* When do you just give up?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    It seems nearly every day (sometimes more often) is a post, usually from a newbie, sometimes not, like:

    I'm so glad to have found this forum, the CMAA, and the Colloquium! I love chant and polyphony, but the pastor, choir, and all the school staff wants bongos during communion and "Awesome God" for the psalm, and chained the organ console shut. How do I switch to the Graduale Romanum and Palestrina ordinaries?

    Usually this is met with a chorus of "brick by brick", "baby steps", or other comments, which I frankly find to be unhelpful platitudes. Or perhaps a "moderate" route is suggested, where the musician is encouraged to use either "less offensive" music or familiar, tired hymns. Note the absence of the propers.

    I think we've all been in the hypothetical poster's situation. So my question is, at what point do you throw your hands up and say, "I'm not going to do any good staying here!" and just find employment elsewhere? I know people with families to support need to do so and some people are less mobile than others. But why not look for work elsewhere? Or at least if you NEED the job, just stop making waves and keep your mouth shut.

    Every time I see one of these posts, I just want to say, "It's hopeless, you're only hurting yourself, go somewhere else." But I don't want to be discouraging, so I just keep my mouth shut. But isn't it sometimes hopeless? Or at least change is more trouble than it's worth?

    Or am I just being pessimistic?

    I'm not talking about "I'm quitting because the priest asked me to do Mass VIII!!" And I know that every job has its trials and downsides. I'm talking about a church with total static inertia, where decent music and musical talent are treated as evils to be feared rather than gifts to be celebrated. That seems to be the place a lot of people are posting from, and I continuously wonder: why do you place yourself in that situation willingly?
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    I can understand the frustration from "brick by brick" platitudes, but when I hear someone with difficulty in their parish, I am inclined to hedge my bets so to speak because I only have his side of the story and without knowing more, I can't really prudently recommend pulling up stakes or charging like a bull into the rectory with a list of demands. On the other hand, I have no problem telling people I am totally on board with St. Chrysostom and that sentimental music (i.e. virtually everything from the Haugen/Haas/Shutte ouvre) is poisonous to the soul.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    I think the wrong question to ask is whether I could be happier in the same position somewhere else. The grass is always greener--and it really isn't. Frustration will be waiting in the next parish. It's that kind of gig, and that kind of historical time in the Church.

    A more productive question is, is this parish music program better off because I'm here? And if it is, stop stressing out (as much as possible) and keep doing your best.

    Thanked by 3E_A_Fulhorst francis Gavin
  • TCJ
    Posts: 966
    I've done just what you mentioned, Gavin. I had one job with a great pastor... and he got transferred after one year. Next pastor was your typical new-wave music style pastor and I just gave up and looked for work elsewhere. Next job... ended up being the same thing, and I moved elsewhere again. The problem that I find with hopping around is that most churches have pastors that move about frequently (at least around here) and that a good situation changes into a bad one in the blink of an eye. There's no perfect job that can't come crashing down in an instant. So... do you keep resigning one place and look for something better?
    Thanked by 2francis Gavin
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    This doesn't seem to appear (at least but rarely) in the Catholic Church. It would be nice, though, if it did, and that bishops would consider this in making appointments. Namely, that in the Anglican world there are parishes which have traditionally outstanding liturgy and music, perhaps for generations, and these are so much a part of the parish spiritual fabric that no new priest could or would be permitted to change it. It would be a step in the right direction if such simple pastoral respect (and obligation) were to find a home in the Catholic Church. One thinks of such stellar places as Washington's St Paul's, K Street, or St Thomas', New York, but there are countless less famed cathedrals and parishes whose music and liturgy are beyond harmful touch by the callous whims of an unsympathetic new pastor.

    One might well question the truly pastoral concerns of the sort of priests mentioned in this conversation. How often are 'pastoral concerns' invoked in imposing a pastor's predilictions in a most un-pastoral and impolite manner! Certainly, the spiritual lives of 'the people' are not served by them being jerked this way and that every time a new and culturally illiterate priest takes the reigns. And, bishops who are genuine shepherds should, likewise, take these things into serious consideration. They should very well be mindful of the value that VII placed on the Church's musical 'treasure' and expect their priests to do likewise with enthusiasm. (That this enthusiasm is not bred into them at seminary is a gross misfortune for which the Church pays dearly.)

    More to the immediate point of Gavin's topic: I think it does little good to remain in a bad situation for an undue length of time. When one, after rational consideration, realises that the priests and people of these parishes not only couldn't care less but are actually hostile to the VII's 'treasure', one should, for one's own sanity and spiritual well-being and growth, shake the dust off one's feet and search for more fertile ground.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen JL
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    Has anyone ever thought what our world(s) would be like if we were treated like priests?

    Music Directors take an oath of loyalty to the Bishop.
    The Bishop appoints the Director (DM1) to Parish X.
    DM1 has job security (pastor can't touch him).
    DM1 fixes things, gets comfortable in his/her job....
    Then the Bishop (or more likely some committee) sees DM1 has tons of potential and appoints him/her to Parish Y where DM7 has really messed things up. DM7 is appointed to be Music Director of a nursing home and quits, disavowing his/her oath.
    DM1 has a really hard time cleaning up DM7's mess, but finally does.
    Then the committee sees how great DM1 has done fixing Parish Y and decides to send DM1 to Parish W where things are really bad.
    DM1 has a breakdown and goes on sabbatical.
    DM1 returns and is sent to be Associate Organist at Parish G because everyone's pretty concerned about DM1's stability.
    Thanked by 9chonak Kathy Gavin Cantate E_A_Fulhorst CHGiffen Jenny Ally noel jones, aago
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Good point!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Kathy has a most substantive answer, reflecting my thought process. There's two very interesting parts to her response:

    "The grass is always greener--and it really isn't."

    I think I made clear that I understand that. I just started a job where I have minimal responsibility, great music to play, a very talented choir to accompany, etc. But I have my complaints (which I won't air here). As I said above, I'm not talking about "the priest wants me to do Missa de Angelis", or "my countertenors have too much vibrato" or other ecclesial equivalents to the "First world problems".

    I'm talking about going into work and being ordered to do something you think is downright wrong (I would place songs in place of the responsorial psalm in this category). Or being hated or abused by the powers that be just because you accompanied one song on the organ. Would that this were all hyperbole!

    Yes, the grass is always greener, but it must REALLY look green when you're standing in a field of mud.


    "A more productive question is, is this parish music program better off because I'm here?"

    That's a great way to look at it. But I think there are still situations where even a talented musician does NOT improve the program. Say you accompanied a lovely rendition of Schubert's Ave Maria at Offertory one Sunday, sandwiched between three folk hymns. Well, the propers were ignored, and the congregation's impression of sacred music remains that it's entertainment. Have you really made the program better off in any substantial sense?

    If you want to take "better off" to just mean increasing the quality of the performance or the repertoire, there's another organization you can join. They do good work in that area, and that's NOT an insubstantial goal. Most everyone here DOES increase substantially the quality of performance and repertoire at their parishes. But if the paradigm of the parish is one antithetical to the liturgical concept of the Roman Rite... well, sorry, but you're NOT doing much good there, on balance. Which is emphatically not to condemn anyone's work, but simply to point out that there are objective standards for how closely a liturgy reflects the "mind of the Church".


    I probably sound pretty depressed in this thread... actually, my work is very intense (I have three 1/4 time jobs and a full time graduate course load), but rewarding and enjoyable. But I do despair of so many threads where it seems fine musicians are simply wasting their time and talent to no tangible end.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    But I do despair of so many threads where it seems fine musicians are simply wasting their time and talent to no tangible end.

    Let me gripe in your thread if you don't mind. I would add that there are many fine musicians in a given congregation who won't join the choir precisely because it mostly programs fluffy junk. So you will get the usual, "Ok, we have to sing 'Here in this Place' for the procession. The usual kid's campfire melodies for the Gloria and the psalm. Then it is "Here I Am" for the communion. But then, but then, after we have paid our dues, we get to do Ave Verum Corpus!" But of course in most cases you have one or two fine musicians and a bunch of croakers, so it doesn't sound very good. Thus, the status quo is maintained.

    Joining the choir isn't just a time commitment. It usually means worship separate from you family. That's a big sacrifice that many fine musicians are willing to make, but not if one is forced to sing 8 pieces of sentimentalist bilge-water just to get to the one piece that is actually worthy of the setting. In other words, most parishes are sitting on a gold mine of talent, but can't bring it bear for a whole host of excuses, but today I'll just label it all democracy.

    I've seen one victory. In a former parish we formed a schola as a side project not under the oversight of the parish. We sang plainchant, we sang the good stuff. We attracted great musicians from the college. Then, when the parish's regular choir wasn't in session, we offered to provide the music for masses. We had some parishioners in tears of joy, the quality improvement was palpable, and instead of mumbling through the usual slag-pile, the congregation sang out with us. Through some serendipitous circumstances, there was some job shifting and retirements and the schola became the official choir. So it is possible.

    P.S. I was just spitballing with Ave Verum Corpus. I'm sure someone could say that there are simpler pieces that are just as good, that it is not really programmable because etc, etc, etc. Please don't cavil.
    Thanked by 2E_A_Fulhorst noel jones, aago
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    See, that's the key, in my opinion. Staying in one place, over time, the program becomes less about the drek that is sung on any given Sunday, and more about the development of the remarkable untapped talent among the PIPs.
    Thanked by 3E_A_Fulhorst Charles in CenCA noel jones, aago
  • SamuelDorlaque
    Posts: 318
    In the most successful of situations there is a true partnership between the pastor and the DM. Both need to be able to talk honestly about problems, goals, etc. My pastor
    teased a colleague once that he (my pastor) and I were not only reading the same book,
    but were frequently on the same paragraph! Even with this level of cooperation, things
    don't happen automatically. It takes high-level communication to accomplish agreed-
    upon goals- not just communication between the Pastor & DM, but more importantly
    between them and the people of the parish. If I can offer any advice that is worthwhile,
    it is to work with the children, getting their parents to solidly support the program.
    Children are born with "good taste" and revel in it until we adults teach them otherwise.
    Get them singing quality music well at a young age and then encourage and nourish
    them and watch them teach the adults! If you get discouraged, find a quiet place, say
    a prayer, put on music of your favorite composer and pour a glass of your favorite port- or your preference- and concentrate on nothing but the music. I wish you all the
    best!
    Thanked by 1Claire H
  • Claire H
    Posts: 368
    SamuelDorlauque is right...I find that in my situation, even thought it seems like there are sometimes a blow of obstacles/opposition from members of the congregation, the fact that I work under a humble, prayerful, supportive pastor is a big plus. We can share the vision and understanding, and I don't feel entirely alone. :)
    Thanked by 2Gavin noel jones, aago
  • lmassery
    Posts: 405
    If any of you with more experience see a newbie explain a situation that to you seems hopeless for even the most experienced and thick-skinned musician, let them know. Otherwise, they may get discouraged that they can't fight the fight the way so many of you admirable musicians are doing.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I second what Claire H says regarding having a good boss... it helps a lot if you're both in the same boat.
  • teachermom24
    Posts: 327
    I have contemplated this question quite often. My easy answer is, when you're fired. More difficult answer, when the pastor is leading the congregation astray and you are required to be an accomplice and you cannot in good conscience remain.

    Kathy
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    But, isn't the determined and willfull practice of poor music and litrugical usage leading the congregation astray? Seeking better ground in which to sow one's seed is not 'giving up': it is wisdom. Also, if 'conscience' isn't involved in the sort of music one is willing to perform, it should be!
    Thanked by 3Gavin CHGiffen [Deleted User]
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    But, isn't the determined and willfull practice of poor music and litrugical (sic) usage leading the congregation astray? Seeking better ground in which to sow one's seed is not 'giving up': it is wisdom. Also, if 'conscience' isn't involved in the sort of music one is willing to perform, it should be!

    Three honest questions, not just for MJO-
    *To whom shall we go to ultimately determine what constitutes "poor music and liturgical usage?"
    *Where is "astray" and what does that mean for each soul led there?
    *Whose conscience(s) should be part of the deliberation of self-assessment?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    1) To whom should we go? First and last, we all know that Jesus is the one 'to whom should we go'. In concert with him I could suggest that, to start with, comparison to what an earnest person would know very well what was meant by Vatican II's emphatic endorsement and command regarding that 'treasure' of the Church's which was 'greater than any other' would be a very good place to go.
    2) Astray is off the path of musical and liturgical praxis suggested and legislated by the Church, and (as logically follows) departing from that which emphasises the uniquely sacral, holy, nature of the eucharistic act. Again, comparison to what the Church in Council was apparently referring to by the use of the words 'treasure greater than any other' is a good place to start.
    3) One's own conscience should most certainly be a key factor as 'part of the deliberation...'. We are not required to disobey our consciences. Doing so is not even recommended. A requirement that one do so is tantamount to being not just 'led astray', but dragged astray under duress. Such a requirement is, further, an act of deep and calculated disrespect and contempt, not to mention loveless.
    Again: searching for better soil is not 'giving up': it is wise.
    However: if one can see genuine progress and, with a reasonable expectation of a good harvest, feels called to see it through, then one should do just that.
    Thanked by 2Charles in CenCA CHGiffen
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    *To whom shall we go to ultimately determine what constitutes "poor music and liturgical usage?"
    *Whose conscience(s) should be part of the deliberation of self-assessment?

    These both rest on the individual musician. Outside of certain pastoral circumstances, I consider willfully playing many particular songs (I shall not name them) in a liturgical context to be an immoral act on my part. That, by doing so, I am performing a very small but still evil act. "Sin"? Maybe not, but I still think it is wrong for me to do.

    Other musicians may find that song "good enough", "not worth the fight", or even acceptable. And I encourage them to only be bounded by their own consciences. But to be in a position where I am required to willfully cooperate with the imposition of inferior and inappropriate music upon the liturgy is damaging to the soul. For that matter, I'm always amused by the voices screaming about this or that song being "heretical" - and we all know these same voices will on Sunday be singing those same songs into a microphone while playing!!

    I say, act in accord only with your OWN conscience, properly formed, and not someone else's. But, at the same time, don't IGNORE your own conscience because "well at least I play hymns better than the other guy!"
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "However: if one can see genuine progress and, with a reasonable expectation of a good harvest, feels called to see it through, then one should do just that."

    I think Jackson has it right here. What I've been getting at is "reasonable expectation of a good harvest." We have many people here in bad situations who can expect such a fruitful harvest. The signs are all around, when chant scholas are formed, when choirs voice-build while gaining better repertoire, when the propers are regularly employed.
    Thanked by 2Kathy CHGiffen
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Gavin, I was DoM in a situation like you mentioned in your post.

    In response to a small group of (just happened to be) boomers, the pastor told me, "no Latin, no chant". This ruled out even English (or any vernacular) plainsong.

    I sent a detailed, respectful letter with document quotes about why I felt I was called to implement sacred music as DoM in a Catholic parish. No response. After a few weeks I gently reminded him that he offered me a job because he heard my small Latin choir and loved the sound. No change in his ultimatum. I waited...

    ...and went along with it for a very long choral year before coming to the conclusion that God couldn't use me much there and that he wanted me somewhere else. I resigned my post on good terms, and I still maintain contact with that parish, and occasionally sub as cantor.

    Five months after I quit, I was offered a job as DoM of a FSSP parish- for more hours, more responsibility, and quadruple the salary I had earned at the previous (and more wealthy) parish.

    Sometimes I think it really is best to stay and brave the tide of revolving pastors, etc. One can often make gradual and important changes. In my case, I have no doubt that resigning was the best choice.
    Thanked by 4teachermom24 Kathy Gavin E_A_Fulhorst
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    MCW, what a great comment!

    Would I be concluding correctly that your advice in such situations is, "stick with it, and jump on whatever comes along next"?

    I think you've laid out a very common-sense approach here, and told an inspirational take.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    When your cardiologist tells you to decrease your stress levels. ;)
    Thanked by 3Gavin Salieri E_A_Fulhorst
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    However, I have always been glad that I don't like the taste of alcohol. :-)
    Thanked by 3Andrew Motyka E_A_Fulhorst [Deleted User]
Add a Comment