I am in agreement. Diocesan standards would mean that no two places would be alike, and standards would be all over the place. Then, as you mention, there's diocesan politics and agendas. Best to not go there. Just our luck, we would get Al.....ne the rhythmically and tonally challenged, on the standards committee. I like the idea of the manual, since nothing like it exists, to my knowledge.

Kathy, this is the essential problem and, I believe, the reason that no practical manual on music in the OF exists. There are just too many choices. The instructions too often read like: do A, do B, or do C, or just do whatever you want to do.

You can't write an implementation manual based on this. But the problem remains. Most Catholic musicians are completely lost and lacking in any understanding of the the liturgical ideal.

The idea of diocesan certification has all the usual markings of falling in the category of Be Careful What You Pray For.

You gotta be kidding me. Fuggedaboudit.
Long, long ago, in a land faraway (actually 200 miles north), I "been there, done that." As a member of the diocesan liturgical commission, I helped formulate, put into place and teach (Holy Names College) such a formation program. Believe me, it was easier then (da 80's) that it could possibly be now, and still it was a miserable failure in terms of interest and outcome. And all in a "progressive, pro-active" liturgical renowned diocese.
I can name this tune in four notes-"Provenance of each bishop."
My wife can in three-"What's Father want?"
I counter with two-"Geez, Margie!"
We both exclaim one- "Adrift."

I am reminded, of happy memory, of the tale of my friend Fr. Keyes: when asked in year one of his pastorship up north what his vision was for the parish liturgy committee, he responded, "Madam, I am the Liturgy Committee."

Contrast that with the little dustup over the "Welcoming Mass" for Co-adjutor Bishop Gomez in LaLaLand. Death by multicultural face time at the Cathedral. Apologies to Dr. Ford still in place, how would any of us like to spend countless hours with folks there who may or may not have read any official documents, re-inventing the Sarah's Circle Wheel to churn out "Diocesan Standards?" I'd wager Adam Wood wouldn't live long enough (in an average natural life span) to witness the final draft of the Misssion Statement for such a certification program, much less the curriculum or program initiation.

And such programs still won't prepare each and every parish music leader to adequately respond to the LOLady from Pasadena who will grab you by the collar and upbraid you for not singing "God Bless America" for the Introit, Offertorio, Communion, the "Sending Forth" and the Psalm!

I'm just sayin', what is needed are bishops who instill within their priests (via seminaries and convocations) a sort of Teddy Roosevelt ethos of management (without the impetuous and dubious political aspects of his presidential legacy.) Namely, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." They already have the stick. Now if we could get them to speak softly, firmly: "Lex orandi, lex credendi."

If there was any credible certification by a diocese, 98% of church musicians would be out of a job!

Getting back to the point that many good musicians can't afford to work in Catholic churches.... That doesn't seem to be on the radar for the bishops.

Do you really think the GIRM is clear enough? I'm not sure it is reader friendly enough and written in a way that most musicians can really understand.

Everything else you write strikes me as correct.

It's amazing--many pastors claim that they can not afford to pay qualified musicians, however they can afford to pay lay people to do their jobs, e.g. "pastoral associates" and "directors of Christian education." They can also afford to pay for glorified babysitters like "youth ministers." I also forgot, they can afford social ministers. I know the shortage of priests is problem because they are so overworked. My pastor only has 6 hours a day to play solitaire on the computer. And while I believe myself to be a qualified musician, I am not allowed to do what I know is proper for the mass. The only thing that may help is when these misguided clerics retire--but they will try their best to corrupt the newer generations before they lose their power.

It might be nice to publish a digest of the parts of the GIRM that apply to music, supplementing the legislation with commentary and cross-references to other documents.

Even without the full canonical authority of the GIRM, "Sing to the Lord" is our "specific" instruction here in the United States, one might say. Surely we don't want every diocese to come up with something like that?! (Actually, they could do worse. Much worse.) I'm afraid that diocesan manuals would restrict certain options, impose stylistic choices, and generally contribute to the further OCP-ification of parish liturgies. Imagine something like Cardinal Mahoney's "Gather Faithfully Together" floating around every diocese...

Olbash (Michael, correct?), that may be true but the point is that those guidelines seem a little unrealistic IMO. As I said, assistant professors at many if not most universities make well under the $60k baseline for organists with a doctorate. When considering the salary, we also have to consider the cost/benefit of "doing something else" with the same skill set. That being the case, either practically everyone (academic or Mus. Dir.) is underpaid or the guidelines are unrealistic. There is probably a little bit of truth to both.

As the husband of a young music director with a doctoral degree, I wish she was making $60k+!! (But we never expected as much...)

Assistant professors might be underpaid! Consider the baseline salaries of engineers, military officers (whose benefits are amazing) and lawyers.

.

I think a lot of pastors don't even realize that the music in their parish is badly performed, and that they could improve their musical results by just requiring that the organist have *some* credential.

101. It would be ideal, and worthy of commendation if organists, choir directors, singers, instrumentalists, and others engaged in the service of the Church, would contribute their talents for the love of God, and in the spirit of religious devotion, without salary; should they be unable to offer their services free of charge, Christian justice, and charity demand that the church give them a just wage, according to the recognized standards of the locality, and provisions of law.



102. The local Ordinary should, after consultation with the diocesan commission of sacred music, fix a scale of wages to be observed throughout the diocese for the various offices mentioned in the previous paragraph.



103. An adequate program of social security should also be set up for these persons in accordance with civil law; if the law makes no provisions, the local Ordinary himself should make regulations regarding social security.



--Sacred Congregation of Rites, De Musica Sacra (1958)

It would also be It would be ideal, and worthy of commendation if plumbers, builders, lawn care specialists, stained-glass makers, air conditioner repair people, in addition to electricity and water providers, and, for that matter, grocery stores and airline companies and hospitals, and others engaged in the service of the Church, would contribute their talents for the love of God, and in the spirit of religious devotion, without salary.

However, I don't see how accepting a salary for all these things means that you are somehow compromised in your love of God and spirit of devotion.

Right, and somehow it is always the artists and musicians who are asked to make the sacrifice and live in poverty for the faith. It hasn't worked. This approach has been a disaster really.

Wasn't there something in the Gospel this past Sunday about "is not the workman worthy of his hire?"

If I had a nickel for every time I've been asked to "do it for Jesus," I could retire. Alas that I am not independently wealthy and cannot afford to work gratis. And I agree with JT that it is usually the musicians, not the plumber ( who charge $85-120 an hour in my area) or the electrician, who are asked to make that sacrifice.

In my opinion the AGO certification should be sufficient as a gauge of proficiency. Chancery politics would wreck any commission or board set up to evaluate musical skills. After all, if the person isn't proficient in (or sufficiently worshipful of) your musical preference . . . it reminds me of a line from "Zorro, the Gay Blade." Lauren Hutton tells Zorro that [early 19th-Century] Boston is the greatest place for music (paraphrasing here) and he answers, "I'm not so sure. I was there for a month and I didn't hear a single decent mariachi player in the whole town."

I would like to remind everyone that on another thread some consensus was reached that the ideal scenario for church choirs/scholas required a director/conductor and an organist. What that really means- not everyone needs be an AGO certified organist for a program to improve and thrive. I'm a horrific organist. My principle organist of 19 years partnership could likely pass certification criteria in all categories. However, I'm not sure s/he's an actual member of that guild; it simply doesn't matter. I like to think that our respective talents are apparent to all: the pastors who hired us, our musicians, our congregations, etc. When I was a cathedral DM, I had an equally talented, degreed and certified organist as collaborator. However, s/he was an incredibly difficult personality prone to contention.
And as far as academic degrees, the degree doesn't prove anything of itself as regards proficiency with the duties of liturgical music leadership.
And we must all be mindful that all job descriptions are not created equal. To justify a "living wage" a pastor and musician may have to include teaching duties in the school, or composer in residence demands, or other adjunct duties that could range from youth minister, sacristan or plumber!
And, if I'm not mistaken, we all serve "at will" in most cases of which I'm aware.
So, I think the whole notion of certification is fairly irrelevant to real politik. It always boils down to "all politics are local," as in parish-level. Lots of qualified folks get hired in dioceses with posted salary schedules and, yet, still keep one eye open for greener pastures while others get the boot for a spectrum of unjust reasons.

Jeffrey, it's not that musicians are that terrible at negotiating...it's that for every good musician who applied for a church job there are 20 more less-than-stellar applicants who would work for the lower wage. It's the same reason that adjuncting is wiping out the tenure system in universities. Why hire someone on the tenure-track when retired local Joe can do just enough to get by and will teach a course for $500 per credit hour? I'm not defending the tenure system, by the way, only pointing out that the economic modeling here is similar.

Dioceses need to set the wage ranges, because no pastor feels beholden to the AGO or NPM in that regard. Of course there is always the out of, "We fall into the 'less than average' budget category."

I think Chas in CentCal has it cold.

Part of the problem is this: there are part-timers employed by parishes in organist/choir director slots who are well-qualified by virtue of training and experience, but who did not (and never will) obtain AGO certification because they have full-time non-musician jobs.

The other part of the problem is precisely that parish pastors tend to 'hire cheap.' They find the young chipmunks just out of school, freshly-scrubbed and eager, and they're available for ultra-low bucks; no families, can room-mate with another equally low-paid professional, etc.

The kids may have talent--and even ability. They may not. And now we have the THIRD part of the problem:

The parish pastor doesn't have the FOGGIEST idea of how to judge their capability or talent, and he'll keep even awful people for at least a year before acknowledging his error and going back to the market for another young chipmunk, eager, degreed, and cheap.

My teacher used to tell all his sopranos to take excellent care of their voices and not commit to excessive performances. "They'll use you up and toss you out like a tube of tomato paste," he told them, because sopranos were cheap and plentiful in the opera world, and business managers used that fact to reduce overhead.

Don't understand. How/why would a CMAA certification discourage people?

Certification by CMAA or an organization set up by CMAA was what I was alluding to in my earlier comment. Let there be an independent certifying agency, then let it be recognized diocese by diocese.

Certification might be worthwhile when dioceses have well-developed institutes of sacred music training musicians.
Any certificate is as good as the institution that gave it. And currently no competent musical training program exists in most dioceses.

It is an idea whose time has not yet come.

Certification in some dioceses would only perpetuate the kind of circular self-credentialing they have now in areas such as religious ed.

My diocesan O of W seems comprised of well-meaning people to whom it never occurs to search out primary sources before they pass on (mis)information.

Slanted, single-sentence snippets from seminar hand-outs are repeated as if they were rubrics.

I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected people in authority, (more or less kindly, I might add, though those of you who've met me might doubt it,) by pointing out what the actual GIRM, or the actual Circular Letter, or the actual SC says.

On the other hand, a salary floor for musicians would probably rock some pastors back hard enough to make them realize, gee, if I hafta pay THAT much, I'd better actually get someone with some qualifications or expertise.

Do I want the nice guy at a nearby parish who never learned to read music to lose his job as organist?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)