Modern Roman Catholic Music: Still sucks
Finally over my post election tristesse, I have decided to return to writing in my weblog. As usual, it is a case of reading the papers and reporting the facts.
It seems that Jeffrey Tucker, in a recent entry in that estimable web journal, The New Liturgical Movement, reports that while Musica Sacra has all sorts of free musical settings of ICEL texts, it is not permitted to publish them until for-profit publishers have geared up to
Ah, now I see.
I had actually thought for a time that my essays Why (Modern) Roman Catholic Music Sucks so Much and (Modern) Roman Catholic Music: Now Sucks Two-Thirds Less as well as those of the NLM and the Recovering Choir Director had actually had some effect in getting ICEL to modify its onerous and stupid policies concerning royalties.
I am relieved, in an odd way, to see that they are continuing their bureaucratic norm. In as many words, they are saying: "Why, of course, we will allow you to publish freeware liturgical music, but we will have to set the date when everyone will do it. And we will postpone that date, for as much as ten or so years, if necessary.
Of course, one should only expect this from a group that seems to worship, not the God, but the Dog in the manger.
Merry Christmas, all.
posted by Bernard Brandt at 11:10 AM
6 Comments:
Ouch.
I got lucky and copied all (or most of) the free stuff at Musica Sacra before the embargo came into effect.
Once the stuff is passed sub rosas the embargo is worthless
I think the best approach would be a direct challenge to the ICEL by composing and publishing liturgical settings of their work, and then, basically, daring them to sue. The publicity alone would be such an embarrassment to the Committee that in short order it would be forced to rescind its policy. After all, the Committee is part of the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ, the Suffering Servant who came to serve--not collect royalties.
By the way, as an Eastern Catholic, i don't have a dog in this fight, other than my dismay at the lamentable state of Roman Catholic liturgical music (and liturgy generally). We don't have to deal with ICEL as a rule, but our hierarchs can be just as tone deaf and pig headed, when they put their tiny little minds to it.
For instance, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh two years ago promulgated a "Revised Divine Liturgy", supposedly an accurate English rendering of the 1942 Slavonic recension published by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. in point of fact, it is an radical abridgment and atrocious paraphrase of the Slavonic original, set to absolutely unsingable music arranged by J. Michael Thompson, who at the time was music professor at the Ruthenian seminary in Pittsburgh.
Repeating every mistake made by the Latin Church some forty years ago, the Metropolia imposed the new liturgy by fiat, insisted that no other text could be used, and, moreover, that no other music could be used.
The result is what could be expected: parishes that had a vibrant liturgical life no longer do; those at which nobody sang, well, nothing has changed.
This might be why I am no longer a Ruthenian, but a Melkite. In my Melkite parish, everybody knows the music, to the point that there are no pew books (nor pews, for that matter). Moreover, each priest and deacon seems to have his own favorite Gospel and Epistle book, and uses that for the readings, as opposed to being forced to use a lectionary derived from the NAB. Our pastor seems to favor the Douay Rheims Bible, complete with the second person singular (gasp!). Overall, the Melkites seem to have the right approach--neither too loose nor overly tight. It works.
Dear Stuart:
Thank you for writing. I agree with you as regards the difference between Ruthenian and Melkite hierarchy. I am glad for you that you have found a home in the latter church. My little church in El Segundo is also under the veil of Bishop Cyril, for which God is to be thanked.
I also agree with you that the Ruthenian hierarchy has come a cropper with its new translation of the Divine Liturgy. To put it simply, it also sucks.
I would disagree with you about your assessment of the music of Professor J. Michael Thompson. I find it to be far more singable, far more suited to the English language, and far more faithful to the original slavic chants than, for example, Msgr. Levulik's settings of Ruthenian chant. I will agree that is a pity that it is marred by being set to the above stupid translation, but that's the only bad thing that I can find in it, and I know for a fact that the settings of the vespers and matins texts, particularly stichera and kanons, are from the older translation. I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Professor J. Michael Thompson and the MCI in general did a good job of setting music . They fixed a lot of note for note Slavonic to English translations that simply didn't work (a "liturgical train-wreck" as it was called in the book of Daily Vespers). I should also add a personal bias as I know the good gentleman and he has been very helpful when questions have arisen.
Post a Comment
<< Home