****Disclaimer**** my keyboard is giving me trouble and the mis-spellings in the above most are not conscious, ignorant mistakes, but rather the keyboard coupled with a very passionate view.

musicteacher and marajoy said:

That's rather arrogant (and quite poor logic) to assume that just because someone doesn't share your values of the RotR, and prefers music written in their lifetime and likes being up front and singing solos, etc, means they cannot even be called a musician.

Also, I agree that the above post is a big arrogant in assuming that, because someone likes to sing solos or sing newer repertoires, that they no nothing of church teachings, or the essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. While I am 100% onboard with sacred music and have little tolerance for guitar masses, it's unjust to not recognize talent and not call them musicians.

I did not say what you both are saying. YOU are making the non sequitur and implying musicianship, not I. YOU are saying that a person who sings contemporary music is not a musican. I did not.

I simply asked questions that make you reflect on the priorities of those who are involved in sacred music programs. I have had numerous soloists (usually opera singers) who were not there to aid the liturgy in sacred music, but were out to be heard and be seen. One of them told me last year that they were 'up there to get more real estate business'.

I am not speaking about musicianship as much as having the proper disposition for being and participating in a program of sacred music. My comments also have nothing to do with the RotR as much as they give gravity to the tennents of those who ARE musicians of sacred music. Not every musician is cut out to be a church musician.

This is an old battle that continues on and on, and one that Popes have addressed very clearly in their Motus, letters and encyclicals (See: The Papal Legislation On Sacred Music)... and why many times we have theatre performers instead of worshipers.

Francis: You said -

And people masquarading as musicians and clerics willing to give them the job.

Then Wendi said

And just exactly how does one determine if a person is masquerading or not?

THEN you listed a bunch of qualifications, clearly in response to the question of how to determine if someone is "masquarading as a musician"...

Are they an organist/choirmaster? Do they promote GC, polyphony and the use of organ? Do they understand the essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Do they live the faith and receive/promote the sacraments? Are they faithful to the magesterium (the truths, documents and dogmas of the Church?

Do they prefer to be up front on the altar? Do they often prefer to sing solos? Is the bulk of their repertoire composed after 1960 or before?

That's not a "non sequitur." That's a very narrow-minded view of what qualifies as a "musician." The vast majority of "musicians" don't even participate in music within a church, so how can this possibly be how you determine what a "musician" is, or who would "masquerade" as one?

I think perhaps you meant originally "people masquerading as liturgicaly-solid musicians..." or something like that

In fact, weddings are an industry. I don't do them, because they get on my nerves and I don't need the money. However, many of our local symphony musicians supplement their small incomes by playing for weddings. Same with singers. Don't let anyone kid you, the priests make money on weddings, too. Often these instrumentalists and singers are not Catholic, and don't know beans about sacred liturgy. And really, why should they? They show up and perform, as they are paid to do. Musicians don't show up in their moth-eaten habits, with bruises on their hands from clutching rosaries too tightly, and with holy lights encircling their heads. This is an industry, folks. Get real!

Dittos from Left Coast Charles to my Byzantine sage. I prefer not to do them or funerals unless there's a compelling, almost personal reason to (forgive ending preposition.)
Let me illustrate what CDub is laying out: We have some dear colleagues in the local symphony. She, Concert Master He- second chair Cellist. She, Professor of Applied Violin, state university at less than $40K per annum; He, same at private university nearby @ around $30K. Combined (with DMA's) just a little above someone liturgical I know. They commute to at least five regular symphonies between the SF Bay Area to Bakersfield every season, also have a chamber ensemble gig, have studios beyond the college, and still pay bills month to month. They're boomers, like Cdub and me. I'd rather have their chamber group accompany weddings at our places than any of the so-called liturgical professionals and scheissters who trumpet their resumes to our wedding coordinator, or for that matter, a purist liturgical musician who insists that everyone must sing the Entrance "chant" because of VII FCAP, or have a wedding schola chant every proper and do Orbis Factor at all weddings, large or small. Yes, indeed, get real.

"...masquerading as a musician...."

Even worse, priests who masquerade as "pastors and musicians." Especially if they have short-man syndrome.

I'd rather not spend any time in front of a microphone.

Thank you, cgz, for also not wanting mics in church. I loathe them and would like to take what I have and throw them out the window. Unfortunately, the voices in my choir are barely audible as it is and I find it necessary. My cantors, however, refuse to use them and nobody has complained that they cannot hear the cantor.

Chris--your question is the million dollar one. If you find an answer, please forward it on!

CGZ, I think you're absolutely right about starting with the Communion hymn(s). Since that is the focus of Mass, that is where one should start when selecting music, and then you can link the rest of the hymns to the Communion hymn in some way, shape or form. Liturgical season must also be taken into account, as well as any major holy day, but you have a very solid foundation for selecting music for any service.

Sticking with the subject of this thread, I believe that you get what you pay for. When contemplating why church musicians should be paid, I think that the above adage says it all: "you get what you pay for." Right now, there is a trend (and has been for many years as I understand) of the church not wanting to pay for music: there have been too many others willing to do the job for little to nothing (not doing a terribly great job at it, either, although some have done wondrous things working for peanuts) that the church believes it can be done for little to nothing and is not comfortable paying its musicians a decent wage any longer. It's like in schools when the music teacher is part time for a few years and does a terrific job in spite of not being paid much. The school will expect that person to remain part time, because it saves money and hey, you've just shown that it doesn't take a full time, well-paid person to do this job, right? Not only that, but the school will also expect the person who comes after the part-time teacher to do the same thing, for the same price. The bottom line here is that you don't get the highly-qualified, highly-trained individuals applying and competing for church jobs because they don't pay. The investment in terms of time, money, and personal sacrifice that it takes to become a stellar musician worth a professional salary is not worth the offers that one is likely to get from a church, except in rare circumstances. You can't attract the best, unless you are paying the best. I must admit that I consider myself barely qualified to perform my role as director of music ministry, due to my novice performance skills when it comes to keyboard accompaniment for Mass. I am a professional music teacher, at a Catholic school, so I know the liturgy pretty well, and I know how to run a music program, but I am not a trained organist nor pianist, so I feel that my low, part-time salary is worth what they are paying for, at least for now: one must always be learning!