I wonder if he would apply the same logic to his sermons.

Sounds like he wants this blow-the-doors-off-the-church congregational singing that the Protestants supposedly have, which also supposedly packs the pews for church and therefore provides a large audience for the sermons. I think some priests see music as this mysterious force that if channeled properly can reap huge benefits for attendance (and collections?) at his parish. In some places, individual churches are facing existential problems, such as at the one where I am serving (we have formerly had existential issues, and at one point they considered consolidating our parish with a larger one nearby: suffice to say people are still afraid this might happen, though it hasn't been suggested by the Bishops office in more than a decade), and in that circumstance I can understand the use of music (and any other possible tools) to bolster the attendance and participation in the parish in order to show that their existence as a separate church is necessary. It is in these situations in my view that true Sacred Music cannot thrive: everything is geared towards appeasing the PIPs. Music as bait underlies an attitude that suggests it is just a tool for getting people to come to church.

If its not clear already, my understanding of the underlying reasons for such statements by clergy is lacking at best. A good program sells itself, quality music sells itself, and whether the PIPs will admit it or not, they recognize the difference between truly beautiful music and the shallow stuff they sometimes (most of the time in some parishes) demand. My apologies for how this sounds, but I have issues with those who want full congregational singing at all costs, as this usually means sacrificing good, truly beautiful music (and sometimes items that are distinctly Catholic) in order to pander to the masses.

What evidence is there that music is so decisive in getting people into the church?

Exactly. The same people come to Mass no matter the singing; those who would come because of the music would soon find something else to be disenchanted by and leave again. If Christ is not at the center of their being at Mass, the Heavely Host appearing before their eyes singing Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, won't be enough to keep them there.

I haven't. The best music I've heard was at the Cathedral of the Madeleine last year. That week's worth of music was better than everything I'd heard before, ever. People in rural areas don't often have the opportunity to just up and go to a great service. As evidenced here at the forum, it seems to be the same most everywhere.

No one here has ever visited a church with a great music program?

To be fair, we aren't your average PIPs either.

Let's be real.

Do people like singing catchy tunes?
Yes.
Whenever I've been at a church with a great number of people in the 45+ age range and have done Here I Am, Lord or On Eagles' Wings, I hear a lot more congregational singing than when doing Lord You Gave the Great Commission.

Do catchy tunes make people more likely to go to church?
Probably not.

Do Gregorian propers guarantee you a full church?
No.

Can you get a full church while doing Gregorian propers?
Sure you can.

Should you sing Gregorian propers as a descant over Here I Am, Lord in order to satisfy everyone?
That satisfies nobody.

Now some non-rhetorical questions:
Did you ask your Pastor what he means by catchy tunes?
Did you ask him to give you examples?

There's a chance he's thinking more Holy God We Praise Thy Name and ST THOMAS than Here I Am to Worship.

That's where to start.
(purple bold) then start setting EVERY COMMON METER HYMN TEXT TO NEW BRITAIN (/purple bold)

I would be careful with some of the "catchy tunes" out there...often people mean "syncopated" when they say "catchy" or "upbeat". Syncopation can be quite catchy and enjoyable, but can in many cases lead to less singing because it is difficult to stay together and encourages solo "entertainment" style singing...which of course the non-denominational church up the road can do way better than you. I am not suggesting you dissent from what your pastor has asked, but you need clarification like Matthew says. And remember that beauty is the attractive power of the truth.

Sounds like he wants this blow-the-doors-off-the-church congregational singing that the Protestants supposedly have, which also supposedly packs the pews for church and therefore provides a large audience for the sermons.

Yes.

What metric will be used to show that this has been accomplished?

I am not sure, and neither is he. I posed this question to him. My guess is more money coming in. Or people rushing up to him after Mass telling him how wonderful the music was.

For what its worth, the PIPs here DO sing already. When the priest chants the dialogues, the people answer back in song, quite robustly. And they sing well on the Eucharistic Prayer acclamations.

What evidence is there that music is so decisive in getting people into the church?

Have you seen the movie Sister Act? :)

I will visit a church with a reputation of musical excellence. And if I know a piece of great music will be done at the liturgy, I'll be more motivated to go

As would I, but, here, we're talking about music that's not quite so excellent. It's the music to appease the very vocal people with the money.

The authentic Roman Rite, steeped in its ritual and tradition. That's what you have a monopoly on.

This. As far as I know, we are the only parish in our area where strides are being taken to have more authentic liturgy.

Did you ask your Pastor what he means by catchy tunes?
Did you ask him to give you examples?

Yes, and he means the songs/hymns that they already know and love. The favorites from the 70s and 80s.

FWIW, at least some of the songs from the 80's and what not are much better than the drivel being produced today.

If it were me the priest said that to, I'd send out resumes elsewhere.

Here's what I IMAGINE is going on. This is only my imagination...

I suspect the PRIEST prefers the happy clappy music, and this is the best his mind has come up with for justifying its use.

Dissenting from Gavin's perfectly reasonable solution, I would suggest that DM's who are found in the position of the OP try their very best to stay and work with the pastor to clarify and guide both he and the faithful to the optimal solutions for their perceived problems. Continuity, all things being equal, is better than the constant changing of the guard that inflicts our "industry."
Taking examples from the other thread comparing the Ordo of Music from Milwaukee Cathedral to whatever we were left to imagine from the Orlando cathedral, the issue really is never solely about the repertoire choices. In point of fact, I believe that short of putting lipstick on the pig (named Landry songs), how well an ensemble of any sort (could be just a cantor and a keyboard of some sort) renders whatever is put before them on the stand plays just as important a role as the artistic merit of the music itself.
We've gone over and over this relentlessly.
If, in the OP's scenario, the DM replaces THAXTED with GLORY AND PRAISE TO OUR GOD, but it's rendered by a 14 year old organist who can't reach the pedals and an octogenarian cantor with a cavernous wobble, the repertoire choice is irrelevant.
We keep mistakenly thinking that repertoire choice and uniformity, artistry and beauty can subjectively change "less than" situations and circumstances. Nope, process is involved, it must include assessment, discernment, surety and rehearsal with open eyes and ears, and responsible and appropriate choices for who is going to do what and when.
No silver bullet, no panacea, t-t-t-that's all, folks.

It's BS

"that once they are here, we can begin to form them in Sacred Music"
I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on this. Either your pastor means that, and intends to pull a bait and switch on the people he is attracting (in essence lying
to them), who then won't migrate to someplace else with catchy tunes, or they will never cease the process of "coming here" and you will never begin to form them in sacred music (in essence lying to you). Either way, it's dishonest and manipulative. If you're on really good terms with him, and are incredibly diplomatic, you might point that out to him.

had to ask people what FTW meant.

then one time somebody typed it backwards, and I was all like, "what the f...?"

For The Win, IIRC.

cmbearer, are we working for the same priest? Fr. did that to me all the time, until I asked him to put his vision in writing.

I think that your pastor is deluding himself. What is the likelihood that the style of music is what determines the parish at which a person chooses to worship?   More importantly, I would be offended if a parish offered the EF on a regular basis simply to get me in the door. I would think that if what drew me into the parish evaporated, I would leave and seek it elsewhere.  

I don't like the idea of tricking people, which is essentially what your pastor has suggested. It might be more advantageous to add a mass in whatever style he wishes and to let those folks worship in the way which most suits them. Lovers of the EF, (like me) are attracted to EF masses and are filled by them.  Lovers of gospel music are equally filled by gospel masses. Lovers of folk or classical music are the same.

My honest belief is that it isn't the music which draws people to the church. The greatest attractions for the church  IMHO are holy priests. Gimmicks don't work.

Music of the 70s and 80s: isn't that what the Saturday 4 p.m. Mass is for?

I once read a paragraph in a daily paper, about a notable outburst among the most advanced intellects in the Church of England, which bears witness to the promptitude with which such triumphs are appreciated. Under the two headlines of "Youth Finds Church a Bore" and "A Girl Tells Clergy", the paragraph, or rather series of paragraphs was arranged in a suitably sensational way as follows: --

"Youth finds church a bore -- and stays away from it.
This contention, put forward by a girl of eighteen from the platform at Girton
College, Cambridge, yesterday, made the elderly delegates to the Modern
Churchman's Conference sit up sharply in their seats.
The speaker was the attractive daughter of a Portsmouth naval chaplain.
Her most telling passage was this: 'I don't think public worship has any
attraction whatsoever for the young. Religion is supposed to express God
through truth and beauty, we are told, but in this ages of specialization
people turn to science, art and philosophy to satisfy these needs.

I wonder what her least telling passage was.

[...]

It is perfectly natural that the boy should find the church a bore. But why are we bound to treat what is natural as something actually superior to what is supernatural; as something which is not even merely supernatural, but is in the exact sense super-supernatural?


G.K. Chesterton, The Well and The Shallows (bold added)

Is there no one here that thinks that the priest is really smart and he is trying to help cmbearer keep his job? Obviously cmbearer, in the priest's mind, is choosing music that the people are not singing. The priest tries to explain in his own words what he wants without saying "I don't want what you are doing now until you prove that you can meet us where we are now and make the people and myself respect you and your ability to continue our worship as is before you begin making changes".

If a priest hires you to change all the music it's one thing. If he hires you to take on the program and you don't tell him that you are going to be picking what you want the people to sing instead of what they are used to singing, you've got a problem.

You've both got great points. Noel, you are absolutely correct that the initial understanding of what the DMs job is must be crystal clear. Many of us first timers, myself included, took on a church job with the idea that I would be changing the world, not maintaining what was already there. That was quite short sighted, and I had to change my outlook to survive. Also, Fr. won't necessarily tell you exactly what he wants during the interview, especially if he is also a first timer, like mine: he doesnt know what to ask for. As candidates for the job, we must make sure we understand what we are potentially getting into. For example, my pastor simply said he wanted to "move forward" and"improve" the music at the church. What exactly did that mean? I of course applied my own interpretation, and I'm not convinced that Fr. himself actually knew how to properly articulate what he wanted.

TCJ, I have also encountered pastors that don't really give you much in the way of what they want you to do as DM. I get the idea that music is a "hire and forgets" position (or it is believed it should be) and the priest shouldn't have to pay any attention to it, nor his DM. Many schools are this way also in regards to their music teachers: they just expect you to show up at the concert with the kids. As long as there are no complaints, all is well. I am of the opinion that a new DM should work with an experienced pastor (i.e. a pastor that has worked with DMs before as a pastor of a church for at least three years: not fair? They ask this kind of thing from us all the time: must possess ten years experience, a masters degree, and have Title 1 certification, with five professional references, three personal references, a pastoral reference, a letter from your third grade teacher, and a CDL; and BTW, this position only pays 10,000 a year, is that ok?) and that new pastors should work with experienced DMs. New pastor and new DM equals conflict, unless they are in great communication and everything is clear between them. Let's face it though, many young inexperienced DMs do not understand the importance of professional communication until it bites them, myself included.

It sounds like any DM candidate should ask to look at the records of past DMs to find out what has been used in practice; the verbal descriptions given by pastors are probably not clear enough to describe the reality and indicate what the guiding rules have been.

It sounds like any DM candidate should ask to look at the records of past DMs to find out what has been used in practice; the verbal descriptions given by pastors are probably not clear enough to describe the reality and indicate what the guiding rules have been.

Yes, yes, a million times yes. Ask me how I know.

..and my situation wasn't bad, just different!