However - I do disagree that this is a must. In terms of them needing to "get with the Church," that applies to the use of chant, not to the form of notation. Someone singing chant with modern notation in front of them is no less giving chant its proper place.

This is incorrect. If it were correct, the Vatican would still sponsor the Ratisbon gradual. It is giving "less...its proper place", although of course any chant is better than none. I'm never one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but people that think there is no difference (frankly) should study chant more until they find that there is...because there IS! Whether or not that is relevant to a congregant is, as you say, a matter of degree. To a director of music in a Catholic situation, it absolutely is something of which we must have mastery.

We have an obligation to read and study the Gospels too. Does that mean that we have to study original Aramaic parchments?

This is a tired straw man. I have an obligation to raise my children. I guess I don't have to read the car seat manual, or the drug information label, but what kind of parent would I be if I did not? Singing from a "chant transcription" to modern notation means you are singing the bias of the transcriber. For example, see the attached PDF. There are numerous errors, all of which a congregation "learns".

I'm not here to judge anyone. However, my experience across many parts of the country/levels of musician/etc. is that those who don't see a difference in the notation either 1) do not know chant well enough, or 2) are [probably] named Dobszay, are experts in chant, have made up their own hybrid notation, but only did so out of necessity.

I don't see how anyone can give "an extremely nuanced, academically correct rendering of the chant," when there are no original scores, and no two people seemingly agree on any one transcription. It is all transcribing bias whether round or square notes are used.

Father is always right. If in doubt, ask Father. Don't ask Father - enjoy unemployment.

The point of sight-reading in any audition process is not so much to find the freakishly talented candidate who can sight-read anything (though there are some people like that). The point is to get an idea of how quickly and how well a candidate can "get into" a piece and get a good estimation of it across. If a director of music candidate has trouble even approximating a chant at sight, it would be a warning sign (presuming, of course, that chant is desired in the parish's music program - I assume this is a given in the original post). It would be reasonable to wonder if such a candidate could keep up with a rigorous schedule of rehearsals as a leader - learning multiple chants and other pieces each week in order to teach them. Ditto for sight-reading a hymn or a choral anthem accompaniment.

When I audition singers for an advanced schola I ask them to sight-read a vocal line from a polyphonic piece. If they can't do it perfectly the first time, I ask them to try again and I observe how much they improve. If it's not perfect the first couple of times, I say "now you and I are going to learn this excerpt together" and I see how long it takes me to teach it to them. I learn a great deal about their ability to learn and improve in just a few minutes this way. I also tell them they are auditioning me as a director. After this audition, do they enjoy the process of learning music with me?

I think the sight-reading in a job audition should be similarly constructive and two-sided. When it is, a great deal can be learned about the candidate and how they think and work, and how they get along with their employer. The interviewer, hopefully a qualified musician, can ask many questions before the candidate even starts sight-reading. "How do you approach a fresh chant?" "Can you identify modal structural points and see potential difficult or troublesome spots approaching?" "Can you see a more basic structure underneath the elaboration?" These kind of questions, as part of a job interview, provide fascinating insight into the mind and knowledge of the candidate. And make the sight-reading so important.

If you just want to see if someone can sight-read something impressively, and do not have intelligent questions and specific things you want to learn from this exercise about the musician's approach to music, then I'm not sure you are qualified to be giving the interview. Any poser could hold an interview and ask for extremely difficult tasks to be carried out. "Well, since you can't sight read a Bach trio sonata movement, I'm not sure you're qualified to replace me at MY job." This is all the easier if the employer trusts the outgoing director and knows little or nothing about music - a state of affairs that is extremely common.

I'm at a good cathedral position now, so I don't think this is sour grapes; but I have been bothered in the past by interview questions and tasks that speak more of the pretension and ego of the outgoing director than about zeal for excellence in sacred music. Always have a clear goal in mind for each interview component. One post above mentioned realizing figured bass with an improvised melody. A cool skill, but essential for a music director?

before the candidate even starts sight-reading. "How do you approach a fresh chant?" "Can you identify modal structural points and see potential difficult or troublesome spots approaching?" "Can you see a more basic structure underneath the elaboration?" These kind of questions, as part of a job interview, provide fascinating insight into the mind and knowledge patience of the candidate

Fixed. And seriously, is it really ever a good idea to approach the interview with the program of teaching something to the candidate who is supposed to be an expert in his/her field, rather than seeing what you can learn from them? I have no idea what the correct answer is to what is the 'function' of tetrachords and doubt whether I could suppress a deep sigh before making the attempt.

This entire thread is based on a complete fantasy.

As are many of them. But really, I do hope that some younger priest looking to hire someone doesn't come here for ideas on what they should be doing in the interview, see this, and think "Yes that's a perfect idea!"

I am hoping they don't look at this and say, "yep, those CMAA folks really are nuts."

This entire thread is based on a complete fantasy.

Adam, 5-10 years ago, I would have said "yes". It's not true anymore, though, in large parts thanks to the efforts of the CMAA and others in the traditional music movement.

What fantasy? Many parishes nowdays have a chant schola, or would like to start one. In those cases, it's perfectly reasonable to look for someone with fluency in chant. The sight reading test is a good way to evaluate this skill, as long as it is administered intelligently, with the clear goal of seeing how the candidate approaches a fresh piece of music.

The only thing I object to is the implication that a sight reading test is somehow pass/fail in itself; or that failing the test disqualifies a candidate for a position. Any motivated musician hired in July should be able to read, sing, and teach chant by the time the schola starts in September, even with no previous experience. Still, all things being equal, I would prefer to hire someone who already has chant fluency, rather than someone who needs to work hard to acquire it quickly. All things not being equal, it is hard to say where existing chant knowledge ranks among numerous other considerations.

Richard - I see what you're saying now. My sample questions would be too pedantic in a real interview. They are really more the questions I would be asking myself when seeing how the candidates deal with the chant. Do they try to muddle through, or are they able to systematically break down and learn a chant - in a way that shows they understand something of the mode and structure?

Well, OK. Delete "D)" above and it's happening all over!!

Which is why I didn't jump in at the beginning. But at a certain point in the life of a thread, it's worth pointing out that the heated discussion has nothing to do with reality.

Digression: Chonak, your avatar pic was a wonderful moment in the course of Indy. And one that will live in aeternum.

It wasn't fantasy for my current job. Though, for other positions it would have been fantasy.

I must concur with Bruce (as usual) that the scene in many places is different now than it was 5-10 years ago.

What’s interesting is that I posted this idea as much for the liturgical knowledge that would be required to *find* the correct chant as for the musical acumen that sight-singing requires. You have to know how the book is organized, know or figure out what “tempus per annum” means, and discern which chant is the offertory. You have to know how to pronounce Latin to some degree.

I would expect relatively few candidates for a DoM position to “pass” this part of an interview with flying colors. I would think it reasonable to give the candidate a few minutes alone first, too, to suss it through before singing it. After that, Gavin’s suggestion of how to teach it, or at least to talk about how to teach it, would be a great follow-up.