Nothing offensive there!

Ideally, DOMs need at least enough knowledge of singing to teach the basics of breathing, placement, diction, etc., and diagnose and fix basic problems in these areas. I am one of those organist-conductors you mention, but I received just enough instruction in graduate school and in private voice lessons for myself so that I can teach the basics of healthy vocal production to singers in a volunteer church choir (I also live with a professional singer and a Ward-certified elementary music teacher, so that helps too!). As a professional accompanist outside of church, I can also coach professional singers, but I am not qualified to give anyone private voice lessons, nor am I anywhere near being a professional solo vocalist. I'm very grateful for the education I have had because I see many other organists who end up being DOMs almost by accident, and they are stuck with directing a church choir knowing nothing about the voice.

(Personally, I would prefer a situation where I was the accompanist and assistant conductor, and the primary director was a choral expert with a much more developed singing voice. But there's no money for that, so I have to do it all, like many others here.)

Conducting from the organ is not only possible but a necessary centuries-old skill. It takes some practice. It is possible -- with head-nods, facial expressions, and when possible, one or both hands -- to indicate tempo, entrances, cut-offs, etc., while playing organ accompaniment; it often means leaving out or modifying portions of the accompaniment to free up your hand(s).

Vocal technique is as much a concern with chant choirs as it is for any other choir.

Having an audition-only or even completely professional choir does mitigate but not eliminate the need for a director who knows about the voice. I used to accompany an all-professional choir which ended up sounding just like a bunch of soloists because they received very little direction in vocal style from the director (and most of them would have resented getting that anyway). In fact, the Renaissance polyphony in their repertoire often sounded cacophonous.

Use the search function to see many discussions about bringing chant settings to entrenched mediocre programs...you'll find quite a bit.

Be grateful they hired an organist. In many places, mediocre guitarists are always willing to work for free.

Adam, too true. I didn't know how to word that. :)

All this talk about mediocrity and pretending is not helpful to those of us who are trying damned hard to contribute decent music with the limited resources we have.

All this talk about mediocrity and pretending is not helpful to those of us who are trying damned hard to contribute decent music with the limited resources we have

But it DOES answer the original poster's question.

I hop on and off the bench multiple times during a Mass, because a choir needs no organ to accompany them---it should only serve as decoration. Chant too, as unison music, does not normally need accompaniment. I find little to no use for the many anthems with accompaniment when there are plenty of a capella propers to be sung.

I assume "arm-flapping" was a reference to my reductio ad absurdam church musician job descriptors:
arm-flappers (people who conduct)
button-pushers (people who play the organ)
song-pickers (people who select repertoire)

I was half-joking at the time- but it is helpful to stop and ask what someone with an ambiguous or inaccurate title is ACTUALLY doing. (Should the person who selects repertoire be called "the organist"? Should someone who directs the choir but doesn't have any direct input on the music choices be called "the director?")

It also is helpful for being incredibly clear about what a parish needs in a potential employee or volunteer. Someone who is good at song-picking and arm-flapping might could job-out the button-pushing, for example. Obviously, the best situation is to be skilled in all three- but, these jobs do not HAVE to be done all by the same person.

But... but... CharlesW, it's not all about you and what you find tedious. Or is it? :)
Oh, and I don't remember the Divine Liturgy being accompanied, and who would think to assert that people get sick of hearing the singers (incl congregation) in that context?

No, but it isn't about you, either, or your considerable singing talent. Eastern liturgies follow their own set of traditions and are culturally different. We are following a western model re-introduced largely by Pius X after it had fallen out of use for at least 200-300 years. Liturgies in the west have been accompanied for around 1,000 years, although some purists today have substituted their own preferences for that. There is little in the way of verifiable historic records of unaccompanied liturgy in the Western Church. If anything, it was accompanied more and with a wider variety of instruments in the past - serpents, anyone? There is room for both, I think - both accompanied and unaccompanied. Again, moderation is the key.

I know where the point is when my congregation is getting weary of chant. Being aware of that is what allows me to do chant in the first place. If I ignored it, I perhaps would not be allowed to do chant, at all.

On a related matter, I'm not convinced that shooting the purists would be such a bad idea. I know I have often wanted to do that in the organ world. ;-)

Yes, Adam, it was boring - and still is. It's a different culture with different expectations.

Exactly, Adam. The charge of "boring" and turning the sung parts of mass into a performance vehicle or being overly concerned with everyone's likes and dislikes is kinda a huge part of why we're in this mess. It's why we have Polka masses and mariachi masses and life teen bands.
Our "cultural expectations" need to be more like our Eastern brothers and sisters. The Mass is about worshipping God.

I agree the Mass is about worshipping God. It is also about remaining employed. The day is gone, except in EF circles, where the congregation's wishes can be entirely ignored. I could leave tomorrow, if I chose. I don't need the money anymore. But what would follow me? I stay because of friends and others who would not like the previous administration returning - does anyone remember "Gather Us In?"

When I use the term, "purist," I am usually referring to someone who goes off the deep end on a particular theory or practice of music. The organ world is full of them. I have learned the chant world has them, too. I would not say I am culturally expressive, but being culturally aware is a good survival tool to have these days. It's a far different world than it was in the days of Pius X.

I assume "arm-flapping" was a reference to my reductio ad absurdam church musician job descriptors

It was and it is far too good not to be used whenever opportunity presents .

I can't speak for all circumstances but as far as I know that's just the way it has been since organs and choirs first came together. The job title was typically "Organist and Choirmaster" and you had to be able to do both since very few places had the money or interest to provide for a dedicated body in each role.

The widespread double- triple-tasking of church employees is deeply troubling to me. It is also troubling that parishes/priests expect a majority of liturgical positions to be filled by poorly - and even completely un-trained, volunteers (lectors, EMoHC, musicians, etc). Not only is it astounding to me how little care seems to be taken in properly forming people to fill these roles, it saddens me that priests and liturgical directors are so scared of losing volunteer ministers that they allow faaaaar too much leniency and tolerance for liturgical abuses...

Ok, getting kinda OT, so I'll stop there. My apologies.

Having worked in Protestant churches, and now in a Catholic Church, I can note some differences between the two. The parish is large enough to have adequate staff. It doesn't. At most, there have been a couple of people in the office who are paid. The paid music ministry is me, myself, and I. The rest are volunteers. The pastor talks about the long tradition of decent music at the church, but puts very little into it in the way of funding. The building is not maintained to the degree the Protestants maintained their facilities. The same for the organs. I can only conclude the parish has little money, or spends it on something else. When I compare the incomes of one of the Protestant churches where I worked to the Catholic parish, there is not much difference. It doesn't make much sense. Where does the money go? Is this typical of Catholic parishes?

Just another data point:

The Episcopal parish that I work for is SMALL.
When I started working there three years ago, average attendance on a Sunday was about 80. It is currently about 60-65.

I am not paid much, but I am paid.
My job: song-picker and arm-flapper. (My official title is "Music Director" and I am often casually referred to as a the "Choir Master.")

We ALSO have a paid button-pusher (official title: accompanist) who is a fine musician (better than me) who teaches voice at the local community college. He replaced the excellent organist who was there when I got there (and who left to take a job at another Anglican church only because they have a real organ).

Let me clarify that:
When I was hired (by this tiny parish with no money) there was already a perfectly fine organist. There is no reason they couldn't have gotten along with the priest picking out some hymns every week and singing the same service music over and over. I was hired because of my liturgical/repertory knowledge (song-picking) and my ability to get a choir to sound good (arm-flapping).

The entire budget for music, including what I am paid, what the accompanist is paid, and the little bit I'm provided for purchasing sheet music and supplies works out to somewhere around $180 per year for each person who is a registered member.

Do the math sometime on what that would look like in a larger or even normal medium-sized congregation.

Plenty of people who are primarily organists are excellent liturgists and choir directors. Even more are, if not excellent, at least perfectly adequate.

And vice vice versa versa.

Being an organists doesn't mean that you aren't a good choir director.
But it also doesn't mean that you are.

Abuse and Ridiculousness. That sums up it up quite well.

Is it just me, or are there any others that BELIEVE a dedicated DM (with all the other requisites in place) can actually effect positive change at the "typical Catholic parish" for the better?

Melo, you are just exceptional, in all senses of the word.

Greg, I certainly meant not to prime my own pump there, but thanks.
jpal's answer is very troubling to me, as I tend to assume that most folks who habituate here are so dedicated. But the toll, even with the pay at a decent level, is oft-times too much to bear. I haven't shared anything in particular, and with four parishes, my job is more administrative by the day going on five/six years. And there's a situation here now that has had me want to hang up my spurs over a few occasions as in "it's just not worth it" bad. But, I won't abandon, of my own choice, 20+ years of work and a tradition that's been established.
But, if faced with an "omnishamble" joint (great term), then what steps should a choir master, this is about vocal development (with repertoire being factored in), right?- employ to quickly get beyond the chaos?

Prayer is good. Threats of physical pain and the obvious physical capability to make good on the threats can be helpful, too.

I think that, relating to the question of accompanied versus unaccompanied liturgy, for some reason a capella choral music is considered to be a higher art form than accompanied, so therefore should be the way we present the highest art form for the high liturgy.

I wonder if we're mixing superlatives here.
The human voice is the supreme musical instrument to offer God sung praise as, save for mrcopper's synth, it alone produces sacred text set to the elements and properties of music. The "elevation" of the voice is simply magnified by the quality and quantity of voices, parts, intrinsic nature of the music/text being sung that is presumably worthy according to an acknowledge criteria. The artistic merit is subject to those criteria, not superior.
As in all things, sometimes lines get blurred. For example, I personally prefer Barber's ADAGIO for String Quartet/Strings over the a capella version of the same piece that sets the Agnus Dei text. I think the aesthetic of the music casts a larger musical shadow over the meaning of the text, and so I'm distracted away from that text, not drawn further into it. OTOH, if I hear a great choir singing FINLANDIA to Be still my soul a capella, I feel the rendition will be efficacious because of an equal marriage of voices to text. I won't miss an orchestra in that.
I get Charles' opinion because he's an organist, tho' it's also a bit strange given his Byzantine heritage, and the fact I personally love "orthodox homophony." But I sure wouldn't want to sing Thaxted without a great organist as support.

^
Needless opposition of organists and singers...

(Begin purple script)
We all know its the organists who like to hear themselves in a composition that doesn't include organ...
(End purple script)