And an appointment TO OCP-Land, since he'll be on their Board. It's a little like naming Ted Nugent the head of the Brady Campaign. I don't dare hope for HUGE changes, but I suspect that hymn texts will get scrutinized a little harder.

Oh, you can bet the Pope knows what he is doing lol :)

That's awesome. Now, we just need someone to overhaul Chicago.

Yes. But we can still say a prayer of thanksgiving when the pope or a bishop or priest for that matter makes even a small gesture to preserve the liturgy.

ryand:

I definitely agree with the die trying part.

Hopefully Portland is well enough off that he can focus on that,...

Is not the Archdiocese under bankruptcy protection at this time? While Vlazny was originally sent there (from the diocese of Winona, MN, I having lived in Mankato during his tenure) to fortify the pro-life movement, he inherited the financial mess associated with the priest scandal.

We had a Pontifical EF Mass at my parish a few months ago and Bishop Sample was the celebrant. He has a very nice singing voice. His Marquette seminarians are happy for him but sad too that they are losing such a supportive bishop.

Also, when parishes buy licenses for reproducing items, many of the traditional hymns and tunes are in public domain, so there aren't the same kind of royalties to be collected. And that, boys and girls, is one reason why revisions of hymn texts and new harmonies for hymns are pumped out and copyrighted: so that there's a royalty fee to be collected.

And that, boys and girls is why most of the new music, the new texts and the rewritten harmonies are despicable. Shame on OCP, GIA and WLP (although I think WLP tends to be the better of the bunch). In general, their (new revised) voice leading is atrocious and unplayable AND undersireable by professional organists. I always use the 1940 hymnal for harmonizations and have entirely scrapped their silly Keyboard accompaniments. Amateur to the core.

That is one cow that needs to be shot and put out of its misery so that WE can also be put out of our misery!

The royalty issue is a red herring, in my opinion, and belies a misunderstanding of the economics of publishers. Intellectual property doesn't allow OCP to charge more for the same thing. It stops other people from selling the same thing. IF the goods were interchangeable, IP would help OCP. As it is, the strategy explained above would not produce an economic benefit.

That is not to let OCP off the hook or anything. I just think it's an inaccurate explanation.
(Although, I have to say -- the fact that it is stupid doesn't mean it isn't being done. Lots of businesses make poor business decisions.)

My sense of things is that OCP is wholly capitalist in nature- that it operates based on selling whatever (and however) they think will produce the most money. I am of the opinion that GIA and WLP are both more "idealistic" in their publishing practice, doing their best to promote a model of liturgical music that they see as ideal. (Whether you agree with that ideal is a whole other issue.)

You could be right, Chonak. But I'm still dubious about the proposition that there is anything to this concept of altering a public-domain text or tune in order to sell it. The economics doesn't make sense. What would impel a person to pay for a copyrighted, altered version of (let's say) Faith of Our Fathers when the original version is in the public domain?

There are three possibilities: (1) the copyrighted version is professionally engraved, comes in a convenient format, etc., while the public-domain options are inferior; (2) the copyrighted version comes in a collection you are buying anyway; or (3) you prefer the altered version over the original to a sufficient degree that you are willing to pay for it. Well, in case (1) it makes little difference to the customer that the lyrics are revised; he is willing to pay simply for high-quality production value. In case (2), the customer also doesn't care about the alterations; he's buying a hymnal with 300 hymns in it (or a license embracing 3000 hymns, psalms, and antiphons), not looking for Faith of Our Fathers specifically. So in both of these cases, revising the lyrics and copyrighting the result does nothing at all to help the publisher to "sell" the hymn. Indeed, it is rather in the publisher's interest not to do so, so as not to have to pay royalties to the author. It must be remembered that something need not be copyrighted in order for a publisher to sell it. Anybody who has paid for a copy of The Scarlet Letter or The Federalist Papers knows this.

In case (3), of course, altering the hymn does help sales. But it does so only by creating a new product which customers prefer to what is already on the market. Filling a market demand? That's not exactly the sort of devious, underhanded copyright gamesmanship that people are alleging here, is it.

Or to put it another way, can anybody explain how it is that (again, for the sake of example) altering the harmonization of Immaculate Mary might help a publisher make money? Sure, maybe there are people looking for a new, better harmonization -- in that case, the publisher is producing a new product that people want. As well they should. But does it let them charge more money for OneLicense or Gather? Again, I suggest the opposite: it would only stand to reduce their profits.

Concentrating on the new rather than promoting the standard repertoire is the death of music concert series as well as Catholic music programs. Dropping the level of the quality of music so that anyone can play and sing it means they will. Talented singers (please, no more arguments that anyone can sing - would you pay to hear go to the Metropolitan opera knowing that the soprano singing the lead role is a cantor at a Catholic church in Brooklyn who will sing for free?) and trained musicians end up being looked down upon as an unnecessary expense.

And, demands that money be spent to get a better organ, more music, cassocks --- fall upon deaf ears when the guitarists bring their own instruments in.

I also think they want to switch out the old orthodox texts to the old hymns with NU church theology. That way they use the old time tested hymn tunes, and can promote their liberal (gender inclusive, mass a meal, social justice, we are a happy family, sing about ourselves) thinking all at the same time.

You are, in my opinion, describing GIA, not OCP.

I started to say this above, but this is my personal take:

OCP - Obstinately Capitalist Publishers
Producing crappy throwaway hymnals because subscriptions are an excellent revenue source. Any quality that seeps out is purely accidental.

GIA - Genuinely Interested in Apostasy
GIA produces high-quality products, and they seem to genuinely care about their customers and the church. But, they also seem to have a particular agenda and a model of "doing" church. This is fine if you agree with it (many do), or if you have the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Bruce,

As one of the musicians/clergy who served as an editor of Worship IV, I am a bit confused by your comments.

In Worship, third edition, the tune ELLACOMBE appears once, in the key of A-major. In Worship IV, the tune ELLACOMBE is used four times, and it is in A-major all four times.

There are some tunes used several times in Worship IV that are printed in different keys, with the notice "For a higher key, see No.___" or "For a lower key, see No.____", but ELLACOMBE is not one of these. Lower keys can be useful in some circumstances (such as an early morning Mass), and I don't necessarily agree that they "reinforce poor vocal pedagogy and lethargic singing."

I am not sure why you have an issue with the indexes of Worship IV. Although I didn't have anything to do with the indexing of the hymnal, they were assembled with great care.

Some indexes in Worship IV are simply matters-of-fact, e.g. Metrical Index, Tune Index, Index of First Lines, etc. Other indexes which are a bit more "subjective" seem to me to be quite complete, e.g. Liturgical Index and Topical Index.

Worship IV includes more indexes than Worship, third edition. The only one eliminated from Worship IV that was in Worship, third edition, is the Index of Hymns Which May Be Sung in Canon, which we thought would be something more appropriate to a choir rather than printed in the assembly book.

Indexes in Worship IV that were not in Worship, third edition include an Index of Psalms and Canticles, an Index of Settings with Foreign Languages, an Index of Service Music, and an index listing Psalm Refrains Set to Music.

Although I was not involved in the editing of the third edition of Worship, I am not sure that the venerable Richard Proulx was involved in much of the indexing of that hymnal. In the Preface for Worship, third edition, Richard Proulx is listed as the Music Editor, while Fr. Robert Oldershaw is listed as the Liturgical and Index Editor.

I am in the market for a hymnal, and it likely will be Worship IV. Yes, there is junk in it, but I can use the good and ignore the bad - and there is quite a bit that is good. I could not work with the hymn layouts and the limited number of hymns in the Vatican II. In addition, the pastor wants hymns, psalms and readings in one book, which eliminates the St. Michael. There is no perfect hymnal out there. The Hymnal 1940, came as close to perfection as any I have seen, in terms of quality.

Lower keys: I have noticed that, too. Take any hymnal from the 50s and 60s, and you will discover that many hymns are now in lower keys. I have wondered if learning to sing is not as common these days. Singing those higher notes is not a learned skill anymore.

CharlesW, I believe the reason for the higher keys was due to the fact that they used to sing in parts, and organists could transpose at sight if need be.

This lowering of keys of hymns and printing melody only hymns is symptomatic of a lowering of both standards and expectations, the dumbing down of hymn singing to suit the least able which thereby drags down the ability of congregations to sing. Play 4-part hymns in keys that are meant for 4-part singing and do not give in to those that would have congregations stumble, bumble and mumble along with singing, which, if it is sung at all, is barely fourth rate. And, for the love of hymnody and God, use hymnals that are not melody only.

Oh, dear. American Catholics (aside perhaps from German-American Catholics) don't have a tradition of singing SATB during Mass. We're not going to get one with SATB hymnals (as opposed to a genuine tradition that is handed down experientially). First, and most importantly, music literacy has declined. Second, most untrained singers are naturally going to gravitate to mezzo/baritone ranges (it's something of a bell-curve), not true SATB ranges. Scowling at them for failing to keep up with our standards will not help one iota. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect. I've witnessed the effort to raise keys (for some reason, often by music directors who are sopranos or tenors...). The result, typically: a considerable muting of the congregation, especially men. Keep your principles and kill your models for singing by adult men, and see where that will get us in the long-term.

wow, very interesting article.

As one of the musicians/clergy who served as an editor of Worship IV, I am a bit confused by your comments.

In Worship, third edition, the tune ELLACOMBE appears once, in the key of A-major. In Worship IV, the tune ELLACOMBE is used four times, and it is in A-major all four times.

There are some tunes used several times in Worship IV that are printed in different keys, with the notice "For a higher key, see No.___" or "For a lower key, see No.____", but ELLACOMBE is not one of these. Lower keys can be useful in some circumstances (such as an early morning Mass), and I don't necessarily agree that they "reinforce poor vocal pedagogy and lethargic singing."

I am not sure why you have an issue with the indexes of Worship IV. Although I didn't have anything to do with the indexing of the hymnal, they were assembled with great care.

Some indexes in Worship IV are simply matters-of-fact, e.g. Metrical Index, Tune Index, Index of First Lines, etc. Other indexes which are a bit more "subjective" seem to me to be quite complete, e.g. Liturgical Index and Topical Index.

Worship IV includes more indexes than Worship, third edition. The only one eliminated from Worship IV that was in Worship, third edition, is the Index of Hymns Which May Be Sung in Canon, which we thought would be something more appropriate to a choir rather than printed in the assembly book.

Indexes in Worship IV that were not in Worship, third edition include an Index of Psalms and Canticles, an Index of Settings with Foreign Languages, an Index of Service Music, and an index listing Psalm Refrains Set to Music.

Although I was not involved in the editing of the third edition of Worship, I am not sure that the venerable Richard Proulx was involved in much of the indexing of that hymnal. In the Preface for Worship, third edition, Richard Proulx is listed as the Music Editor, while Fr. Robert Oldershaw is listed as the Liturgical and Index Editor.

Father, first off, an apology: I had the tune wrong. It's been a long couple weeks at work, and I didn't do due diligence. It is actually SALZBURG, for Songs of Thankfulness... As you say, it does have the key higher elsewhere, and perhaps I should have noted that. However, why do the tune lower at all? If children were singing that hymn, you are taking them down to a low C (it can generally be agreed for kids that an e or f to d or e range is healthier), and the high notes would be "on the break" for many adult female singers (at least ones that are not trained). If, as you say, it is a necessity that the hymn be sung lower in the early morning (something I am not unsympathetic to), then simply offer a low-key accompaniment. I could say that the musician should learn to transpose, but you and I both know that depends on the goodwill of the musician!

I looked again at the indices, and I think perhaps I was too hard on the indices. Maybe I was having a grumpy day or was otherwise not fair. Likewise with the editors. My apologies.

I hope, with that apology (hopefully as a sign of goodwill!), we can discuss some principles behind the editing of the hymnal, including the downward trend of keys. I think people have brought up some valid points, namely:

1) Is it assumed that these hymns will not be sung in harmony? My assumption is that they will (at a choir Mass) or should be. Here in the South, it is not unusual for people in the congregation to sing parts (if they are singing at all) due to the influence of the strong American hymn-singing tradition.

2) Why reuse so many tunes for different hymns, ELLACOMBE included? Yes, they are good tunes, but the reuse can make them rather tired over the course of the liturgical year (i.e., we would use SALZBURG perhaps 3-4 times a year maximum).

3) Many good pairings (including KING'S LYNN with "For all your saints still striving", for example) didn't even make the cut from Worship III to RitualSong. The tunes do not die, so to speak, but are paired with texts that are sometimes more introspective and less direct (the Troeger one) that I worry do not have an audience in the American Catholic community, especially in the future. I can understand (and commend) the desire to use new texts by current authors, but perhaps pairing them with new tunes would be better?

4) I think the psalter is a huge improvement over many in the GIA catalog; however, there is still not an effort to have a *complete* psalter in the hymnal. This would be good for those who have weekday Masses, for which one must often compose a setting... By the same token, psalms in the psalter that are really paraphrases (Shepherd me, O God) are not properly assigned to a psalter any more than my personal reflection on John 6 belongs in the book of gospels. This practice of paraphrase-masquerading-as-psalm (even if it is permitted by Sing to the Lord as a last resort) is something that I believe distorts the liturgical worship of many in the Catholic Church in America. They are fine as songs: just cue them in the scriptural index and put them in the "hymns" section of the hymnal.

I hope you'll excuse the off-topic diversion, but these are legitimate questions, I think.

As for Liam's comments, I am very comfortably a baritone and have seen little from my experience that indicates lowering keys improves singing. We are not discussing hymns here that would take the congregation up to an F or anything. Whenever I have had to do "Hail Mary, Gentle Woman", it is always up a m3 in F. The singing (with any age singer) is stronger and more uplifting...period.

American Catholics (aside perhaps from German-American Catholics) don't have a tradition of singing SATB during Mass. We're not going to get one with SATB hymnals (as opposed to a genuine tradition that is handed down experientially).

Precisely.

This lowering of keys of hymns and printing melody only hymns is symptomatic of a lowering of both standards and expectations, the dumbing down of hymn singing to suit the least able which thereby drags down the ability of congregations to sing. Play 4-part hymns in keys that are meant for 4-part singing and do not give in to those that would have congregations stumble, bumble and mumble along with singing, which, if it is sung at all, is barely fourth rate. And, for the love of hymnody and God, use hymnals that are not melody only.

Would you be willing to post a recording of your congregation last Sunday [not recorded from the choir loft] singing SATB? Then, we can evaluate whether this is something we would want to emulate.

Well I would think one reason for Catholic hymnals to not have 4 part settings, apart from the cost, is that hymns are not normal to Mass but to the Office. Of course it has been many years since this was the case.

(This is in response to Bruce’s comment above,)

Thanks, Bruce, for your “good will” remarks. Just a few points in response to your observations about Worship IV:

1. As far as SATB vs. unison singing by the assembly… As we can see from other comments in this thread, people have various opinions. Like most Catholic hymnals these days, the Worship IV pew book provides mostly unison settings. However, we did provide SATB settings of some Taize refrains as well as some short multi-cultural pieces, figuring that these shorter, repetitive pieces would have a better chance of (perhaps) some part-singing by the congregation. (Of course, the choir edition of Worship IV has SATB settings of most of the hymns.)

2. Yes, Worship IV re-uses tunes, but this is often done for a “Hymn of the Day” text that might be used once in a three-year cycle. If tune reuse is an issue, an appropriate alternate tune of the same meter could be chosen. We really worked hard on trying to match tunes and texts.

3. KING’S LYNN is a great tune, and we wanted to include it in Worship IV. But in the estimation of the Worship IV editors, it would not be considered a well-known tune by most Catholic congregations (based on our experience and the surveys we received). So, we did use KING’S LYNN twice, but even in these cases suggest an alternate tune that would be more familiar, AURELIA.

4. At one of our first Worship IV editorial meetings, we dreamed about including a complete psalter! However, we realized that space considerations would prevent this, and so many daily Mass/office antiphons would need to be composed in order to make this a useful reality.

How far a certain composition goes in paraphrasing a psalm before the psalm is not substantially recognizable is a good question. Is the text “The Living God My Shepherd Is” at #709 (sung to BROTHER JAMES’ AIR) close enough to be considered a version of Psalm 23? (Note that we chose to include metrical psalmody in the hymn section of Worship IV, since we considered the musical form a hymn.) How about other metrical psalmody?

But in the long run, I don’t think whether “Shepherd Me, O God” appears in the psalter or hymn section is of major concern. (In the “RitualSong” hymnal, it was in the hymn section, so it seems that various editors had different opinions). As you know, the proper responsorial psalms are in the Lectionary section of the hymnal. “Shepherd Me, O God” is not intended to replace Psalm 23 when that psalm is assigned for the Responsorial Psalm in the Lectionary. Many of the selections in the Psalms & Canticles section could be used as communion antiphons.

Some other information regarding the philosophy of Worship IV can be found in the book’s Preface.

"However, we did provide SATB settings of some Taize refrains as well as some short multi-cultural pieces, figuring that these shorter, repetitive pieces would have a better chance of (perhaps) some part-singing by the congregation."

This is a good move on GIA's part. Also, I think "Lead Me, Guide Me" has most hymns in parts; I'm not sure about the second edition (which an organ teacher of mine sat on the board for!)

In all honesty, I consider "Lead Me, Guide Me" the best mainstream Catholic hymnal, although it is unfortunately overlooked.

But in the long run, I don’t think whether “Shepherd Me, O God” appears in the psalter or hymn section is of major concern[...]As you know, the proper responsorial psalms are in the Lectionary section of the hymnal. “Shepherd Me, O God” is not intended to replace Psalm 23 when that psalm is assigned for the Responsorial Psalm in the Lectionary.

Perhaps the editorial committee is over-estimating the knowledge level of average parish music directors. Many parish music directors seem to assume that, since the piece is included in the "Psalter" section, it is usable as a liturgical Responsorial Psalm.

A less charitable commenter might claim that GIA would like parish musicians to make that assumption. I'm not sure what I think about it.

Many parish music directors seem to assume that, since the piece is included in the "Psalter" section, it is usable as a liturgical Responsorial Psalm.

Really, Adam? Any empirical evidence for this?

A less charitable commenter might claim that GIA would like parish musicians to make that assumption.

That would certainly be less charitable, as well as quite presumptuous.