Payment?

[contrabordun]

Yet community-driven alternatives such as teaching someone to play it, are not explored. Schools are often connected to churches. Many schools teach kids to play piano - how about adding an extra string to their bow?

Absolutely - I just cannot understand why churches do not do this. I guess piano is the most widely studied instrument, and yet churches, many with schools attached, sit back and complain about a lack of organists. Fail to plan = plan to fail and all that.

Get a few young people enthused (there are organ clubs in most areas of Britain with programmes for doing this), get them started, get them familiar with the controls of the thing (how many organs sit silent despite the presence of competent pianists in the congregation for lack of a half hour lesson in how to switch it on, what knobs to pull and the need for a generally more legato touch to compensate for the lack of a sustaining pedal?). Some will stick with it and ten years later they've settled down, got a home, got a family, they have the skills you need. An Anglican choirmaster friend of mine has kept himself in assistant organists for the last decade by finding one or two 13/14 year old pianists each year or two and training them up, letting them play what they can when they can (eg one hymn a month). By the time they're 17/18 they can do 'the full load', (which is critical for him, as he is barely Grade 5 piano and simply couldn't do it alone). Then they go off to university, by when the next one off the line is ready. And thanks to this one guy, the Anglican Church now has a dozen or so more competent parish church organists than would otherwise be the case.

The job of Organist outwardly appears simple, once you've learned to play the thing. Turn up, play hymns, get paid, go home.

Er, we need to kill the widespread belief that playing hymns on the organ is straightforward. To do what sid (tongue firmly in cheek) describes, demands the ability to sightread, at a standard appropriate for public worship, 4 part harmony with a pedal line that is likely to be moving much faster (60-100 notes per minute?) than in typical organ music. This is Grade 7/8 stuff. At any standard below this, you're practising the hymns, which might take a fair bit of time (totally invisible to everybody else of course). Worst case scenario, 4 hymns a Sunday (unfashionable round 'ere, for good reasons, but still very common) and you could be learning the equivalent of a new 80-bar piece of music every week. Get it perfect and nobody will notice, let alone dream of the effort and frustration involved in getting there!

Bit of a personal rant, have to admit that a few years down the line, it's lovely to be able to walk into church, look at the hymn board, open the book and get on with it. But do any statistics exist on the average number of hours work it takes to get from piano beginner to organ Grade 8?

Hmmm, teetering on the edge of the topic. Is there any interest in a Shortage of Organists thread? Although of course, Supply and Demand would ensure that if there was no shortage, then the why-do-we-pay-some-and-not-others question would not arise.

Personally, I'm lucky enough to do it for fun. I expect to be paid for weddings and at a rate appropriate to my skill level, (as do the chauffeur, the florist etc etc). In all other cases, I might take money if it's offered (eg deputising), but it isn't a relevant consideration in playing somewhere. But I think the Church benefits from having a number of people with professional training and skill levels to provide leadership, and this benefit comes at a price, which I think is worth paying, as we pay for heating, decoration, the roof and the PP. I agree with Canonico: we don't pay for this, we provide the means to allow people to do it.

[contrabordun]

"well I spend ages planning and preparing the flowers", and ditto for a dozen other ministries

Yes, I sort of agree with that. I'm doing a bit of special pleading, always a dangerous occupation. Can I justify it? The usual objection is that the church treasurer, who we hope has suitable professional qualifications, and on whose part any incompetence can do far more damage to the community than will a few bum pedal notes, is unlikely to expect payment - and would be very costly indeed at professional fee levels.

I suppose it depends partly on how much value we attach to technical competence and also on how prominent we want music to be within the wider life of the church. I know a church in the USA where the music director runs five choirs in different styles (junior school, high school, trad classical, contemporary/rock and Spanish). You can't do this and earn a fulltime 9-5 living elsewhere, and only a professionally trained musician is likely to have the skills to manage this level of variety competently. So they pay him for his 20 or 30 hours a week and he makes the rest by teaching/concert performance/session work etc.

I'd argue that there, the sheer number of people participating (because of the variety of styles, "the stuff wot I like to sing" is available for everybody) is a very important part of the life of that community - of what binds it together (and that's even without considering the High-School-Choir-Parents-Association). There also isn't any silly 'us and them' between the different music groups, because all of them benefit from his credibility. Also, good music directors get a virtuous circle going with high standards making the music groups attractive to join.

How can we get some of these benefits into our generally more cash-strapped UK churches? Does the existence of professionals working in some churches provide benefit to other churches? 'Centres of excellence'?In terms of 'alumni' - are people more likely to continue to 'do music' if they first experienced it in an atmosphere of high standards? Do we have to operate to the traditional model of church music organised at parish level? Can some of the benefits be reaped by provision at diocesan or deanary level? (Most dioceses pay cathedral musicians to do the cathedral music thing. Would that money be better spent giving those musicians a role to raise musical aspirations and standards throughout the diocese?) I once brought my organ teacher in to run a training afternoon for my choir. The difference that day made was still noticeable months later. It doesn't have to be the same person directing at the choir practice as at the mass, particularly if the former had a role as coach of the latter.

It isn't just about the time a job takes. It's partly about the amount of skill (measured in years to acquire) that is required to do the job, and also about the difference it makes if the job is done badly/ordinarily/well/outstandingly.

NB I wouldn't want any of this to be seen as disparaging of amateurs (ie people like me). Within the constraints of what is already an overlong post, I'm correlating rather than equating professionalism with these benefits.

[Merseysider]

Contrabordun is right – it takes time and time equals money. If it wasn't for the music at church I could work a five day week, as it is I can't. Tough when it comes to present plans for next year's parish pilgrimage – several people have asked if I'm coming. The truth is, I couldn't possibly afford it because of what I'm already doing.
I've gnawed at this bone for too long – but, with all due respect to above-mentioned flower arrangers, does it cost them a fifth of their income?

[pews2]

Some parishes seem to do well with just somebody to start off the singing, and mostly familiar music. An organ or other instrument can help keep the pitch and encourage participation. People's participation in the Mass sometimes can seem better with this approach than with a well-rehearsed choir. To be a bit provocative, is the choir a relic of the times when there was a clear division between classical and folk music, between trained musicians and others, between participants and spectators at Mass? Even the rough and ready Apostles sang with Jesus, presumably with little or no rehearsal or musical training. Perhaps all this has some bearing on the eagerness (or reluctance) of parishes to pay musicians. Organists encourage wide participation, or mostly do, and seem to be correspondingly paid. Perhaps the music at Mass is being, even subconsciously, assessed in terms of participation by the people rather than conventional musical quality?

Having said that, it seems preferable to have any sort of choir (even with zero participation from the people) rather than no singing at all.

(Running for cover)

[Vox Americana]

Starting without instruments using just a voice can persuade people to sing - they don't feel dominated by the organ or instrumental group. But, on the other hand, you do need a confident, and relatively tuneful, melodic voice to encourage others to join in: an 'opera singer' will be listened to, as folks think it that type of voice unobtainable by themselves.

Maybes you're right that a choir is a relic, coming from a different era of liturgical practise. But I think that you'll find that the schola cantorum is as relevant nowadays as it ever was: we need teaching to sing in church. It is not like singing concerts, or in the soccer grounds, and it is as much learning that element of praying texts through singing as it is in the mechanics of reproducing the music in our voices. But it only works if the assembly is encouraged to sing too - it is no longer appropriate just to listen from start to finish.

I'd rather have those rough and ready Apostles singing than polished performance. Jesus was a carpenter... and no carpenter I know ever started with polished wood, but rather with rough sawn lumber. If we could make ourselves perfect, we'd have no need of the carpenter... but we can't, and we do need him. So leave the polishing to the one who can, and come as we are to his presence in the Liturgy.

Whether or not musicians and other ministers should justly be paid is, as we see here, a debating point. Contrabordun says poor UK parishes choose not to pay. I figure that some US dioceses may be too poor to pay soon too! Few parishioners are as committed as musicians from the point of view of the time put into preparation for liturgy - Sundays as well as feastdays, weddings, funerals... Some might argue that they should have a parish house and a stipend, same as the priests... but how do they then support a family? What happens when they no longer sing/play?

History has shown that the Church values its priests, bishops, doctors of the Church, Popes, religious, theologians, but not its artists, its musicians, its architects. So don't hold your breath on a general rule that musicians should be paid, but do go and talk to your finance committee and ask, especially if you are giving a day a week. Oh, and remember biblical tithing... 10% of the week,ignoring the weekend, is half a day. You could give half a day, and then be paid for the other half a day... perhaps then all the other parishioners could 'tithe' of their time, talents, energy and enthusiasm and be paid for the extra too... but only if we put enough on the plate to cover the expense.

[Merseysider]

do go and talk to your finance committee and ask

Ah! The Atlantic is wider than previously thought.

[dunstan]

Er, we need to kill the widespread belief that playing hymns on the organ is straightforward.

Exactly. It may be that after you've learned hymn playing that the technique is ingrained, but few people understand that there is a huge difference between being able to play the notes and being able to play such that the congregation want to sing.

D.

[gwyn]

is the choir a relic of the times when there was a clear division between classical and folk music, between trained musicians and others, between participants and spectators at Mass?

Hope not. The church in the UK has hopefully at last woken up to this. We've we had the ridiculous situation of people sitting at home or driving around listening to monastic plainchant and other quality religious choral music while we in the churches were leaping up and down singing "Joy! Joy! Joy! (clap) Alleluia! blah drone-drone-drone zzzzzzzzzz" and other such awful songs where only one word changes from verse to hideous verse.

We need good choral well executed. Whatever other liturgical musical style(s) a parish adopts, it needs to done well, prayerfully and to a good standard.

When I say "The church in the UK has hopefully at last woken up to this" I appreciate that it isn't yet putting its money where its mouths are. We wait in joyful hope!

[sidvicius]

drifting off topic again (come on people, concentrate), but I'm concerned that more than one person here appears to be unable to talk to a finance person in their church community. cb:

Fail to plan = plan to fail

Smart words. Even in the poorest church I was ever in we had a finance person. not a very good one, and a similarly feeble PPC, but they were there. If your parish is so disorganised/apathetic that it can't muster up something vaguely resembling a committee, you have every reason to be worried. This isn't rocket science, but someone needs to have a handle on where all the money is going. If this isn't the case hit the ejector seat button 'cause this bird's going down fast.

[pews2]

"monastic plainchant and other quality religious choral music ...
awful songs where only one word changes from verse to hideous verse."

Plainchant, especially using familiar texts and tones, is wonderful for encouraging wide participation. Choirs don't often do plainchant. Caco-polyphony (shall we keep the discussion lively) is more challenging, more exclusive, and arguably less prayerful. Not surprising that the rabble like listening to plainchant, or that so many of the best loved hymns resemble plainchant or simple modal melody.

Hymns with clever and numerous words are great. But so are prayers such as the "Lamb of God" or the "Holy, holy, holy" or the Rosary, where repetition is deliberate. Sometimes words do not suffice, although repeated Hallelujahs or Amens or Hosannas or Mea Culpas come nearest.

It would be wonderful if everyone at Mass participated in prayerful, good quality music. Perhaps the emphasis among church musicians can shift a bit towards music that encourages wide participation.

[Merseysider]

Plainchant...is wonderful for encouraging wide participation

No, it isn't.

Perhaps the emphasis among church musicians can shift a bit towards music that encourages wide participation.

Isn't that why we're all here?

[Benevenio]

Whether Jeremy de Satgé in the Tablet or Merseysider on this forum is correct - and I would cautiously tend to side with the latter - it doesn't answer the question over whether it is right and just to pay directors of music, organists, instrumentalists and singers for their efforts. I have found out that the next parish to mine pays their DoM £20 per week. Without bragging too much: in the recent Diocesan visitation to the denary it was us who were told that we celebrated excellent liturgy, not the professionals next door. In our parish, however, we have two parish choirs. Would you pay both leaders? And the organist... and the other instrumentalists... and singers...? Difficult to know where to draw the line without appearing quite unfair to someone. At least this way, we're all equal. Still, I sympathise with Merseysider - I have put in a day's work on the music this week too, and do more than half a day's work on it most weeks (sometimes, it even shows).

In the past, the parish has sponsored some young people to come on SSG summer schools. Far better use of the limited finances than paying for my beer money (let's face it, the parish couldn't pay me the going 'professional' rate for that work). Perhaps I'll suggest they do it again this year...

[Benevenio]

Plainchant...is wonderful for encouraging wide participation

No, it isn't.

This might link neatly back to the Tablet article, commented on in this forum here... BTW did SSG ever reply? I haven't seen anything published from them in that august publication...

[Dot]

The neighbouring parish organised a small choir for a Deanery event recently, importing singers from outside the Deanery as well as using some from within. Each singer was paid £50 for singing a Byrd Mass and motet on one occasion (requiring two rehearsals). This, to me, was excessive, so I have ploughed some of mine back into parish funds, particularly as all parishes were levied in order to fund the special occasion at which we sang. I am much more comfortable with the notion of doing it for love than money. It's a privilege, not a chore.

Dot

[Merseysider]

Yes, Dot, you're right – of course it's a privilege, I'm we'd all agree on that. But privileges do not pay the rent and I must admit I often find myself coveting cash at the end of the month.

My line of work is not brilliantly paid – OK but not brilliant. From that "OK" remove the 20 per cent (sometimes more) it takes to do the church job and I sometimes get seriously worried about cashflow. I don't know of any other voluntary jobs in the church which take so much time you can't work a five day week, which book up your evenings and cancel out both Saturdays and Sundays, sometimes causing problems with the Significant Other.

Yes, it's a privilege and an honour to serve the people I work with. But will there be anyone to pick up the pieces when I can't pay the electricity bill? (And that's happened before now.)

I know I'm going on about this but I feel it's a matter of justice. I've been at this desk now every night for countless days, writing band parts for a forthcoming celebration. I won't be able to do the day job on the day of the event or the day after (will be busy returning all sorts of borrowed bits which). That's two more days lost income (I don't get paid holidays). That's when I begin to worry about honour and privilege.