I once belonged when the parish paid for the membership. Our pastor decided we were, as he said, "beyond" what NPM offered at the time, so the parish quit paying. I wasn't getting anything from the organization so I wasn't going to spend my own money. Today they are less into the great musical contributions of the 70s and are supporting more worthwhile sacred music. That's a good thing. I find, however, that much of what they offer is available elsewhere. I belong to AGO which has its own educational offerings and certification systems, so NPM seems to offer a duplication of services. YMMV.

BTW, I was not on the list for the infamous letter, so if anyone wishes to share...

Neithers I, CDub, and I'm not interested in details and minutiae that would further cloud my crowded mind.
Regarding the topic question, as I'm almost fully ensconsed in my dotage (using words to tweak Richard C!), I think that the benefit of all these guilds depends more upon what each of us brings and gets to our association with each and all of them at any point of our careers. Having blown through long enrollments in NPM, ACDA, MENC, CG and smaller groups, I'm now only associated with CMAA. (2 digressions- what does that say about CMAA? and I'm pretty sure the board has taken out a contract on me and my membership ;-) )
I think that the more specialized, intensive organizations have much more content to offer a serious "pastoral" musician. Outside of the common joys and recreation provided by the bazaars called "national conventions," NPM's "something for everyone" mission was, for me, an obviously terminal, unsustainable proposition. Same thing for CMEA in relation to ACDA. And proof is found most often in their periodicals. NPM's magazine content was so continuously nebulous and its articles' scarcity of actual discussion about the "music" part of "pastoral," seemed to be a pretentious imitation of "Worship" of no value to its clientele other than an organ for exhortation and encouragement.
Another discomfiting notion is that NPM, like the Anaheim LAREC, has to create a continuous stratetgy to sustain its own marketshare and profitability. Ergo, the never-ending compulsion to churn out new products, new paradigms or, at the worst, new packaging of "problem solver silver bullets that will renew and revive weary parish programs." My final straw with NPM was 1999 Pittsburgh, where it was clear that the "Spirit and Song....With One Voice" paradigm was the future, and Fr. Chepponis' Mass at closing was the exemplar of a finely crafted, but seriously intended "event" grand setting.
For Kenneth, as an example, going to expense to take in Fr. Ruff's breakout is almost heart-breaking by comparison to taking a week to go to a Chant Intensive or Colloquium. I did the same thing in '99, only the person I wanted to KNOW was J.Michael Thompson. Happily, I got to encounter Msgr. F.X. Mannion and my friend Leo Nestor in the bargain.
So, I think in this economy, we all need to assess what "we" need, and match that to whatever substantive content will benefit a true need, not a fascination, and place our resources there.

I have to say, what I saw at the convention and what I see on the website do not warrant so huge a budget. I am just not convinced it serves purposes that could not be better addressed by regional, volunteer groups. The liturgy planning site is helpful, but not very hard to do. Cantor certification? How about mentoring at a diocesan level? Don't need a national organization for that.

If I were in a parish finance council, I would push for removing automatic membership and asking te music people to carefully select what they need. Honestly, a local parish musician would have to choose wisely at the convention, because there is so much raw commercial promotion to crowd out the good stuff. With all the financial backing, it is hard to understand why admission is so high.

Just my opinion. All comments appreciated.

Kenneth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9FO19Ts14