Full time vs. Part time
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    Every once in a while I see a job posting for a Music Director that seems completely out of touch with the reality of what it's like to hold any job. A musician doesn't just work on the few hours they are seen on Saturdays and Sundays. They have to work throughout the week to support the Sunday music.

    Thinking that a Music Director with a choir and three Masses can get it all done in 10-12 hours is like thinking

    -a Youth Minister works only the hours they meet with the Youth Group
    -a Director of Religious Education only works the hours they have Sunday School
    -a Business Manager only works on receivables, bills, budgets, and taxes
    -a lawyer should only be paid for the hours spent in court

    Every job's public face time is embedded in a whole matrix of communication, planning, management, paperwork, and, in the case of Music Directors, personal rehearsal.

    I'm not even addressing the rare skill of the musician and the challenges of live music. Just on the level of the number of hours, I think it's important to be reasonable and think through what the unseen workload is for any responsible position.

  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,326
    I agree completely.

    I also have heard from priests that, "Saturday is basically a day off; you only need to work 1.5-2 hours."

    Any employee deserves two consecutive days off. Heaven forbid you might want to take the children to visit their grandparents a few hours away and actually have a modicum of time there before you have to turn around and come home.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,099
    IMO it is a cultivated, deliberate ignorance - and it comes in part from clericalism.


  • TCJ
    Posts: 986
    I often work two to three hours on Saturdays (except for weddings, funerals, special events, etc., etc.) but that small amount of time means no traveling out of town to visit family or the like. I consider it an "easy" day (most times), but definitely not a day off. It's only an easy day because I prefer to overload hours on W - F to free up extra time on Saturday.

    There's also the dreaded "organists should donate their time because it's church stuff".
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,099
    The old model lurking behind "organists should donate their time because it's church stuff" is: religious sisters who lived in the convent next door whose order only got a modest stipend.
  • Just saw one on another site today, along the lines of:

    "Music Director & Organist, part time 4-6 hours per week. Duties: plan and play all weekend Masses, all weddings/funerals/holy days, maintain all parish instruments and A/V equipment, drive new music initiatives (e.g. youth choir), supervise/schedule/support cantors/choir/accompanists, provide formation for the faithful, oversee recruitment and rehearsal, attend scheduled staff meetings. Compensation: $1000/month"

    You can't even prep and play "all weekend Masses" in 4-6 hours per week, let alone the rest of that. And all for a grand $12,000/year. But to some of the points above, I guess at least they're offering some compensation :eyeroll:

    Out of touch, indeed, and entirely too common.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 986
    I once had a job of playing for 5 weekend Masses, one choir practice, and evening prayer once a week. Funerals and weddings paid extra. It was considered 6.5 hours per week, but I got paid $65/hour, so it actually wasn't bad.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,832
    If we all keep taking these jobs for pennies on the dollar, we have nobody else to blame but ourselves. Do something else… don’t support a broken system.
  • jcr
    Posts: 141
    The entire matter of compensation has seemed to be based on some idea about what it costs to live at whatever moment the job is described. I won't relate right now our (my wife and I) experiences offering our services as a team more than to say that few have believed the story when it has been shared.

    The stress placed on families around the issues of time; weekends, Christmas (the whole season), evenings, etc. is enormous and has damaged marriages in many instances beyond repair.

    I had a friend who was the Music Director at a Protestant church. His duties were the music program; adult choir, youth choir (100singers+),and the duties of Youth Director that involved him in innumerable hours of basketball, classes, meeting with kids of all ages, etc. Eventually his wife decided that it was too much and filed for divorce and the church fired him because they couldn't have a divorced man in a "pastoral position in the church". The last I heard of him he was a single guy teaching in a public school.

    A terrible story, that, but not so very unusual. He was paid decently, but it cost him more than it paid, I fear. The callousness of people who would employ someone to take on that load is hard to imagine, let alone their reaction to the damage to his family, especially in any Christian context!
  • DavidOLGCDavidOLGC
    Posts: 90
    TCJ August 19
    .........

    There's also the dreaded "organists should donate their time because it's church stuff".


    For all you professionals, I understand the problem with that concept.

    However, in our small not-very-wealthy rural parish, all the musicians and singers are volunteers - otherwise there would be no music at all.

    I'm happy and grateful that I can donate my time and musical skills.
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,895
    That’s fine, but your small rural parish isn’t trying to pretend that they have a part time job that is actually full time.

    If you want volunteers, have volunteers.

    If you want to pay or talent, pay for it, (or you’ll “get what you pay for”).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,983
    I have always said some parishes deserve what they are paying for.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    I'm happy and grateful that I can donate my time and musical skills.


    I have always said, I would [donate] if I could.

    But being able to do this without worrying about livelihood — investing in making it the best it can be — is a blessing in its own right, too. And I try to be generous in return.

    Blessings abound! A privilege to do what we do.
  • jcr
    Posts: 141
    We (my wife and I) have found that volunteering may only serve to give credence to the corollary to Murphy's Law that states that "no good deed will go unpunished". I know that this is not universally true, but it seems to be in some places under certain conditions. I'm sorry that it is the case. When volunteering assess the situation carefully first. The rewards of giving cannot be denied, but the perils of church politics and the careful guarding of turf by the insecurities of a few can make it treacherous territory.
  • No matter what job one of us takes, the first year or two, the word "No" is your best friend. While I love my work and everything, being able to set boundaries early is so important. I realize I am replaceable to my employers. What is not replaceable in my life is my wife and my family. In my current role, I have been defensive about providing music at a 7:30AM Mass. I've played daily Masses in the past, but they began after 8AM. I would not compensated for taking those Masses on. On top of that my current role has me at church three out of five weeknight evenings. 7:30AM Mass was not in my job description, therefore I have to politely decline to play it, no matter how much parishoners or the senior Parochial Vicar might ask. (I do get along very well with everyone, but this is that elephant in the room).
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 445
    Thinking that a Music Director with a choir and three Masses can get it all done in 10-12 hours is like thinking ...

    I don't think they're at all equivalent.

    Depending on the content 12 hours *might* be ample:
    * Each mass 1.5 hours = 4.5 hours total
    * One choir practise 1.5 hours + 1.5 preparation = 3 hours
    * Assuming different repertoire for the choir vs cantor/organ only masses (and the same material at each) - 2 hours selecting and preparing material and preparing worship aids

    That's 9.5 hours each week. Leaving another 2.5 for recruitment and management work, and "banking" to cover Easter+Christmas preparation which is more time consuming.

    Obviously the job doesn't include weddings, funerals, school events, etc. They're extra, and negotiated as such.

    Also, it assumes choir members who are competent adults and able to behave as such (eg only need one reminder aobut events, pick up their materials when the arrive, and put into folders themselves - I almost died of shock the first time I met a choir director who wasted their own time doing this.)

    And no, it doesn't include your personal practise to maintain professional competence. If you cannot do enough practice in the preparation time listed above, the rest is on your dime, just like it is with any other professional.




    Thanked by 1agonzalez_esp
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 624
    you cannot do enough practice in the preparation time listed above, the rest is on your dime, just like it is with any other professional.


    Not counting practice time for weekly work hours is one of the more absurd things I've read on this forum.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,832
    Some positions require arranging depending upon your musical forces. And if you are a composer, that should be considered as part of the contract if you can make it happen.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,983
    I had one of those "part-time" positions for a number of years. Funny thing about it, it took far more than part time to do. The money wasn't that great, either, for the amount of work involved. I am now retired but don't see myself ever working in a Catholic music position again unless it is in a vastly different situation.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 624
    PaxMelodious, are you an organist? If so, do you not practice preludes, postludes, elevations, etc.? Hymns?
    Thanked by 1montre_16
  • francis
    Posts: 10,832
    Lol
    Thanked by 1mmeladirectress
  • It's great to see this sort of discussion happening. It needs to be brought more to the forefront in an organised way that shows solidarity. I've long reminisced about the benefits of a union for church musicians specifically, or perhaps for lay workers. The organisational challenges to make that happen are significant, but I think it's worth exploring. Sadly, it seems that many (most?) church musicians don't want to bother with the idea, hence the continued detriment of our field.
  • As long as organists keep accepting poor working conditions, churches will keep providing them. There is perhaps no mainstream denomination that treats its employees worse than Roman Catholicism.
  • "Not counting practice time for weekly work hours is one of the more absurd things I've read on this forum."

    But certainly not the first time PaxMelodious has brought it up! He (she?) seems to really consider himself (herself?) an authority on this topic; why - no one knows. I've asked before and never gotten an answer.

    Regardless, it's silly, and more than silly - damaging because, in fact, practice is a central part of preparation and doing this job well. That's also why we pay the music director to rehearse with the choir and cantors! Rehearsal and practice is kind of important if you'd like quality.

    As someone who actually runs a program and employs a degreed assistant, I would have to fire them if they didn't practice at work. That's the job, people.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,087
    Practice applies to volunteers too. I had a volunteer accompanist who didn't want to be held to a requirement to practice with the choir at rehearsals during the week in order to play on Sunday. He said, "I sub all over the diocese. Other directors just trust me to be prepared when I show up on Sunday."

    He wasn't that good. He turned every song into an easy-piano fake version that he would improvise.

    I held him to the rehearsal requirement.

    He lasted all of two months before he stopped showing up and stopped communicating.
  • I would have to fire them if they didn't practice at work. That's the job, people.


    If your boss believes that paying for that is good stewardship, fine. He who pays the piper and all. But I'd be surprised if the bishop doesn't have questions about pastoral priorities: Jesus didn't say "go forth and play".

    Absolutely any musician must prepare music ahead of the rehearsal, and rehearse with the singers and other musicians.

    But the 2-3 hours every day that some here believe they need is excessive, unless you're a top-class professional musician. Which is not something most parishes could keep busy, or would choose to pay for.

    Preuldes, postludes, elevations? Nope, not going to be doing those in a parish that can afford to pay you for 12 hours a week for three Masses. Strictly hymns and/or propers, psalms and simply ordinary. All chosen to be simply enough so they can be adequately rehearsed in the paid time available.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,832
    Jesus didn't say "go forth and play".


    Well, GOD himself says to "play" in the Psalms -- many times... and I believe he is related.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,087
    I agree that rehearsal time for personal skills maintenance or enhancement is not time or work that should be compensated by a parish employing a music director.

    Rehearsal time directly related to preparing and executing the parish's liturgical music should be compensated.

    In other words, you should be paid to include time needed to practice the music for Sunday, which is probably minimal time, especially in an established program that is largely repeating familiar music. You will not be paid to maintain or learn Chopin.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,099
    "I sub all over the diocese. Other directors just trust me to be prepared when I show up on Sunday."

    The skilled choir in which I served in the past made it clear that, notwithstanding that, all of the other choristers needed to be able to practice/rehearse with any paid musician in order to become a properly cohesive ensemble.
  • jcr
    Posts: 141
    Excellence requires preparation. The greatest obstacle to excellence in choral work in the church is the difficulty of having every singer prepared. There are other problems, to be sure, but getting folks to value the preparation sufficiently would bring much in the way of quality. Leadership always has the problem of getting the participants to buy into the project and recognize their high calling!
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,331
    It's not ideal, but my schola haas people willing to practice at home when they can't make it to practice. They're volunteers!

    Also, it assumes choir members who are competent adults and able to behave as such (eg only need one reminder aobut events, pick up their materials when the arrive, and put into folders themselves - I almost died of shock the first time I met a choir director who wasted their own time doing this.)


    I agree. For Vespers, I have a complicated system (long story) and I set it out. People can ask me of course, but I'm often busy trying to rehearse one last time or to get the priest squared away, if I'm not trying to pray.

    But I've seen choir directors who put the whole binder together. In the past, I've sung under people who passed things out. Or were gracious if somehow we missed a piece on the way in. Stuff happens. But doing the whole binder… man.

    That said, I think that organists should be allowed to use at least some of their required time for practice, and some negotiation slash shifting needs to happen if it's insufficient in normal seasons…but of course, you need time to prepare music for feasts months in advance!
  • but of course, you need time to prepare music for feasts months in advance!


    Absolutely. On any given week, I'm practicing for Sunday and also gradually prepping bigger pieces for feasts (usually plural) to come. No, I don't think this requires two to three hours of daily practice, but it certainly requires at least an hour.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    My week (on avg during choir season — summer is filled with more admin):

    3 Sunday Masses and 1 Sunday Vespers (services only no warmup) — 4-5hrs
    Feast Day / Daily Masses (~24 Feasts in season, 3 out, 1-2 weekly daily Mass) — 2-4hrs
    Warm-up / ensemble prep (in rehearsal with other musical beings physically present) - 5.5-7hrs

    Running total: 11.5-16hrs — and that’s just the front-facing part of my work

    Standing staff meetings - 2hrs (in my experience of parish work, this is light)
    Score prep - 1-2hrs (minimum)
    Leaflet generation - 3-4ish hrs if all machines work

    Running total: 17.5-24hrs

    Music & language classes for Oratory novices - 3.5-4hrs
    Payroll & HR stuff (subs, hires, comm., queries...) - 1-3?hrs

    Running total: 22-31hrs

    Notice that I still haven’t planned anything, met with brides, the bereaved, put out administrative fires, arranged for organ maintenance, or indulged in these vaunted 2-3hrs of daily practice. At this point, if my week has been as light as possible, 3hrs daily (2 if heavy) would pop me over 40. But we all know the rest will already have supervened and made 1hr of personal practice /day a real luxury.

    Running total doesn’t matter anymore. At this point, I’m deciding what not to do when I have hit 40, or whether just to keep going, or what is necessary.

    Yes, my job is above average in its demands of both quality and quantity of work for a just-a-parish job. But, in my experience, most parish jobs involve a school Mass a week, and working / planning for kids’ choirs, cantor / accompanist scheduling and deconflicting, and way more funerals and time spent in meetings — so they make up for being less demanding on the Sunday side.

    To be fair, each of my Masses is in a different language. I have no cantor specials. Unique leaflets.

    But still — I think 3 per weekend in 12hrs is a fantasy unless they are as low-bar as possible and nothing ever changes.

    As far as preparing binders, if I put the music packets together, then I know that everybody is on the same page, to turn a phrase. Once I’ve prepped the scores, gotten everything out, and/or printed, it really isn’t a great extra burden of labor to put it all together and stick it in people’s cubbies.

    As to the idea that a secretary or parish office staff could do printing etc. for you, I guess that’s technically true. However, I’ve been in situations where some of that was expected of them. Normally, that meant that it was actually much more work for me to get what I want it into the final document, not through the fault of the parish staff, but just by virtue of trying to communicate things that makes sense to the parish musician to a different staff member whose finger isn’t quite on the pulse of the music.

    Also, there is the bigger point that regardless, the parish is paying someone to do this, and the secretary would have to be relieved of other duties in order to perform this one. Secretaries are not magic. They can’t just do infinite things for a flat fee. So, why not simply pay the musician to prepare the music and the service folders, freeing the secretary and other office staff for other work, with the happy byproduct of thereby ensuring that all of the liturgically adjacent pieces are to the musician’s satisfaction?
  • PaxM:

    "But the 2-3 hours every day that some here believe they need is excessive, unless you're a top-class professional musician."

    Correct - I am a top-class professional musician, with a doctorate and many years of experience in the field of church music. I also don't hide behind an anonymous name - if anyone is following this thread and actually interested in learning and discussion, they are welcome to look up my bio at the Sioux Falls Cathedral and see whether I might be worth listening to. Or, there is always the anonymous, dogmatic authority of PaxMelodious on this and all other professions :). If what the church needs is the absolute bare minimum of barely prepared service music, no treasury of worthy repertoire, and substitute-level part-time skill, then maybe he (she?) is correct. No practice required!

    Regardless, this is actually an important topic and worth thinking about. When you are paid by the church to prepare music for her liturgies, then yes, any reasonable person should understand that time spent preparing said music is work time. If you are stipended per liturgy, that is of course different as the prep time is on you and included in the stipend amount. On the other end of the spectrum when you are full-time, you of course need to time-manage music prep (otherwise known as practice) into your work schedule, along with many other aspects of the job. I have heard a lot of unpleasant stories from colleagues over the years, but I've yet to hear from a full-time musician who was not allowed to practice during work hours.

    Where it gets sticky, I think, is the part-time job listing, which is what this original post was about. When the church is asking someone to play all the masses and run all music, year round, but not including practice time, this is disingenuous on the church's part. Or, perhaps, the particular parish is content with only the bare minimum, as Pax mentions, of "Strictly hymns and/or propers, psalms and simple ordinary. All chosen to be simple enough so they can be adequately rehearsed in the paid time available." If that is the case, then there is no conflict, as basically no practice time is required. Most students are familiar with the true "Wednesday-Sunday" quarter time student job, done on the side while earning a degree. And I am not denigrating it, by the way. There is a place for that kind of thing, both for the parish that can't afford more, and the student or substitute who doesn't have time for more.

    However, what most people on this forum object to is the job that is actually 20-30 hours, when you include reasonable prep and management hours, but is listed and paid as a quarter time position. That is dishonest, or at the least unrealistic, and I would encourage any priests reading this not to play that game (for basic moral integrity) and any musicians not to consider such positions, and to leave or re-negotiate if you're stuck in one. Despite what you may believe by reading rabbit-hole threads like this, there are tons and tons of actual jobs out there - you may just have to look and be willing to move.
  • I'd also add, again for those here interested in true discussion, that you need to consider the long-term consequences of the bare minimum mentality. 2-3 hours a day is not excessive, actually - it is considered the bare minimum for a music major for their major instrument. Having spent many years on the organ competition circuit, I can tell you that 2-3 hours is maybe half or less of what the top-level people put in to be competitive (and yes, competing internationally is excessive, and not what we're talking about here in terms of paid church work!). My only point is that 2-3 hours is quite reasonable for anyone hoping to make steady progress in skill over time. Consider just the bare categories for a church organist: repertoire; hymn-playing; choral accompaniment; improv. If you'd like to make any kind of steady progress in these over your career, you should put time into each, daily, and they are all different things that require their own practice regime. So that "excessive" 2 hours, actually just becomes 30 minutes on each key category. In other words, it's fairly minimal, and far from excessive.

    Why care about this? Practice is not primarily a matter of maintaining your "professional status" whatever that is. It is, on the survival level, time spent preparing music for Mass. And beyond that, it is time spent becoming more skilled at what you have to offer the church. In other words, unless all church musicians are, categorically, as skilled as they reasonably should be, or could be, (and judging by the state of church music that is not the case) the church would benefit by those musicians increasing in skill. And those musicians would benefit as well, personally and professionally. I've run across musicians who play things the same way, same preludes and postludes, interludes, hymn techniques (if any) etc. etc., decade after decade, and it is not inspiring, to say the least. It is not offering God our best in the liturgy, and it is nothing to be proud of (I will be very clear: I'm talking about salaried professionals here; substitute or part-time musicians may just not have time to progress over the years, because this is not their main career, and that is ok). When I get lazy and fall into this trap, it is depressing and guilt-ridden. The best practitioners in any field are always learning and growing, and we should be no different.

    If we'd like to see an increase in quality in church music, we as musicians have to (among other things) put in time on the bench. Real time, not bare minimum survival time. We have to take it seriously as part of our job. And on the employment side, the church needs to understand the importance of practice and not play any silly games trying to ignore practice time. Again, I'd just emphasize for any readers here that most salaried jobs do not play such silly games. If you're stuck with a strange situation where you're "not allowed" to practice, move on to a place where you can thrive and grow, and quality matters to the congregation and clergy.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    Dr. Ostermann, your comments are extremely welcome.

    My point, which I realize might’ve been obscure, was not to diminish the importance of daily practice, but to indicate that daily practice is not something that I and those like me are, as some posters would seem to allege, hiding behind to pad an otherwise light job description in order to justify a full-time salary.

    Rather, as someone blessed enough to have a job that prioritizes and understands my preparedness for liturgy as essential to executing my duties at the high level that is expected of me — even in that situation — often find myself fighting with the other demands of my job to fit in the practice that is understood to be essential to my duties.

    Sorry if I seemed to participate in the trend on the thread of treating practice lightly, or as anything other than a very serious professional obligation. My point was quite the opposite — it’s not padding, it’s hard to fit in around everything else that being responsible for a reasonably sized program entails, which could easily turn full-time on its own.

    Online tone is its own adventure. I probably shouldn’t have crafted my contribution at 1o’clock in the morning on a sleepless night.
  • Nihil - Understood, and I fully agree! I wasn't responding to you, as much as to PaxM and his (her?) leitmotif that practice time should not be considered part of this job.

    The daily practice time is, for me, an ideal and a baseline to aim for as a foundation for the job - but in real life it does definitely get disrupted by all the other things you mention. Weeks with three funerals, for example! But it's kind of like exercise or even spiritual exercises in personal life - it's good to make resolutions and a plan, and stick to it as much as we can for our health; but real life often intervenes. Rather than throwing it all out, we should try to get back to a healthy routine as we can, and not let the disruptions discourage us from good stewardship of our time and energy.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,832
    I also support the idea that two to three hours per day is indeed not excessive, for all the reasons JaredOstermann has eloquently stated above. I think the real problem this day and age is that music positions (in general) are not considered that critical to a parish. The opposite is true... any parish that is thriving (and I don't mean VIBRANT) usually has a substantial investment in its liturgical worship.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,331
    Honestly one of the trad-but-not-quite things around here is the return of adoration where the priest handles the music, instead of arranging for the organist to do it (the timing actually works out in a few cases). Having the organ and a separate singer from the priest and server shows that you’re giving it attention and solemnity, and hopefully you sing correctly. I recently discovered that around here that “Veneremur cernui” in the mode III chant known to all of us and then the “Amen” are troublesome (the mora vocis was applies only to the second note…). So for those who actually know chant, you can’t sing without getting lost.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,895
    FWIW, as this discussion seems to have possibly been rekindled by the job posting that I shared two days ago: I was asked to share the job posting, so I did as I was asked.

    But what you don't know is that I also wrote back to the church, and explained in no uncertain terms that the conditions of the job—as currently posted—are absolutely unrealistic, and I explained why in detail. Frankly, I'm full-time, salaried with benefits, and the position I shared has a more onerous job description than my own. I was told that my comments were helpful and that they would be taken back to the search committee. Whether or not that will bear any fruit is anyone's guess, but suffice to say: I tried. TBH, I nearly laughed out loud when I first read the description. Hopefully, they will take my comments to heart since I'm the guy at the cathedral, but who knows.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,331
    Not that we doubted your integrity before, but it’s nice to know good people even just via the web.

    Also, from experience: I can tell when a choir or organist is not prepared for Sunday or ordinary occasions but is prepared instead for major feasts, and it’s distressing, because my schola cannot just drop the Sunday propers to practice something else. We have to squeeze it in. I start as close to on-time at 6 as I can, as we end at 8 to let the dads get home in particular (and me too, lest I have to leave at 4:45 and get home only after 9).

    I also would suggest saying to pastors who don’t want to pay for any or all of your practice time that even the start and stop nature of practice is not a hindrance and is even a benefit to those who may find themselves praying quietly. When I did TAPIF, the titulaire would practice on Tuesdays when the church was open, and I tried to pray on a regular basis
    during what wound up being his practice time. A little Bach never hurt (and he went crazy for Bach before and after Mass because he had to play hot garbage in between).
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tandrews
    Posts: 174
    I want to repeat what Dr. Bill Ramsey would say at chorale concerts before passing the basket for donations: "If you don't support the arts, they will go away."
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,165
    I just did an internet search on the salaries of various professional musicians. Church organists were at the bottom of the list. Pianists, strings players, woodwind players, brass players, and singers make over twice as much.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • JaredOstermann - as a highly qualified musician, I'm glad you've got a full-time position in a Cathedral.

    But the vast majority of churches are not cathedrals, and cannot afford a full-time musician. It is absolutely not required to be full time in order to provide the bones of a musical program for a parish. Twelve hours a week is plenty of time to do an adequate job: Jesus command was to love and serve the world, not to cultivate musical excellence.
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,331
    That's crap, even for parishes that can only do hymns at most or all Masses; as much as it pains me to say it, most parishes cannot or should not do five Gregorian propers in this day and age.
  • as much as it pains me to say it, most parishes cannot or should not do five Gregorian propers in this day and age

    I have to disagree. Most parishes should do the full propers (at least for the EF), as it's the norm prescribed by the Church. And they all could eventually do it if they actually made it a priority. But most people see that they can't do the propers well immediately, so they except that as meaning they "can't do it well". But if a pastor truly wants to put in the effort to have full propers, I believe it is possible, at any parish. Even if it takes over a year, people can be recruited, people can be trained, parish resources can be allocated to that endeavor if it is deemed to be truly the priority.

    Jesus command was to love and serve the world, not to cultivate musical excellence.

    Christ very much wants us to both love others and cultivate musical excellence. It's not a one or the other sort of situation.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,331
    I mean, I don't disagree in the abstract (and I find this kind of back-and-forth not so much helpful or clarifying as annoying, because I know the norms). Notice that I said "cannot" — there is no shortcut to time, and even then, you're still dependent on factors sometimes out of your control. You can't always actively recruit for the schola either… November to Epiphany is out. March to after Easter or beyond is out. I'm always looking for new people, and maybe we should have been more active…but my experience is that people can't commit if they even express interest.

    Yeah, singing the whole proper is the norm, but we need fewer parishes, church buildings (or we need to make wiser use of them), communities, even it as true that we apparently lose about 1/3 of a congregation when parishes are reorganized. We cannot all be competing for the same resources. We saw this already before TC: there was something of an upper limit on the TLM and especially on sung TLMs which were served well, on a regular basis, by enough young men and boys and which never ran out of singers. Which never or only most rarely had to turn a sung Mass into a low Mass because enough strong singers in the schola showed up every time. (I don't agree that simplified propers are better particularly on a weeknight evening; it is extraordinarily disappointing to turn up for that to be the case.)

    Consolidation in some ways was for the best in terms of resource application. It was not intended that way, and I'm not asking bishops to consolidate TLMs, but shoot, even having enough priests has been a problem. The same applies to the Latin NO with the Gregorian proper.

    There is also a political reality that not everyone will really want this, even if they should. I think that it's great that I know of country parishes doing the right thing, which certainly wasn't what happened before Vatican II. But where do you find singers where there are not a lot of Catholics in the first place? And how do you sustain them even if you have a few and take time to make them good singers?

    I have my issues with the "reverent NO", on a spectrum so wide that the term is meaningless once interrogated, and I think that it is probably not great that the people who like this as opposed to Breaking Bread and the nonsense with which I grew up are aesthetes and fussier than trads at this point, as the trads are really into the doctrinal and other arguments that can't be papered over with aesthetics (the reign of Christ the King — not exclusively liturgical, although Lentini modified the hymn of Christ the King for no reason other than his politics — the lectionary and collects, the obfuscation of sin and traditional fasting discipline, etc.)

    It's also possible if a pastor is able to secure a second term early, but with pastors moving every six years, it's like anything else, subject to the whims of the next priest.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,087
    12-18 hours is probably enough to do the OCP Breaking Bread, Respond & Acclaim thing, if you use all OCP resources and follow their weekly recommendations for songs. Such a setup is a music-in-a-box approach to planning, convenient for saving time, easily implemented, something a trained monkey could do, and that's exactly what OCP has intended it to be, and it's how a lot of music directors use OCP's bread-and-butter resources.

    But if you want to broaden and improve the parish's liturgical music horizons, faithfully implement liturgical norms, if you have publishing components to your work (weekly handouts or projected slides), if you have wedding and funeral responsibilities, and if you are expected to attend or value regular meetings and interaction with other parish staff members, then full-time hours are required, at least 32 per week.
  • Pax:

    "But the vast majority of churches are not cathedrals, and cannot afford a full-time musician. It is absolutely not required to be full time in order to provide the bones of a musical program for a parish. "

    The issue is not so much cathedral vs. non - in fact, the parishes with the most money are almost always the big suburban ones; while cathedrals very often struggle to make ends meet because of the demographic of their urban core parish.

    But I think the larger issue here is that you are selling the field short by categorically stating that the vast majority of parishes cannot afford salaried musicians (or at least full-time musicians). I don't think that that is true - it is usually more a matter of priorities than absolute numbers. I worked at a parish that said it could only afford a part-time musician - on a roughly 2 million dollar a year parish budget. The year after I left (on good terms - my degree was finished), they did a multimillion dollar capital campaign to expand the entryway to church, fix the parking lot, add a wing to the school, etc. It was quite successful and millions were raised. On the flip side, my current cathedral just finished raising millions to fund a world-class organ and a significant music endowment. These are contrasts of vision and priorities, not of absolute numbers, nor of what is possible in a given community.

    When you assume, a priori, that only a few elite parishes could possibly afford full-time musicians, then argue from that foundation that things like practice are not necessary in this field anyway, I feel you are poisoning the well for our field. It's a depressing, bargain-basement attitude toward what we do, and I don't think it benefits us or the parishes we serve. Aim higher, or at least, don't disparage those who do.

    All that said, I DO agree with you that some parishes can only afford a bare minimum. And to those who answer that call and do the best they can with very limited time, I say "Thank you!". My only point is that we should not assume this is the norm, or something to strive for if it is at all possible to invest more in church music.
  • The issue is not so much cathedral vs. non - in fact, the parishes with the most money are almost always the big suburban ones; while cathedrals very often struggle to make ends meet because of the demographic of their urban core parish.
    Oh so true. I have two friends who accepted new positions this summer. One has my salary and the other is getting paid more than me with a budget that is twice mine. They are both "just" parishes.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • My parish does NO and TLM and splits the duties between two choir directors and two organists, all on part time stipends. Doing this I think they get away with paying somewhat less overall than if they hired one full time professional musician for all functions. This isn't a clever plan on their part, they just prefer to hire parishioners and none of us are dedicated professionals. I hope this doesn't cast me as an interloper who's driving down wages.

    I'm contracted for one Sunday mass per week, holy days of obligation (pretty limited in Canada), and two traditional big events at our parish. Funerals and weddings have an extra stipend.

    In terms of group preparation I lead 3 hours of practice per week. I'm not sure what I personally practice, but it certainly isn't 2-3 hours per day. I think I would land in that 12 hours per week zone, with fluctuations. In my situation it's enough to deliver performances that myself, my singers, the priest, and the latin mass congregation are very pleased with. I dare say that on any given Sunday we have the best music in the city. (With plenty of room to improve.)

    It may sound self-serving, but I believe that in my local context, hiring me part time is the best decision the priest could have made. I don't have the organ skills and mastery of polyphony that would be expected from a full-time professional, but overall I'm better at chant than even most professionals are likely to be (present company excluded), and this is after all the core music of the mass. At the same time I get to explore a passion with a level of pay that helps me substantially, though the hourly, if I worked it out, would look grim.

    If I have any point at all here, I suppose it's that I agree with some others that part-time can be an effective solution depending on th local context, and I also suspect quite a bit of this debate would dissolve if we had fuller knowledge of eachother's situations. I realize some more experienced heads are taking a broader view of the overall state of church musicianship and willingness to pay for quality, and I'm sure I agree with it.