As I’ve spent time offering two articles about whether the “grass roots” of RotR folk/CMAA/Progressive Conservationists (should I copyright that? ) could actually influence via direct dialogue with the “Liturgical Industrial Complex” of publishing companies, I feel obliged to share also the reply I received yesterday from an officer at OCP with the readership. I realize my second article, an attempt to provide a sort of template for others who might wish to also personally get involved in helping the Big Three (and others) towards paradigm shift, was a source of misunderstanding and mockery to some. It was not intended as such. But for the record, we should know the effect and result of such efforts. This is the letter I received from OCP:
Thank you for your email. Please allow me to reply at the request of John Limb. I am the Manager of Worship Publications; I oversee the publication process for our pew resources.
We appreciate your feedback on specific songs in our Breaking Bread and Music Issue publications. This comes at a propitious time as we are in the midst, as I think you know, of receiving input from our missal subscribers via the annual Music Issue Survey. We take this input very seriously. We read every survey and carefully note all specific song suggestions (whether additions or deletions). These titles are gathered and shared with our music selection committee, which reviews them before making recommendations for the contents of the following year’s missals. Even if a song is suggested only once by one subscriber, it is included on the list. Please know that the songs you suggested for removal here will be included on that list as well.As you can imagine, it is challenging to produce a single-volume sacred music resource that meets the needs and satisfies the expectations of every subscribing parish in the country. The needs and expectations vary widely. Our goal is produce an annual resource that addresses the needs of most of the parishes we serve, knowing that not everyone will be entirely happy with the result. The music selection committee works hard every year to add and remove songs, with much debate and careful consideration of many factors.We understand the importance of chant and have striven for many years now to include it in our publications. We also, as you know, offer specific publications that offer chant options together in single volumes. There is, of course, Laus Tibi, Christe, with more than 70 chant settings. The most recent example is the St. Meinrad antiphonary. These books are designed to be used in conjunction with our various missal and hymnal programs. In fact, our hymnals include a plastic pocket in the back cover to accommodate these supplemental publications. This provides a means for parishes to access additional music that better addresses their specific needs. It’s not an ideal solution, but it’s the best compromise under the circumstances.I note that the 2014 edition of Breaking Bread includes more than 45 chant pieces and Latin hymns. We continue to consider chant pieces for inclusion in our missals and have added several in recent years. That said, I will also forward to our committee your suggestion that we increase the number of Latin chant pieces. (emphasis mine)Thank you again for taking the time to contact us and for using our publications these many years. God bless you in your ministry!Sincerely,Wade Wisler
Worship Publications Manager
Well, my friends, what think ye?
Mass marketing speak. Was not there a new circle of Hell created for this…
I think you did good!
It stands to reason that a company which is mass marketing would respond to the criticisms of it's customers. That being said, two years ago I attended the NPM colloquium on the use of propers at mass. Across from me was a member of the staff in GIA. He stated that GIA was not interested in moving in this direction. But I notice on GIA's website additions to this category. Baby steps.
Give them credit for listening and writing you back. It's clear that this response was not a form letter!
And that's precisely the point, Gregory, of the series of articles on this dialogue. One has to wonder how many of us are "saddled" with OCP and likely will be into the future. But, what might happen if a sizable number of RotR were to specifically and personally contact Mr. Wisler or his GIA/WLP counterparts with such specificity? If I'm left to speculate upon an answer, I have to think positively.
But it seems the idea has gained no traction whatsoever. That's okay by me, but I can't have much sympathy for those in our "camp" who are quick to complain in cyberspace, but are loathe to expend effort at addressing the problems with those who actually can make a difference.
This response should be compared to one from the late 1990s.
I left a voicemail for this gentleman's predecessor (remember, email was not as common back then), calling for increased use of Gregorian Chant in their worship aids, while citing its growing popularity among young people, and some minor (if fleeting) presence in the pop charts. I got a voicemail back saying that they wanted to be sure that this wasn't a fad like that of Milli Vanilli. (Yes, he mentioned that duo by name.) I left another voicemail: "Sir, Milli Vanilli was never mentioned in the documents of Vatican II has having 'pride of place, all other things being equal'. Please reconsider." His next voicemail to me was much more conciliatory.
From where I sit, things are looking up.
I still think there's one simple action: Don't feed the dragon if you can.
At the next budget meeting at the parish, propose an incrementally increasing amount of budget for materials following the instructions of the Vatican II and decreasing amount of budget for OCP/GIA/WLP/etc. Dial back the percentage every year between OCP/GIA/WLP and move towards SEP/CCW/SCP/Roman Gradual and other training materials. Say 10% per year. Then in 10 years, The dependence will end and if OCP/GIA and friends still produces sub-standard stuff, then they're not selected.
Some of these companies had 40+ years to read the documents of Vatican II. They should be expert by now. This is especially true for GIA (The *Gregorian* Institute of America! Hah!). There's no pleading of ignorance for them. They can't not have known about 'pride of place' for chant in the liturgy. They can't not have known about the Eucharist being the source, center, and summit of all Christian worship and not pay enough attention to the GIRM regarding the Propers and the options of 1 to 4. 40+ years and nobody batted an eye on making the Gradual more accessible?
I don't think some of these large firms can claim ignorance nor incompetence given they've talent employed.
So, I propose a simpler solution. Instead of writing them and asking them to change, just stop supporting those who worked to subvert Vatican II. Support CMAA and other Sacred Music efforts that works towards the goals of Vatican II and following the teachings of the Church.
Put simply: Don't feed the dragon if you can.