In terms of the Glory to God – all I can say from my perspective, that of all of the new texts that are sung – this is the most difficult for composers, not because they are new words – but the new words, as Paul points out, are just awkward from a linguistic point of view.. and the fact that the phrase “and on earth peace..” seems to me representative of a language and sentence structure that is so at odds with the way people use English. For the most part, the changes for the sung texts have not been that difficult – the Sanctus has one word change, the new memorial acclamations for the most part are fine (the last one, “Save Us..” is probably the most awkward). The Gloria:the revised versions are going to be more difficult to embrace than the newer settings.

I heard a story about a permanent deacon who was ordained last year (2009) in Portsmouth cathedral. In honour of the occasion, his young son (about 20 years old) wrote a very competent 4-part motet. The music director of the ceremony forbade its performance.

I know that the motet was competently written, because it was executed during a liturgy the following day in the said deacon’s parish church by a competent 4-piece band of London music students. I would contrast the degree of craftsmanship very favourably with most liturgical music one hears these days.

I don’t know whether the story is true, I don’t represent that it is, and I very much hope and trust that it is false.

There’s no point in discussing the fact that Merbecke is boring, when the vast majority of Anglican musicians, presumably people of education and taste, agree that he is, and furthermore opine that his Communion Service is only exceeded in boring-ness by the other 98% of his output. Presumably you are not among those musicians.

As for ICEL/ICET texts, you just don’t get it, do you. You appear to think that I am love with the present texts and so can see no good in the proposed new texts. It so happens that I have serious problems with the current texts as translations, but their linguistic atributes are more positive. This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments on the proposed new ICEL texts, which are better as translations but are sadly lacking in their linguistic qualities. My opinions on the present ICET texts are not related to my objective judgement (something of which it appears that you are incapable) on the proposed new texts. Once again: generally the new texts are better translations, but generally they are lousy language. We can do better than this, if only folk like you would get on board and assist in the task instead of sniping from the sidelines.

It would also be a good idea if you were to poll the 35 or so other composers present in St Louis as to their reactions to the new texts (which I reported) instead of presuming what my own attitudes might or might not be.

I say again, scholarly rigour is distinctly lacking in your discourse. I am taking the time to respond to you, however, because, as I said earlier, I believe dialogue is important. Nevertheless, even dialogue is a lost cause if the other party has closed ears.

You really ought to stop digging, Paul – though I am pleased to see you’ve moved on from the clumsy disingenuity of your claim to have been simply a disinterested reporter of the composers gathered at the St. Louis Jesuit Centre. Given your own words (see my last comment), that always was going to be a difficult claim to sustain.

You haven’t addressed my observations on the ICEL text you criticised. That’s significant, because it implies you’re not, after all, very interested in the text as such, other than as a means to indulge in ecclesiastical politics. It’s also a shame, because one would have hoped to have benefited from a detailed, open-minded analysis of the literary and compositional issues, not least in the context of the previous translation and what the changes mean for composers and singers used to working with the very different demands of that text. That would have been of considerable interest, given your background as one who has so assiduously worked with the old translation, as professional liturgist, music director and composer.

It is in this context that one must question your ostensible reluctance to compare the old and new translations. One cannot adequately understand the difficulties some composers are apparently having making the transition without an understanding of the metrical character of the old and the constraints it placed on them. To be fair, your comments, which barely disguise an evident regard for that character, and distaste for criticism of it, do suggest you recognise the significance of the change.

Finally, I have to observe that your comments on Marbecke only serve to underscore the paucity of context and analysis in what you have written here. Marbecke gave himself the task of setting a Gloria translation whose rhythms have more in common with ICEL’s than ICET’s, according to the principal of the primacy of the text. The result has largely stood the test of time and developments in performance practice. You would have done well to consider the substance of that achievement, especially in relation to the issue of metre, and its relevance to the problems faced by the composers you report. Instead, you indulged in a cheap shot about Anglican musicians finding him boring. I’m sorry that, on the basis of your post and comments here, which have been long on assertion and short on detail, this wasn’t entirely surprising. Nor was your jibe altogether wise, for it brings to mind the old proverb that those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Is that the same Merbecke that Anglican musicians across the globe find both extremely boring and not well-crafted? I fear it may be.

In any case, with regard to the 1971 translation of the Gloria: I am accused of ‘pointedly failing’ to comment on something that Ian Williams happens to dislike. That was not the purpose of the original post (which concerned the imminent translation, not any of those translations existing or in the past), so I did not comment on it, and will not comment on it in this thread.

Pillorying somebody because they did not comment on something that you happen to dislike is not something you can get away with in serious adult scholarly debate. If Mr Williams is unable to understand that one may comment on one topic without having to comment on another, then I am sorry for him. I suggest that he goes away to learn how to come to grips with issues that are actually raised, and comes back later. I’m sorry, but this sort of behaviour is getting extremely tiresome, not to say childish.

It’s not my defence. I was reporting what a number of composers felt

This claim to have simply made a value-free report of others’ difficulties doesn’t stand examination of what you wrote. You explicitly indicated your disapproval of ‘and on earth peace’ by referring to it as an ‘infelicity’. In doing so, you made clear your agreement with the composers.

On the other hand, you pointedly failed to comment on those infelicitous rhythmic characteristics of the old translation which, I argued, might explain the composers’ current difficulties, but were happy to observe that:

ICET designed their texts to be easily set to music, which explains why they are rhythmically easier to cope with than those which did not include this parameter in the work done.

I’m afraid this still leaves one to wonder why you make such a fuss about ‘and on earth peace’ as opposed to ‘and peace on earth’. It’s not even that you strain to remove ICEL’s mote when you’ve found reason to excuse ICET’s beam: there is no mote to remove. Anglican composers, from Merbecke on, frequently and felicitously set ‘and on earth peace’. In fact, the way this wording draws out and emphasises ‘peace’ is particularly satisfying. You would do well to consider the literature, and then try out a few ideas yourself before you next comment on this element of the new translation. You never know – you may even find yourself thanking the Lord for this manner of deliverance from the horror of the old.

Ian Williams, please read the original post again.

(a) It’s not my defence. I was reporting what a number of composers felt. If you can’t cope with that, this is your problem, not mine.

(b) Nothing was said about the 1973 translation (which is actually the 1971 ICET translation, adopted by ICEL in 1973). No defence was made of that translation. The comment was about the rhythmic characteristics of the new translation. No comparison with the current translation was made. You are the one who is imputing this.

(c) It’s not symptomatic of anything, merely stating that the upcoming translation of this particular text is unsatisfactory, when it need not have been. The fact that this applies mutatis mutandis to many other of the new ICEL texts was not stated. Once again, you are reading things into a statement of composers’ reactions which is simply not there.

And when you’ve finished re-reading the original post, kindly desist both from attributing attitudes to the bearer of a simple news item which are nowhere stated in the post and from attacking those supposed attitudes.

I hope this is sufficiently clear.

Before you accuse someone at length of ranting about something you haven’t said you really ought to follow your own advice and read their comments. That way you’ll avoid the charge of setting up an Aunt Sally. I haven’t commented on your wider position on the existing translations, as I don’t know what it is, nor have claimed to do so.

Rather, I have focused on the strange case of your defence of the existing Gloria translation, which is widely acknowledged to be one of the less successful elements of the 1973 translation, and suggested that this is symptomatic of a certain kind of opposition to ICEL’s efforts.

Putting aside issues of theological dispute and the kind of consultation that’s desirable, much of that opposition is characterised by three problems: literary insensitivity; a misplaced populism that prioritises simplicity over profundity; and fear of change. On the face of it, the first is evident in your inability to register the ridiculous in the metre-scheme of the current Gloria translation. I’m afraid this not only indicates a sense of humour failure; it also weakens one’s confidence in your judgement of the “many infelicities in the use of language” you claim to detect in the wider translation.

Now, I did not expect a liturgical composer of your experience to exhibit such a failing, so looked for a mitigating explanation. I began by assuming it to be the third problem – fear of change – but saw from your further comments that it might in fact be the second: populism. How else to explain your defence of the risible on the grounds that it’s easy to set? Liturgical music should be the handmaid of literary and liturgical sensibility. Simplicity for those who wish to compose need not and should not be a determining factor in the character of a liturgical translation. Any composer worth his or her salt will be capable of meeting the technical demands of irregular meter. If some find this difficult, they should be encouraged to work at it, to throw away unsatisfactory attempts, maybe even improve their technical and compositional skills through education or coaching. For the translators to determine the character of the translation in order to make life easier for them would be a major disservice to the liturgy and the faithful (not least to the aspiring composers themselves). The argument is so weak as to leave me wondering why an evidently reasonable man would make it. A possible explanation lies in the observation that this misplaced – indeed, patronising – populism is a product of the era that produced the last translation: conservatism might, in fact, play a part in its continuing promotion by those who once experienced the excitement of it as a new idea.

Having responded to your comments, I would like to end mine on a more positive note. The Church in the English speaking world is going through an experience the Church of England began in the 16th century. Other fundamental changes aside, it had to develop a new liturgical language and music. It did so very successfully, but the operative word is “develop”. The sacral English of the Prayer Books did not spring, fully-formed, from Cranmer’s brow. It was a living tradition, the product of years of development and revision, from before the Reformation to the twentieth century. Unlike the post-Reformation Anglicans, we made life more difficult for ourselves by rejecting the existing tradition of sacral English with which we were familiar. That should not, however, stop us taking heart from the Anglican experience, recognising the increased use of the vernacular as a process, in which early endeavours are likely to be superseded by improvements that benefit from the perspective of time and experience. I submit that ICEL’s new Gloria and Sanctus translations are encouraging steps on that journey.