist on morality! ...and the objective kind, at that! Secondly, being judgemental and divisive does not supercede the responsiblity of proclaiming and holding fast to the truth. We must follow Jesus' example and overthrow the "money changers" in the temple.

By the way... Jesus called and He wants his religion back!

Francis,

Please forgive me, but I have two problems with your posts. Firstly, you really need to decide what you want to say, and then express it clearly and concisely. Scatter-gun doesn't encourage focussed discussion.

Secondly, you need to kick the "holier than thou" impression that gets in the way of so much of what you want to say. Whether it's publishing ethics or unspecified issues of the personal integrity of un-named composers or hymn-writers, it's uncharitable and counter-productive.

If you can do these things, then you may be able to contribute constructively to useful discussions of copyright, and the relationship of composers, publishers and the Church. If you can't, that would be a shame, as these are subjects you clearly feel strongly about, and in which we are likely to be interested.

Regards,

Ian.

Don’t forget, too, that the copyright on the texts plays heavily into this situation. I don’t see how anyone could work in the public domain with, say, the vernacular Lectionary or Missal texts without needing to get clearance from the USCCB (Lectionary) or ICEL/ICET (Missal). Those guys don’t give away their texts for free - or else the Lectionary (in its entirety) would be online, as would the Missal.

Not that I would in any way be opposed to freely downloadable versions of the Missal and Lectionary. IMO, that is what should be made of every official edition and translation of every official Church document and rite. I should be able, for example, to find the Anointing of the Sick in Latin should I ever want to study it. It apparently, though, is not even available for sale anymore.

On a related note, in my opinion, the absence of any copyright statement at all in the Chabanel Psalms project looks very shady. I really wish Jeff O. would address this.

Dear Ian:

I compose my thinking just like I compose my music. There is no scatter-gunning here. It is all long thought through, pondered, prayed about, carefully crafted offline, and revised after posting.

Thank you for your post. No offence taken. As you may readily see, I am not making judgements toward ANY person or their particular actions. But we have every right AND a greater responsibility to judge and weigh the very fruit of their actions, ESPECIALLY if it is being introduced into and influences the thinking, morality and doctrine of our faith. I simply hold to a very grounded position with regards to a moral conscience, truth in beauty and art, sound doctrine and the things of the Church. As for your saying that I am narrow-minded, I simply try to apply this word from the scriptures.

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." (Matthew 7:13-27 NASB)

None of us are without sin. But it is SIN which causes all of the problems that we have. I will continually comment to your post inline.

In addition, I would suggest that the duty of intelligent and civil comment not only applies amongst contributors, but also towards non-contributors on whom we comment. There's sometimes a fine line between the robust and the uncharitable, and some of F's comments appeared to cross that line, particularly in the attack on the morality of un-named composers or hymn-writers.

I have never commented on the morality of any hymn writer. All my comments are directed toward their work (as you stated in your own words) 'assessing the worth of text and music.'

The idea that there should be some kind of religious and moral audit of those whose music and words we sing is dangerous and offensive.

We (CMAA) are already making the religious and moral audits. It is in the public for all to see. The name of every composer is attached to their work prominently at the top right of each composition that they have created. Why do you think there is a moratorium on certain composer's music to which many of us in the CMAA have signed our names which is also a public record!

http://www.mgilleland.com/music/moratorium.htm

[DEFINITION: moratorium
n. legally authorized delay in the payment of money due; abandonment of debts; temporary cessation of an activity (especially when dangerous or harmful)]

Since the bishops have been negligent to address this critical area of our faith-life, we as musicians with pastoral responsibilities cannot and will not turn our heads.

We must focus on the suitability of text and music to its purpose; anything else is likely to lead us into the worst kind of narrow-minded and moralistic irrelevance. Where would it stop? No Poulenc or Britten because of their homosexuality?

We have all 'judged' Poulenc and Britten's music as acceptable and we utilize it in our liturgies. I personally sing and purchase the recordings of Poulenc myself. YOU have raised the issue of their homosexuality.

No Haydn because of his adultery? No Bach setting of 'O Sacred Head Sore Wounded' because he was a Lutheran? This is the kind of approach that resulted in the artists' unions in the Soviet Union, with their focus on the political and philosophical correctness of their members.

We utilize Haydn's music. I am a great admirer of Bach. His music is some of the best. We all love and use his music. YOU have raised the concerns about adultery and religious upbringing.

All this distracted from a topic of interest to us all, whether singers, organists or composers: copyright. I'm glad Francis has raised it, even if I believe there are problems with how he has done so.

Hmmm... Copyright is not the subject here, nor is morality of a composer.

We need more forums:

Composers Should Write Music; not Doctrine

and

Composers/Publishers : Who should 'right'fully own the copy?

and here is the real kicker:

What is a bad tree?

Would you like to start them Ian or would you like me to give it a go? (oh... and I still don't know if you yourself are a composer)

Hi G:

This doggy is up and is maddly wagging his tail!

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

Jesus warned us about 'false prophets'. Wolve's in sheeps clothing. OK. Let's apply this thinking pragmatically.

HOW are they a 'wolf'?

By 'eating' the sheep, perhaps?

And does he mean that the wolves actually physically eat us? Well, maybe eventually they do! -- the coffers of the Church are being emptied by scandal as I type this.

However, Jesus was truly concerned about those who 'eat' away at the faith. Those that pervert the very doctrine of the Church. They are the ones among us... dressed in 'priestly garb', but do not subscribe to its truths... having the form of the faith, but denying its very power. It is with great cunning that this happens. It is HARD TO DETECT. I just put a huge piece up about 'Gift of Finest Wheat' just before I read your comment. At first I saw nothing. Then I asked God for a little insight and I became sorely troubled. (see 'Gift of Finest Wheat' on this forum)

True shepherds have always warned us (the Church) and defended us from these marauders. Pope after pope have written bulls, encyclicals, writings, letters, etc, warning us of heresy, apostasy, and schism and those that perpetrate these cancers. Isn't it a bit odd that we RARELY hear any of these warnings now in a day and age when the Church is under the most severe attack in its history? Who is standing up in defence of truth?! Strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.

So I ask, what 'business' has someone who is a 'hired gun' doing feeding the flock of God? Do we let 'strangers' sleep in our children's bedrooms when they try to convince us that they want to 'watch over them?' Good tree, good fruit -- Bad tree, bad fruit. You can ignore that reality (to your own harm) but you can not refute it.

I dunno, if it was a setting of the Ordinary or some other prexisting text (psalm or canticle) and the author didn't fool with it, I dont' think a non-believer would necessarily have a questionable text.

Point taken, just wanted to be clear, I do think you have a good point.

Francis,

No baiting was intended. I wanted to better understand your thinking, and that seems to have been achieved. Thank you for explaining that your focus is on belief as expressed in text, as opposed to morality; some of your previous statements might have been interpreted otherwise. For example, when I suggested that we should assess the worth of text and music rather than its authors' morality, you replied: This is where you and I differ greatly ... Oh yea, babe! I definitely insist on morality! ...and the objective kind, at that!

Thank you also for the refreshing brevity of you last post. I hope you won't take it amiss if I observe that it bears out the relationship between concision and clarity.

And finally, thank you for the absence of capitalisation and exclamation marks. While the intent might be emphasis, the effect can be uncomfortable on the ears.

Best wishes,

Ian.

Francis,

Would that be ideas fruit or moral fruit? And if moral, what bearing do you think it should have on our use of text or music from the same tree?

Best wishes,

Ian.

G,

These statements are problematic in terms of what we believe. However, my question of Francis addressed his 'however', which looked like it might just possibly relate to moral issues (please cut me some slack, Francis, if that's not so - I'm just trying to tie it down).

Regards,

Ian.

Francis,

Sorry to push this, but I'm sure we'll get there in the end.

In your penultimate posting, you said that you are interested in the ideas of those whose work is used in our churches, rather than their morality:

I condemn no one. That is up to God.

The problem occurs when composers are writing text that is not compatible with scripture or with Catholic doctrine and are included and admitted into the liturgy.

Yet in your latest posting you seem to be saying that those whose ideas you (and I, probably) disagree with are immoral - it's difficult to be precise about this, because you seem to be reverting to damning your targets obliquely, using the analogy of sexual prostitution rather than a clear, concise statement of what you think.

So which is it, Francis?

Regards,

Ian.

Francis,

Your posts force me to conclude, with regret, that's it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you on these matters. As this is a discussion board, that's a shame.

Regards,

Ian.

Ian:

Some clarifications need to be made, because when I reread your last post, you misunderstood what I was saying.

Sorry to push this, but I'm sure we'll get there in the end. In your penultimate posting, you said that you are interested in the ideas of those whose work is used in our churches, rather than their morality.

I did not say that at all. I am saying that their work (fruit) is inseparably bound to their morality (tree). I assume you are speaking about the RC Church when you say, 'work used in our churches'. Am I correct on that point?

Yet in your latest posting you seem to be saying that those whose ideas you (and I, probably) disagree with are immoral - it's difficult to be precise about this, because you seem to be reverting to damning your targets obliquely, using the analogy of sexual prostitution rather than a clear, concise statement of what you think.

And the fruit is this:
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’.

So, the fruit will expose the tree. As much as it wants to produce good fruit, a bad tree will never be able to do it.

Sorry I got in on this one so late! Referring back to comments up near the top. There is a BIG difference between having composers receive money for their work and the establishment of an "ad hoc" institution that dictates Catholic liturgy in the way that OCP and GIA have done for many years. The problem is not that they publish music, the problem is that they MARKET it in collections which they call hymnals which then become the de facto source of liturgical music in most parishes. About 15 years ago I served on the committee to revise and update the Pilgrim Hymnal for the United Church of Christ and it's affiliated member Churches. The result (the New Century Hymnal) was a collection of hymns, both older and modern, that clearly expressed the theology and traditions of that Church. Another most important feature of this hymnal was that it EXCLUDED a great many hymns and songs because of content that was contrary to those beliefs. The "vetting" process for the hymns and songs was extensive... the project actually began in 1977, got well under way by 1988, and was completed in 1995. By that time, any hymn had to go through a rigorous review by several different groups of musicians and regular "people in the pews"and ultimately had to be approved by the "folks at the top". The list of what hymns were "able" to be included was then sent back to committee(s) to narrow it down to the very best of those which were then voted on nationally and finally compiled into a final hymnal. OK... such a process in the Catholic Church would be a fiasco... the point I'm making here is that it was the CHURCH that decided which hymns would be included in its hymnal, not the publishing company. The initial round of vetting was actually a lot of fun... we would read through a hymn, and someone would bring up a criticism like "that seems to be saying that we can know how Jesus would feel about this or that..." and we would put it in the discard pile. The most common criticism, "it doesn't mention Jesus or God at all..." would get an instant trip to the discard. Wouldn't you just love to go through a process like that with Gather Comprehensive or Glory and Praise?

Chironomo,

The problem with “it doesn’t mention Jesus or God” is that neither does much of Scripture. I think especially of the Song of Songs.

In theory, I believe Liturgiam authenticam mandates an episcopal “vetting” process. The GIRM does as well, I think. There is supposed to be a Directory on Sacred Music percolating around from the USCCB that will go to Rome for recognitio and become particular law. It’s been on the burner for some time, IIRC.

Are we all to become musical Donatists?

See the parable of the workers, some of whom started at sunup, while others started later and later in the day. Yet all received the same pay.

Now, how is that fair?

Because God is God, and I am not. He gives out his talents as he sees fit, in ways that might seem downright perverse to the ordinary pious person.

God may also use the ungodly to work his will. Passing up the Haydn masses, not to mention the various liturgical works of Mozart or the Catholic-appropriate works of Bach, would be beyond presumptuous. Call not thou unclean isn't just about food, you know.

I read a book called the History of English Hymns published in 1913 what struck me was the author warning the readers bout "market' driven hymnals!!!! Unfortunately while we like it or not ALL HYMNALs are to a degree market driven, whether it' bethe St. Michael, Adoremus, or the Traditional Roman Hymnal. The point here is that how else do we find out about their availability? What we need to understand is BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do any hymnal get placed in the pews. Perhaps a Nihil Ob stat and Imprimatur need to be revisited. A Concordad cum Originali which appear in many hymnals may not be enough.
One more thing concerning this discussion could it be that market driven could also mean "by popular demand? If true, then Houston, we have a problem. As Catholic the challenge is to sacrifice time and money to scour all hymnals from the mid 1800's to the present time and compile a truly Catholic hymnal for our parishes. God bless all who undertake this endeavor!!!!!!!!!