Great points, Matthew. Having been a paid singer in the past, I've gotten my share of grief for taking money to sing at my Catholic Church. Doesn't nearly cover what I pay in student loans for my Master's degree in voice. I actually worked all through my Master's at an Episcopal church which had a much more comfortable relationship with paying singers.

But what you're addressing here is important. Perhaps in addition to knowing them, there's also the simple fact that the sub-par cantors are there and willing to do it got free, and no one has the time or energy to recruit and train someone else or, God forbid, wants to be asked to do it themselves.

That, by the way, is my plan for anyone who balks at the cost of my current music program - invite them to come cantor. You know, so they can "really get to know the program." Something tells me that spending a half hour with me working on the Psalm might give them some new appreciation and perspective.

Indeed, I forgot the practical part. People who sing sacred music love the music and (hopefully) God. That means they take time to practice and sing at Mass, which means passing up better gigs. They have voice lessons and tuition or debt to cover.

Is that a half-hour setting it to a Liber Usualis tone or actually practicing? Just pointing it takes that long sometimes!

That is cool!

Another thought about the plumber analogy, which is an excellent way of thinking about the issue but does miss one thing. Unless your congregation is eating an incredibly fiber-rich diet and constantly stuffing the toilets with Charmin, the plumber call is likely a one-time call from the church and one-time tax write-off for the plumber. Expect him to show up with his tools every week at the same time to fix the toilet, at a time he would have to regularly turn down paying work, and he might have a problem with that.

Rant warning

Once upon a time the word "man" was understood to be inclusive. Man-eating sharks were not presumed to be safe for ladies and their daughters; "man does not live by bread alone" was not cause to see if women could do so; "Everyman's way of the Cross" didn't leave out half of the population. Then, suddenly, someone (and it's lost to the mists of history who this person is) decided that "man" could be only descriptive of male persons (and thus "policeman", "fireman", "postman", and such were presumed to be designed as words to prevent equality among men and women). The situation became positively comical when "chairman" and "spokesman" were deemed sexist, leading to the positively infelicitous 'chairperson' and "spokesperson". Even in all-male organizations, officer holders became "chairpersons" and those responsible for coordinating activities became "pointpersons" (to it's credit, the program I'm using to type this response doesn't accept "pointpersons").

And bureaucratese evolved to an entirely new level of circumlocutorially loquacious gibberish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQQtgx4iG8E

Hildegard, as I now self-identify as a "gal," please use that assignation when you address the "guys." Please also avoid "doll, ma'am, girls, as those have specific insinuations, and I know I'm just a gal (but I can say "No!" Thank you, Charles in CenCA.)
Hildegard, purple letters = humor in CMAA Land.

"Do you wear your hair in convoluted Nordic braids?"

No, but I may try that when contract negotiations come up.

And believe it or not, I've lurked back far enough to be aware of the purple! You guys and dolls have some pretty helpful threads on here.

It's practically German!

 

Music is at best a support to the Mass, not an integral part that in a sense is the liturgy

No. It is "fitting adornment" to the Sacred Liturgy. When it is done badly, it is not recognized as fitting adornment. When bad music is done (ducking) this, too, is not fitting adornment -- but that's because it is bad music, not because music isn't fitting.

The problem we get into in this country is a rich heritage of Jansenism (if that's not an oxymoron). LOW MASS (we hear) is the norm. MISSA DE ANGELIS is the only really Gregorian setting of the Mass. CHOIRS AND ORGANS ARE EXTRAS -- or so we are told.

Anglicans don't get much right (speaking as a former Anglican) but the necessity of proper attention to liturgy they have grasped.

As J. Michael Thompson mentioned in the PTB Live Feed discussion on chant, "text and melody are not the only agents of chant. To be complete it must also be wedded to ritual." (A paraphrase.)
As usual, I also recall Mahrt characterizing Gregorian Chant as a sacral language unto itself, not the sum of its audible elements.

That's the received wisdom about Mozart too.

Sorry I am late to the party but

Another amusing encounter in the House of Commons is reported to have occurred as Churchill was orating about mankind, saying "Man" this and "Man" that. Every time he would mention "Man," Lady Astor would interject: "...And Woman, Mr. Speaker...And Woman!" Finally Churchill is supposed to have exclaimed, "In this context, Mr. Speaker, the understanding is that Man EMBRACES Woman." This did not improve his relations with the Noble Lady.

It has been alleged that the only reason women are permitted to distribute communion is that the idea was so inconceivable to the drafters of the original regulations that they forgot to use vir instead of homo