A vocalist cannot "lead" song - it cannot be done! The organ is loud enough and clear enough to lead congregational song (at least in the protestant "chorale" style). As for unaccompanied song, there is no leading to be done. Just pick a key and away you go!

As for why organists more often hold leadership positions on church staff, I propose it's because we're usually better trained. Your typical organist is trained in organ repertoire, hymnody, sacred music history, choral singing/conducting, and often voice and improvisation/composing. I myself studied voice as a secondary instrument. Your average vocalist is much better trained at his instrument, but lacks the rounded education of the typical organist.

Note that this is broad generalization and does not apply to everyone. There's many bad organists, and many broadly competent vocalists.

if a church was employing mostly the chant repertoire, it would be a no brainer to have an educated conductor of chant but unfortunately most churches sing hymns and guitar/piano music as we have for the most part abandoned our musical tradition. very sad, but it is the present state of affairs.

Another broad assumption, but I think it has to do with the abandonment of the propers.

Obviously, an organist is necessary for the decent execution of hymn singing. A reasonable cantor can often be found in most congregations, so in-depth training is often not done. The cantor isn't there to be a soloist, so often a strong singer with a solo voice is more of a distraction than a virtue. If I absolutely must use a cantor, I'd rather use a volunteer from my choir with a pleasant voice. Since the "hymn sandwich" is the fare of the day of most parishes, of course an organist is absolutely vital. I do, however, join you in lamenting the current state that makes it that so many parishes that have even good music program have organ-based programs.

At my principle Sunday Mass, the Introit, Offertory, and Communion are chanted from the Graduale Romanum (At the earlier Mass, where a girlchoir sings, they do the same from the Simple English Propers). A motet, almost always a cappella, is sung after the Communion. On days where incense is used or no motets are sung (Summer time), a hymn may be added after any of these. However, on most Sundays, the organ is played during the prelude, postlude, any necessary interludes, the Responsorial Psalm and Alleluia, and a closing hymn. One does not need to be an organ scholar to play hymns and accompany a psalm and alleluia. However, one SHOULD have a fundamental knowledge of plainsong, repertoire, and liturgy. THAT is where I would love to see the emphasis shift.

Practically, however, a DM should also be an organist...at least a functional one (and that's about where I put myself....functional). With that said, it saddens me when I see my colleagues who could do wonderful things get turned down for jobs simply because they aren't the best organists. I would much rather have a chant/choral scholar who can play hymns and do simple improvisations than an organist who can play Vierne organ symphonies but has no concept of plainsong performance practice and the history thereof, or of polyphonic repertoire.

But, then, of course, there are those special souls who can do both very, very well....and God bless them...but I think they are more rare than some parishes care to admit...

No offense to Skatsing (I hold Kurt Elling to be the most incredibly gifted jazz/scat singer of all time), but I think the premise of the thread is erroneous and implausible to discuss coherently. Talk away at will, to what end I haven't the slightest clue.
And our propensity to debate via absolutism is seldom beneficial to the common wisdom. YMMV.

Dear Gavin said, "A vocalist cannot "lead" song - it cannot be done".
This is patently false. Singers have lead processions and hymns without organ for centuries, and before organ was accepted in the Church.

Personally, I prefer vernacular hymnody with organ accompaniment. Hymns are often improved this way.

Still, saying a singer *cannot* lead a group in singing goes against the historical and current reality. I find it a very hard not to interpret such a statement as dismissive, even ignorant, of trained singers.

Organ is relatively new innovation? What planet do you folks live on? It's been used for a thousand years with church encouragement and approval. Yes, we could all go back to unaccompanied singing using only music from before the 15th century, and watch as the congregation leaves to go elsewhere.

The much discussed purity of sacred music is an imaginary beast, with 21st-century musicians proposing what they think that music actually sounded like. Unfortunately there are few, if any, scores or texts to back any of that conjecture up. Especially so with the very early music. Sacred music worthy of the liturgy has been written in every age, including our own. It is not all chant and polyphony, thankfully. I love that music, but it too can be tedious if done to the exclusion of all else.

Cantors can help lead singing. My experience with them is that they are sometimes divas who want to perform. When I get ones who actually want to do what cantors are supposed to do, I hold on to them and treat them like the treasures they are.

I don't see Mozart and symphonic music as the problem. The problem is that the secular world has always intruded on the church, with much assistance from people and clergy. Add to that the problem that Catholic churches are cheap, cheap, cheap. Most don't want to pay for adequate staff and are looking for one person to do it all, usually at a not-so-great salary.

"Singers have lead processions and hymns without organ for centuries, and before organ was accepted in the Church."

MCW, what exactly do you mean by "lead"? At my church, we chant the preface dialog every single week. I'm not aware that anyone leads it. The congregation just sings. I suppose the choir is made up of people slightly more trained in good technique, and so they exercise what could be called a "leadership" role, but I don't know if that's the same as playing a hymn on organ. When there's a hymn I want to sing a capella (chorale style or chant), I do conduct to keep the choir in strict time to prevent the congregation from dragging. Perhaps I might call this "leading", but they're able to "lead" so far as they are loud enough to be heard by the congregation - the same can NOT be said of many solo voices. And if it is necessary to amplify a singer for them to lead, then I submit that my premise has been proven: a solo voice cannot lead.

Again, define your terms. Who leads when we sing "happy birthday to you"?

And another thing: this qualifier of a "trained" vocalist keeps getting thrown about. How many vocalists are trained in leading congregational song? Which teachers offer that?

I'm not denigrating vocalists. I am a vocalist. Vocalists, as cantor, soloist, conductor, and chorister, are ESSENTIAL to Christian worship. But I won't have it said that a solo voice can "lead" in the same sense as an organ can. I lead congregational song by setting and maintaining the tempo, pitch, and affect, all in a way that is audible and true to the text. That's what I call leading, and I simply don't think a vocalist can do that.

I am happy to see the discussion is considered useful by many. I find the negative attitude towards singers to the point of feeling their role isn't worth discussion very sad.
It shows a very strong condescension. Singers are paid quite poorly in contrast to instrumentalists. The idea that one is "just born" with a voice and so only needs to show up and sing is widespread in America; it seems to account for many problems--including a good deal of shout singing and bellowing and pushing the voice down like Cher. ( Is that why a D is now considered too high a note to sing?}

I realize because of my name choice you suppose I am a jazz singer. Actually this is a contraction on skating and singing. My training is in classical singing--those Franck and Mozart pieces some one here so hates would be my bailiwick and the many years of learning the Catholic hymnal repetoire of the OCP publications. The many singers complained of by Charles who are possessed of that so-called "wondervoice" ( or only think they are) with no training are as much a nuisance to trained singers as to trained musicians. Once you can read music, it is infuriating to see a whole choir have to sing the wrong rhythm because the organist's wife with the "wondervoice," and who doesn't read music, and is as loud as a Valkyrie, can't sing it any other way.

But singers are not the only ones! A parish administrator tried to hire me to expand the repertoire of a music leader (guitar/vocal) who played Amazing Grace almost every other week because he played by ear and had a very limited repertoire. This man was convinced that anyone who had to read music was sadly lacking in talent and the notes were "only a guide". The parish had other ideas where they wanted money spent so that fell through.

The idea that loud playing is necessary for leading singing--and with some organists to the point where an entire choir cannot be heard over it--is laudable, but that vocalists who "dominate" are not helping the congregation to sing strikes me as inconsistent--especially when priests who can sing are fine with dominating vocally and it sure works when they do it and drown out both the choir and the organ with their throat mics on. Some one here said the attitude of the priest was key--or was that another thread? It seems to be another big part of the puzzle.

I hear that Protestant churches do hire multiple people and the organists are accompanists, not leaders, and are under the direction of the choir master--a vocalist.
Is that true? The all around person Matthew J says they want in the Catholic parishes is part of the problem. The parish will say they have no funds for getting multiple persons but will pony up for other things without blinking an eye in spite of having no funds.
People will blame the music for all sorts of things but without respect for the musically trained, nothing will change I think. It hinges on factors other than experience, talent and training otherwise.

I still wonder how the attitude that the organ is all-important came about. Maybe the importance is based on the huge expense of acquiring a good instrument?

Thank you for the replies to this thread. Hearing a cross section of attitudes helps me see just where the status of music in the church is going.

As an Eastern Christian, I fully understand the culture differences between east and west. I work for the Latins, and try to do the best possible job I can for them in their context. I have no intent or desire to convert them to the east. Latins, you got to love them, even though killing them at times is an entertaining thought. LOL.

Sorry 'bout the jazz misnomer association, SkSing.
To reiterate, I'm not "negative" (and didn't assume you lumped me into that bin) about the topic. I'm wary of trying to, as I said, fashion absolutes and make global conclusions from specific lived experiences, premises that can't be factually verified, and a vast ocean of different situations and perspectives that is quite full of some troublesome flotsam.
I'm not trying to be dismissive or censor. It's just that given the nature of the topic as presented I can simultaneously say "I agree with all of you" and "I disagree with all of you."
The one thing I think we should strive for: a unified front of informed and capable musical leaders who will advance the cause of fit and proper worship music that is "sacred, beautiful and universal." We won't do that as efficiently if we're constantly distracted by our own internal struggles and penchant for picking nits.
Thank you for adding your voice to the cause.

Two qualifiers:

1) I am a trained organist.
2) I am a trained singer.

Thank you Charles in CC. I am sorry for those who see the organ versus singer question as an adversarial one.

I remember being in music school and hearing the call for "singers and musicians." As I recall, the singers did not like that very much.

I remind all of Musicam Sacram:
62."The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lift up men's minds to God and higher things."

I love being both a singer and an organist. It is a gracious gift that I can play and improvise at Mass and also be a singer when necessary.

While I realize that all do not possess both skill sets, please commend both singers and organists who desire to bring quality to the liturgy. We are desirous of the same goal.
It is not an "us" versus "them".

Returning back to practicing the Franck B minor chorale.

"Plus, where does one go to be trained in vocal/choral church music?"

Not to be cheeky, but my answer would be "to an organist!"

If one examines the careers of the most successful church musicians over the past 500+ years, there is a pretty consistent and reliable pattern to be found: chorister, then organist/apprentice, then organist/choirmaster, with the cycle repeating itself over and over down to the present age. Byrd, Palestrina, Morales--they were all singer-organists. Even the career of the Holy Father's brother followed a similar path.

This is a proven model, and is, I think, why the ideal of the organist-director still exists today.

Neither the conservatory-trained organist with little to no choral experience nor the conservatory-trained vocalist with minimal keyboard skills are ideal candidates for a DoM position. University/conservatory organ training coupled with an apprenticeship role is the magic combination.

Although these apprenticeship roles are becoming harder to come by, they do exist in certain large parishes and cathedrals, in colleges and universities (in a modified form), and in a considerable number of Episcopalian churches.

Now, if one wishes to establish a music program modeled completely on the medieval model, then all of this should be ignored.

Nobody wants to be bullied and we all have ignorance...
As to the latter, I have hoards of ignorance to spare if anyone wants it. My wife's Frenchie Bulldog has no choice about the "bully" disposition, but you can see by his smile on my avatar, I'm trying to behave more like his kind of bully. Jury's still out....
Again, thank you for coming to our motley crue.

>"...a strong singer with a solo voice is more of a distraction than a virtue. If I absolutely must use a cantor, I'd rather use a volunteer from my choir with a pleasant voice..."

Adam, do you then hand them a mike? I'm surprised at the phobic tone of the discussion above, and find the notion that a singer cannot lead downright amusing: every fall at High Holy Days I hear a solo cantor lead a congregation of around 3000, and even the slightly befuddled professional choir with very approximately notated scores in hand can easily figure out what to do.

Richard Mix: again, it falls upon the proponents of leadership by a single voice to define the term "lead", as I've done to disqualify it. In what sense does a person "lead" 3000 voices with their own voice alone? Or, to put it better, how does one of those 3000 follow a soloist?

To follow an organ, I hear the organ, match pitch with the soprano or bass line, and sing, occasionally paying attention that I am consistent with the accompaniment. Without an organ, I hear what is going on around me with other singers, and make modifications as necessary. No need for leadership!

Gavin: there's no need for me to improve on your own definition, is there? " I lead congregational song by setting and maintaining the tempo, pitch, and affect, all in a way that is audible and true to the text. That's what I call leading, and I simply don't think a vocalist can do that." My experience simply suggests that you should get out more ;-)

Oh, and I studied choral conducting-actually I was working on a minor in choral music during my DM studies, before I left to go to DC. It was hard work, but it has made me so much more effective as a church musician.

Gavin, havn't you ever had the experience of hearing the spoken creed fall apart slightly on a morning when the priest is nursing a cold? One needn't dominate to lead.

On the other hand, an unmiked Wagnerian voice will have no trouble at all with audibility.

Charles, yes that voice was heart-rendering, but you're so right- how he could communicate with his singers. He certainly had a colorful way of making corrections in rehearsal, too! He was much gentler with his assistants than with his choir. He was very supportive, showed a great level of trust, and was very approachable. I really enjoyed working with him.

The assertion that a singer can't lead is bizarre. I have done this in processions all around my diocese with groups of a few dozen or a few hundred. I have led without a microphone and with (strongly prefer without), during masses, holy hours, processions. And I can think of three other classically trained singers who do this in my area as well.

Again, I prefer vernacular hymns to be accompanied by an organ with a choir leading. But to say a singer can't lead... I've lead and followed too many times to count, and I've heard processions largely fall apart where no trained singer is leading (I don't lead when not asked and I've observed this before).

For anyone who seems to be genuinely confused on this, the trained singer acts like a cantor by setting the pitch and tempo, then 'leads from within the group' by steering unobtrusively.

Richard Mix is right about Wagnerian singers- I would add even a strong bel canto singer. This is because a choir singer is trained differently than a solist. Whereas a solist can most often fit their voice into a choir, volume can be a real problem (usually) when a less-trained choir singer tries to lead.

And, the word is "led." Sorry, had to.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that.

Pick the vocalist. You can sing hymns a Capella if you absolutely cannot afford to hire both (although I think if music was given the importance in the parish budget it should have, this would not be an issue). You cannot replace the psalm with an instrumental piece.

Please understand that I love the organ. I'm very glad that we have one in our parish. This is not a slam on organists or a suggestion that vocal musicians are superior. But of the two instruments, a voice is essential for a sung liturgy and an organ is not.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is criminal how small the music budget is for most parishes.

charles

the church HAS made up its mind

but poor formation of priests, ignorance of congregations and staff, with a call for the ego centric performers wanting a crowd to croon to and a congregation that wants only to be entertained has made a spectacle of the Roman Rite.

Let's see... what did God say hanging on that tree? Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.