Organists should be competent in voice, singers should be competent in organ.

You really need to explain this. There is no reason for an organist to be a singer, nor for a singer to be an organist.

You may feel that this is an ideal situation but you are missing a very important point. Singers have a God-given gift. So to not go to hear Pavarotti sing because he could not read music is trashing a gift from God.

I agree, Frogman, although I really think that organists need to be able to sing in the absence of a cantor. Having said that, however, it's difficult to play and sing at the same time, unless you know the lyrics perfectly. Trying to read both music and lyric lines is not easy. But, in the absence of a cantor, we should be able to carry the mass vocally, as well as instrumentally. I do not, however, feel that singers should be organists and to actually expect that would, in my small opinion, be impossible to find. Our former DM, while difficult in many ways, could not read a note of music and yet had a powerful voice.

Because organists' instruments cost more, thus it makes sense that the musician is more valuable. Singers' voices come free. :D

I once said that if an driving a car were as easy as playing an organ, we'd have a lot more crashes!

Classically trained singers are able to sing through a lot of other voices without dominating (depending on what the repertoire demands) because they are trained to sing over orchestras and large choral ensembles. (If opera repels you, consider large-scale oratorios, tone poems, and other concert works.)

This is done by developing what is called 'ring', or more recently, the 'singer's formant'. Choral singers, organists who take 1-2 years of class voice, etc., may have pleasant voices, even strong and beautiful voices, but they are not trained this way. The singer's formant is a scientifically identified acoustical phenomenon, and a very interesting one as regards this discussion.

Information is easily available on the singer's formant. Here is a good place to start for the curious:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671792/

My point was that there are times when the organist might have to step in and sing. Certainly, we need the training so that we can work with choirs, cantors, etc. One does not necessarily have to be a "star" to cantor-we have all been given voices. Knowing the fundamentals of healthy singing is what is important. My wife is an IU graduate in voice (BM and MM.) She is clearly the most gifted and well-trained cantor I have, although I have several, most of whom are not singers with degrees, but who are studying voice privately. The true test, IMHO, is to understand the difference between being a soloist in the context of a performance and leading worship. She gets it. I have worked with plenty of singers with advanced degrees who are clueless about ministry. It has nothing to do with voice quality, but with attitude. Also, singers need to have good musicianship skills. The most beautiful instrument is not so valuable if the singer cannot read music well.

Organists have their issues, too. I can play advanced literature, but leading worship through creative hymn-playing and improvisation is the first priority. I find too many well-training organists deficient in these areas. They view Sunday as a time to give a mini recital before Mass and then slop through hymns.

Charles, you are right. It is a gift to be an extraordinary singer, organist, or NBA player for that matter. I am not a brilliant singer-I would not presume to start singing arias in public, but I have good skills, understand performance practice and the aesthetics of chant (isn't that what we should be promoting?) and I know why I am there. I'm even requested to sing for funerals on occasion. Fortunately, I have an assistant, so it is extremely rare that I have ever had to sing and play at the same time. That is never a pleasant experience-I feel as if I have run a marathon!
What it boils down to for me is that both organists and singers (who must be trained as choral musicians) are vital. It comes down to each individual situation: who has the most skills to offer: arranging, composing, liturgical knowledge, interpersonal skills etc., in addition to being competent in voice/choral music and organ. Are there mulitiple staff positions?

I also know more than a few primarily trained singers who have worked hard to achieve a level of competence at the keyboard. I know of one such musician who is now at a beautiful cathedral in the Northeast. Unless a church can employ an additional musician, who is going to play for rehearsals or Mass in this situation? To have ONLY unaccompanied music would be less than ideal.

I don't think criticism of a too loud performance should apply to singers alone. Having an organ boom so loud the choir is heard on every third note (or not) is just as unproductive for creating a worshipful atmosphere. The music isn't a cheer leading section but it seems the 'everybody must sing' dictum has created that mind set. Why should a trained singer be denied the ministry of also providing an occasional solo for a meditation break on special feasts? Why should this be considered distracting while it is just fine if an organist showboats his/her way through every hymn and ordinary with improvs and flowery introductions and interludes that take up more time than the sung hymn?
Gavin (And agreeing parties)--you do have the training to expect to lead but you would be surprised how few organists do but still consider themselves the rightful heir to leadership just because they can crank up the volume and mostly avoid hitting wrong notes. Where do you play anyway? It isn't a little run of the mill parish is it?--and that is really the division here I think.
You have a job that fits your qualifications, and apparently is full time and therefore pays adequately. Am I correct? I work with organists who have full time jobs and do the music ministry on the side. Their full time jobs have nothing to do with music and they are less trained than I am in music. I did take conducting along with vocal training and teaching/playing various instruments, theory, sight reading/singing eventhough my degree was for music teaching and not liturgical leadership/performance. The organist I worked with for 19 years and was in charge needed me for teaching choir parts, conducting the choir, arranging hymns from 4 part to 2 or three, and holding up the descant that was sung by myself and his wife who would go flat on her own. The choir only rehearsed for Christmas and Easter week and did special numbers in addition to the hymns. They also sang once a month with no rehearsal and would wander onto the area beside the altar whenever they happened to arrive and wearing whatever (sometimes Bermudas and a T)and in any number from 2-22.
Add to that that we had an epileptic who often had a seizure and I had to catch her, hold her up from falling off the steps and keep singing and conducting and you have a sort of idea of the world I am dealing with. You, Gavin, drive a Cadillac. I have been mostly stuck with old model second hand vehicles. It's no wonder this is an apples and oranges forum. We aren't on the same planet!

I think we should encourage people to use their gifts. I have cantors who are studying voice. They absolutely sing solos on occasion, when appropriate. There are twins in the parish who aspire to study music. They have lots of talent and are now studying with my wife as they prepare for college auditions. They sing together quite often, and will also be preparing solo literature for Mass. They did a most lovely setting of the Ave Maria by Saint-Saens during May. I have a couple of young organ students who play a prelude/postlude or hymn for school or weekday Masses on occasion.

Skatsing-Thanks for your insight. What you do is so important, and unfortunately, is so often unappreciated. I've been in the trenches, too. Yes, I am in full-time ministry now, and while I was at the cathedral level, I did all I could do to be a resource for those in part-time ministry. You guys regularly do Herculean things., so often pressed for time and with little monetary or even moral support. I have great admiration for what you do.

We must always remember why we're here in the first place. When I went to college back in 1987, I wanted to be an organist and the best "gig" to pay the bills would be to work at a church. Some 25 years later, I need to minister. Music just happens to be the vehicle. It's truly a privilege to do what I do, although going through the budget process during these tough economic times is certainly no picnic!

Music Teacher, you're absolutely right. Ministry is not performance, performance is not ministry. I have worked with amateur singers and professional singers. One must remember where they are and check the ego at the door. The most rewarding moments have clearly been working with amateur singers. The product may not be up to the level of the professionals, but the process of getting to the product is so much more special. And there have been many times the amateur singers sang above their ability and came darn close to singing like professionals. Isn't the process just as important as the product in ministry? My wife made the comment that she wishes people in the pews could hear the choir every Thursday night. That is where you really see the improvement. They're a tight-knit group. We hosted a choir party at our home a couple of weeks ago, the first since moving to our new parish back in 2010. It was a wonderful evening.

Charles-I agree that organists need to "reign it in." Supportive and strong playing should never become overbearing. I, too, make no apologies for lots of organ on the last verse. I'm also careful to use reharmonizations that won't "throw off" the congregation. If we fail in these areas, we are a detriment, and not an enhancement to good worship. There is so much great repertoire out there, and I play some bigger works on occasion. I play lots of liturgically-based stuff. I have been on a Gerald Near kick these days and have been playing lots of his chant-based stuff. I played the Acclamations from the Medievale Suite of Langlais for Corpus Christi. I have also become a big fan of Benoit's music. His elevations are gorgeous. His Veni Creator is pretty cool, too, and I played that for Pentecost. On occasion, I'll play a work of Vierne, Widor, Bach, etc. as well as the French Classical literature. I also improvise quite a bit after the communion antiphon or hymn. Service playing gets first priority, however.

MCW, I was taught by a teacher who told me, "I can teach anyone to sing." Let me tell you, if she could do it for me, she can do it for anyone! Training IS required, but (most) everyone has the gifts - they just need to know how to use them! I will not be dissuaded on this point, as this is the difference between a church which cares about music, and one where music (and thus the liturgy) is an afterthought.

For my choir, I've stopped saying "If you enjoy singing, come join," and started saying "If you can follow directions and make a time commitment, come join." I got five new members in one year, and they've all learned from the bottom-up how to sing.

To go back to the original question, I wonder if it is misleading. For me the question is not so much organist vs. singer; it is conductor vs. non-conductor. As many of us know, after all of our effort learning solo repertoire (for voice or organ), as music directors we end up spending most of our performance time in front of choirs. You need to be a good conductor, and you need to know how choirs work, issues of tuning, vowel unification, and so forth. Conducting is its own art - you are not a conductor of choirs just because you are an excellent singer, any more than you are a conductor of symphony orchestras because you are a world-class violinist.

Conducting is about crystal clear non-verbal communication to the end of leading an ensemble with confidence through gestures. It doesn't matter what instrument you master - you will also need to spend time mastering the technique of conducting.

As a general rule, I find that organists have a better ability to deal with open score than vocalist - managing and refining complex polyphonic textures. Just due to the constant practice of doing this with their own instrument. My conducting professor has seconded this opinion (again, just as a general rule), that pianists and organists do better than vocalists as choir conductors. But this is not meant to knock vocalists - they are just as able to be excellent conductors as anyone else. The organist or pianist just has a 'head start' with the complex listening/score reading part.

I do get suspicious of any vocalist who claims that they are inherently more qualified to conduct because of their specialty. Working with your own voice and with students' individual voices is different than refining ensemble sound. And there is still the huge issue of physical conducting technique, as explained above.

Finally, just on a practical level most positions have, say, 4 weekend masses. One of these is a choir mass, and the others must be led by an organist. So while ideally you will have a good conductor and a good accompanist, just practically speaking if you have to hire just one person it will have to be the organist.

If you have a big enough congregation for four weekend Masses you have enough money to hire an organist and a choir director. If your finance committee says you don't, then your parish has it's priorities out of order.

Wendi, bingo. People hiring musicians should have proper priorities. Take the large parish or cathedral with ten full time security guards and a janitorial team and yet they dump big expectations on one musician. Ridiculous.

I was fascinated by the Masses I observed in Europe (Italy, Spain, France), where many Liturgies I attended (at least on weekdays) had unaccompanied music.

One that particularly stands out in my memory was in Ars, the little French country-town parish of St. John Vianney, where a skillful but not flashy female cantor gracefully led the congregation (both with her voice and some simple conducting) in unaccompanied French hymns and some simply chanted parts of the Mass. I think she may have done it without a microphone, too (although I can't remember for sure). The people really sang -- I remember hearing harmonies from the congregation on the most beautiful "Our Father" I've ever heard. All the voices ringing out in the splendid natural acoustic of the edifice made for a simple yet glorious Liturgy!

Claire, you jogged my memory with your example in France.
As I recall, Andres Gouzes' little collections (Mass of the Samaritan Woman) were culminations of actual SATB congregational singing in whatever tiny parish in which he ministered sans organ(ist.) Thinking about it further, how ironic is it that France's recent musical heritage includes such examples including those of Berthier, Gelineau and Deiss (Belgium's close enough!) while the country itself becomes more secularized daily.

I beg to disagree about empty masses in Paris. Last year I was in St. Sulpice, Notre Dame and Ste. Clotilde for Sunday masses. They were full. In addition I went to a mass in a parish where my wife is from (Northern France) on a Sunday during Easter and it was fairly well attended. Reports of the demise of Catholic life in France are not completely accurate.
And yes, the organ recitals were very full. Contrary to the US.

Thank you kirchenmusik for your comments. This thread has bothered me from the start because of the supposed dichotomy between organists and singers. Yes, there are organists who have no clue how to play the liturgy (only perform repertory)and singers who sing above the congregation. But as for me and many others, we are church musicians first, trained in many facets of the work and seek to integrate the music into the ritual so as to engender prayer.

"La musique d'orgue d'ou Dieu est absent est un corps sans ame."
-Music of the organ without God is like a body without a soul.- Charles Tournemire. From the unfinished book "The high mission of the Church organist." 1935

Kevin, I truly wish there was someone like you in every parish. Sadly, there are more than a few organists with barely concealed disdain for vocal musicians.

I can't be sure but I suspect that being on the receiving end of such an attitude is what sparked the original question.

I can see that. I can also understand the OP as I have met such disdainful organists. Of course I am also privileged to know some wonderful ones.

I must say though...I don't quite get the competition thing. The best Choral programs I have participated in were marked by the respect the various musicians had for one another and the attitude that we were working together to produce beautiful music.

As have I, along with opera divas who want to perform rather than pray what they are singing. They drive me nuts too. Especially if the performance is so over the top that you can't even understand the words.

I think though, that mutual respect and a certain lack of ego are essential elements of any musician doing well in a church choral program. Which I think would be helped immensely if pastors and finance committees would properly fund the music in the first place.

Dear Wendi, Money does not fix everything. While you are right to ask for proper funding, its about more than money. Its about the right disposition and leadership, a desire for good prayer and a wish for the liturgy to be the "summit and source of our common life." Its about "fides quaes intellectum."

Gavin,

My wife is ALWAYS expressing that ANYONE can sing. Physical features certainly impact the color of one's voice. The key to achieving any level of success is by learning how to sing healthfully and learning to do the most with your instrument. My wife studied with a very famous opera singer who almost ruined her and many of her classmates because she wanted her students to all sound like her. That's just impossible. We all have different instruments.

Some singers have more naturally beautiful instruments than others, but again, it's what you do with it- how one approaches placement, diction, musical gesture, etc. There are plenty of great technicians out there who are very forgetable. There is that magic combination of color, placement, musical skill, work ethic, personality that create the truly special singer. It's also pretty subjective. However, just because someone isn't a "star" certainly doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't sing. We, as Catholic Christians, are called to sing a new song unto the Lord, to sing joyfully, to enter his courts singing praise. All of us, not just some.

In my opinion, the truly special cantor almost "disappears", even when carrying out the role of soloist. They become a vehicle, a vessel, for the proclamation of the Word. This requires quite the opposite of how most singers are trained. Performance is exactly what you DON'T want. What is needed is a true understanding of service, not to mention a wonderful sense of line, careful diction, and a presence that engages. Of course, good intonation and correct pitches are also helpful! Some of the most effective cantors I have worked with are those who do not have degrees in voice. Yes, they have had vocal training, but they feel a calling to ministry and learn the requisite skills to carry out that ministry.

I see a bigger problem these days, and that is we are living in the age of American Idol. Now everyone feels entitled to be a star because they can simply open their mouth and make a pleasant sound (at least in the opinion of some.) What truly separates a good singer from a phenomenal singer is LOTS OF WORK to cultivate their art. You need to give yourself completely over to that art. It takes a lot of sacrifice and years of study. Ask anyone who has pursued a career in opera. Now, unfortunately, there is becoming less and less of desire to work at cultivating the art of singing at all, particularly among young people. So we now have both extremes-those professional singers who look down at those who are not professional singers, and the many out there who have no clue about what they don't know about singing. And, what's worse is that they don't seem to care.

Thank you all and I hope you don't mind my dropping out even tho I 'started' this. I have tried to make the reason for my question clear--that the fact that you play organ rather than sing does not automatically make you better qualified to lead so why has the RC church taken that stance when church music did not start with mechanical instruments but with the voice. In fact if I recall my Grove, instruments were considered evil initially, and inappropriate for worship. I also suppose the reason behind chant which to me places the words above the music (I know good chant isn't a separation of that but a perfect blend--let's not try to make me wrong when that isn't the point) but a vehicle to make it possible for the priest to be heard and understood in these huge cathedrals when all they had were their own voices and shouting just wouldn't cut it.
That's my supposition and last word for me. Again, thank you all. It has been an education.
PS Mary Ann and Wendi--great support. Special personal thanks. I am happy not to be alone.

Kevin you are very right. Money does not solve everything. Having said that, it might help, and doesn't hurt. Attitude is very important. But some things do have to be learned and it really isn't fair to anyone including the organist if they are expected to be jack of all trades and they really don't possess the skill set to do it. Having enough in the budget to hire people with the skills needed is a much better idea in the long run I think.

Redsox, I have a dear friend who is the type of cantor that disappears. She's a coloratura with the most glorious voice. But she's got a servant's heart in relation to music in the church...well in everything really but that's another conversation. To give an example of what I mean...

I once heard her sing the Bach-Gounod Ave Maria for the feast of the Assumption and she prayed it. It remains the most beautiful thing I have ever heard in my life. It was so beautiful and so completely unexpected that the congregation burst into spontaneous applause (during Mass).

My friend was so mortified that she never sang it with her whole heart again. Well I take that back...she did one other time. For my oldest daughter's wedding. When I asked her to sing it I told her I wanted her to pray it. So she did. And I cried...just like the first time.

So this is a woman who could rightly have an ego the size of Texas. But she knows her place in the Mass. THAT is the kind of cantor the church needs. That is also the kind of organist and choir director that the church needs.

I think that if we can encourage parishes to work towards that goal...excellent organists and excellent cantors and excellent choir directors, with a servant's heart and the proper skill set, (Whether that is one person or three) then there will be a true realization of sacred music in the American church.

I also think I should not post this close to bedtime...it gets a little rambling...

"Noel, do you sing? Your comments do not betray a good working knowledge of the vocal mechanism. "

Boy, does this remind me of my ex-mother-in-law.

Does a male ob doc have to have a baby to be able to deliver one?

No one here has said a word about telling people that they cannot and should not sing. IF anyone feels that they need to put words in my mouth, let's try and make them nice words.

I worked in a Baptist church as interim organist where the pastor and his wife formed a praise group of people who were not singers....as a group they were fine but they would pull people out to sing solos who could not sing in tune, stay with the beat and do anything but embarrass their families and the congregation.

But you are right, Gavin. Anyone can sing.

Everyone has mouth. Does it also square to mean some people just shouldn't talk?

Mmmmmmmmmmm