As a priest acquaintance likes to put it, being one of the Lord's sheep means getting shorn and eventually slaughtered.

We can all remember being told in music and history classes how that the patronage system of ancien regime times was a yoke about the necks of artists, musical and otherwise, how that they were required to create only what their titled patrons wanted and were considered mere servants, and so on and on....
Then came the wonderful age in which the arts were free and artists were able to create without reference to the whims of this or that cardinal-archbishop or duke, or whomever.

Except that the church has not caught up with this sociological-intellectual-artistic-philosophical-etc development. If your priest or bishop likes junk, that is what you will do or get fired. It happens every day in parish church and cathedral. Principle? An historical musical continuum? Quality? Taste? Sacrality? Respect for your knowledge and integrity?... none of these matter. Only the whim of the culturally illiterate clerics, the products of seminaries which are hotbeds of anticulturalism.... One could go on in this vein, but the point has been made. The modern priest and bishop are no different from the titled patrons of a bygone age. They are little dictators in their little kingdoms, and they rule without reference to anything but their own whims, what they decide people want (or what they decide people are are going to get), and can back it up with the cultural lacuna in their seminary formation. These men have a very, very, low opinion of people.

(At least the titled patrons of old knew good music when they heard it!)
.

The AGO tried to do such a thing, but it never really worked since not all musicians were a part of it (and not all of those who were a part of the AGO followed their code of ethics). This is far to broad of a field of work to have a union like teachers.

I do feel very bad for those Melo mentions who have lost work.. I knew one of them and they are very talented and kind. I will keep them both, and other unemployed church musicians, in my prayers.

Unfortunately Unions only work if you have a large amount of people who are willing to walk off of a job so that the employer feels the pain of them not being there.
If all organist, DoM and Leaders walk off the job. The church will just do Low mass without singing until a volunteer steps in.
It can't work until someone in authority (Popes and/or Bishops) make it happen.

Good Luck

More time for clever jokes in the sermons now.

They only THINK they are clever. Most would starve if they did comedy for a living.

I happened to be listening to Mother Miriam on IMH Radio last night and she was decrying the forfeiture of leadership with the USCCB, yet not in such terms. She implied there were only a handful of true, faithful shepherds (I was quite taken with her candor) and that we all needed to pray for, as well as support our bishops and priests. I thought to myself "Haven't we been doing that all along, we musicians who've run the race?" My point, and I do have one, is that USCCB plenum after plenum, no one, no one, not ex-Sec'ty. Hilgartner, now NPM president, nor any bishop with sand has put anything on a agenda about the state of worship, much less that of musical praxis or philosophy to my knowledge.
It therefore seems to me that if our clerical and lay leaders in our various "guilds" haven't recognized a simple need to formally lobby our overseers, all of whom when they're not politicking are CELEBRANTS of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on the reality that it is apathy at the altar and in the parish office, clericalism at the altar and office, and absence of informed leadership at the chanceries that is losing the war to the "nones." This isn't the liturgy/music wars anymore. This is the lack of backbone and courage to speak truth with one voice from every ambo and every bishopric. Firing musicians or housekeepers willy nilly without attempted reconciliation or redress will be seen for what it is, authoritarian monarchy, not a celestial hierarchy.
Rant over.

Umnnhhhh....he's my Governor, too. And the public employee unions deserved exactly what they got, CH.

cum exarserit in brevi ira eius
beati omnes qui confidunt in eo
— Ps 2:13

One is inclined to wonder if God's ira isn't less hateful than the ira of clerks who fire musicians who aren't grateful to be required to be musical prostitutes (I could have used another word). As the psalmist has said: 'With the Lord there is mercy'. With priest and prelate there is none.

.

You can explain the spiritual benefits of singing the Propers and of chant until you're blue in the face, but if the pastor doesn't see it your the Church's way, you won't be able to do those things at your parish.

Fixed.

Realize, however, that the pastor doesn't have to listen to what you say at all. That is the worst part of it, and I think it is a sign of disrespect.

This.

It reminds me of my first church job. I played the organ at a local parish, but then took on directing the choir at a different time at another church. I soon learned that I could not do both, and so went to the pastor and told him i would have to resign. "O Good, now we can use the money to paint the church."

We need to work hard for the improvement of the musical literacy of the clergy, even though it may not be completely effective.

I think there are some points to this... T. Day pointed out that music and even more, artistic people like musicians are threatening. Music can cause a loss of control for someone who has a strong need control the environment. It's just too emotional and messy.

1. Through whatever convenient means, constitute a panel of active DMM's clearly respected (ala John Romeri) by a majority of peers, and not solely limited to scholars or cathedral/diocesan DMM's. Composers may be considered for nomination, but only if they are first and foremost DMM's. Active national advocacy groups may establish their criteria for submission. This will not be Snowbird II, or the Milwaukee Group II. Publishers, self/boutique/industrial, ought to have ex-officio status, with no privilege to articulate policies, but offer commentaries after ratified decisions. I personally would advocate as chair of this "congress" Dr. Peter Latona for reasons that don't require explanation here.
2. This congress of DMM's could articulate general and specific concerns and goals, problems and solutions, and other circumstances (such as clergy/lay protocols) all under the aegis of a recognitio of the prevailing documents that articulate magisterially approved documents and their legislative provisions. (For example, SttL, would not enjoy such status, but could be used in discussion for edification.) The legislative documents could themselves be debated in terms of what outcomes and recommendations the congress endorses for presentation to the USCCB authorities.
3. Concurrently, the chair or his/her representative(s) could formally approach any prelate, bishop, archbishop, cardinal archbishop, with an entreaty to observe at will, or otherwise review the progress and goings-on of the congress, and offer "friend of the congress" advice and consent that would not necessarily be binding unto the congress, but taken with utmost respect and consideration.
4. At the point of some sort of prioritized consensus as to the agenda of the congress, said prelates would review the outcome document, edit or ratify it, and send it back to the congress (or its designated committees) for the final draft and document.
5. Said prelates would, after complete ratification, place clear and unambiguous agenda items on the nearest convenient plenum meeting of the USCCB, present (with officers of the DMM congress as advocate aides as needed) those prioritized goals to the plenum of bishops. Said prelates could designate their own spokesperson(s) but only with the collaboration and consent of the "president" or other officers designated at the congress.
6. Work like H*ll so that this doesn't end up being tabled or shuffled off to Buffalo, Chicago or Portland.

How's that sound?

Abbot, my most gracious thanks for your candor. That you believe there is a reflexive move by "liberal authorities," or what I call "the other Francis effect," then I'm most happy to have turned 64 and witnessed both personal growth in my own understanding of the joy and beauty of right/fit worship, and that of many other enclave quarters in the Church. But it is nonetheless sad to see the cinctures of discipline loosen and the discarding of the trappings of fine worship. Who would know better than you that the trappings of discipline are the seeds of true freedom.

Shrill criticism never does any good...

Janet, could you point out any such shrill criticism in this thread? Thanks,
C

Is it outrage ! That was sassy, mellifluous. O shall I call you, maleficent! Joking,
Ph

Ecclesial law works as well.

I'm getting at the idea of legalistic liturgical minimalism (it's been coined on this forum before, but I can't remember exactly where, or from who: I think it was Fr. Vogel): doing whatever is minimally required under Church law and nothing more. As far as I'm aware, there's no actual Church law governing the treatment of parish staff. It just seems to be that Church law is the only thing some priests respond to.

So it appears that Ecclesial law does protect Church employees, at least in the sense provided for in JO's post above. Interesting: I didn't know about that particular law.

Yup, I had my bi-monthly brow-beating just earlier today.

In my parish (the territorial one to which I send money) the MD has an earned Ph.D. in organ performance but not a 2nd-grader's knowledge of liturgico/musical matters. As an example, since Pentecost fell on Memorial Day weekend, 3 of the 4 hymn-sandwich offerings were "America-centric." There was no sequence, and the Holy Spirit got only 1 hymn-offering.

I left Mass quite early before I started throwing things.

All this was approved by the (now) ex-pastor about whom I shall not write, bearing in mind my mother's advice....