Having not had the kind of education I'm about to suggest, I hope I can avoid the charge of hypocrisy by filing these under "now that I'm here, was there a better way?"

1) Musical training is a sine qua non but is clearly insufficient. This must include ear training.
2) The development of a liturgical sense: that is, the praying of the Divine Office in choro. Without this, music becomes a concert
3) THEN read the "teaching" documents of the Church -- so that they don't act in a vacuum. Here is the grammar.
4) Choir-directing skills are important, of course, but those should be studied by apprenticeship, not by academic classroom didacticism.
5) Service as an underling.

Education in liturgy doesn't appear to be a requirement for many clergy; why ought it be a requirement for the musicians?

Sorry Aristotle, I think you accidentally applied purple to your statement.

Music training of some sort is a must, preferably one with a good history component. Frankly, I don't trust that a liturgy degree would respect the true desires of the Church. My liturgical training was my own, strengthened by CMAA Colloqiuae etc. It is my desire to achieve beautiful liturgy too quickly, coupled with a minimum of choral direction training and no management experience, that gives me a challenge.

'...[not] a requirement for many clergy, why ought it be for....'

All the more reason for musicians to have a doctorate's knowledge of it. -
Which quite a few of us do!
(Because we love it more than they do.)

___________________________________________________________

I think that a degree, if not degrees, are very important statements about one's education, seriousness about one's field, competence, and other qualities. The lack of such indicates amateurishness and the attitude that formal training is valueless, and that one knows only what he or she has 'picked up' along the way.

Now then, note that I said 'statements'! With some, degrees are just that and are a mere 'paint job' over a rather scratchy and makeshift competence. With others, the 'statement' is an accurate signifer of professional and authoritative knowledge and scholarship. Degrees are not at all to be thought ill of.

There is a parallel in the priestly world. There are many priests who really know liturgy and (somehow!) became well versed in it, often despite their seminary backgrounds, but often aided by the same.

The moral is that whilst there are those who are incompetent we should not discount the real knowledge resident in the minds of those who really are what their degrees indicate them to be. Too often, in many fields of endeavour, it is the 'bad apples' who ruin the repute of the good ones. That this is true of Church Musicians, Priests, and many others is sad. All the more reason to focus on those who truly are Masters and Doctors. These degrees have pedigrees that reach back to the mediaeval universities and should be taken seriously to indicate demonstrated mastery of one's subject.

(The fact that many modern universities don't measure up to mediaeval standards is a subject for another time and place. A school boy of a hundred years ago, for instance, would have known more Latin than most modern PhD's - but, I digress. Not to go unnoticed is that, often, the real value of any degree is directly related to which institution granted it - and, who one's professors were.)

The better educated Church Musicians are, the more seriously will they be taken, and, hopefully, in most cases, will bring about excellent and well tutored music for our Heavenly Father.

But note - I do not at all mean to disparage those without degrees whose work is sometimes superior, always deeply motivated by love, and is a blessing to all his and her people and the Church.

Interesting, yes.
But being a Church Musician certainly entails its own retinue of pastoral and administrative concerns. Concerns which often complicate his musical ministry.

And no seminary or university can truly prepare people in pastoral ministries for the reality of serving a large group of people. Great artists don't necessarily make great ministers, and vice versa.

Back in the eras when parishes and oratories were often under the effective patronage of a local personage or oligarchy, it was less diffuse - which made thing both easier and more difficult compared to today's realities. That said, a lot of things that remain on paper in the Church reflect the accumulated residue of that former reality - and remembering that can help mindful ministers engage the dissonances they sometimes/often perceive.

The Lutherans, as some may know, have a number of 'Concordia' colleges and universities around the country, some better than others. The famed St Olaf Choir are the progeny of one of these. Valparaiso is one of the jewels in this crown. Their purpose is to train Lutheran teachers to teach in Lutheran schools, and to train their church musicians in the subjects and matters of being choirmasters and organists in their churches. Needless to say, the students are thoroughly grounded in Lutheran doctrine, spirituality, and ethos. Graduates of these 'Concordias', teachers and musicians alike, are highly respected in their churches. I have long thought that the Catholic Church would do well to avail itself of such institutions.

For musicians, the objective should be to train organists and choirmasters who are the equal of any from the best sacred-music and organ departments in the finest secular universities, plus imbuing them with Catholic doctrine and spirituality, plus thorough immersion in the pastoral and administrative duties in a typical Catholic church which desires a fine sacred music program.

The negative aspect of such systems is that they are often incredibly insular and suffer from a very bad case of scholastic incest.

I don't feel like it right now.
It's, admittedly, a torturous and potentially sensitive subject (sensitive as in 'mine field').
Extreme myopia would be a near synonymonical condition.

If a person in high school with reasonable musical skills came up to me and said they wanted to do church music for a living, I'd tell them to go to university if they can afford it without going into debt - not necessarily for music, but not necessarily not..., or to just find a great music program and offer to intern there and work extensively with the DM while essentially living as their secretary/slave (purple bold) in exchange for their knowledge.

There were times and places where this was expected - St Mark's, Venice comes to mind as one of countless places at which the finest was expected and cherished.

There was also a time when the church was willing to PAY for the finest.

If a person in high school with reasonable musical skills came up to me and said they wanted to do church music for a living...

I tell them to study something else along with music, so they always have another job to fall back on, if necessary.

The Basilica San Marco in Venice was notable because it was a *palatine chapel* under the control of the state rather than the church (the English analogue being a Royal Peculiar), and the splendor of its liturgies - which notably did not always adhere to Roman guidelines - served to glorify the state as well as God. (San Marco didn't become the cathedral until after the fall of the Venetian republic. Venice's actual longtime cathedral was over in its relatively industrial district....)

This distinction allowed San Marco to incubate musical innovations not as easily incubated elsewhere, and it's therefore important in the history of the development of Western music.

So, looking at this discussion from the perspective of a high school student who hopes to get into sacred music and hopefully create a rather large program, what exactly should I be doing? Is a degree necessary or not? How do I get this "experience"? Should I just give up on my dream? (Ignore that last one.)

One caution - many, if not most, organ programs have the ultimate goal of producing a student recital of representative works from the repertoire.

Students graduate with no knowledge of short repertoire to play before, during and after Mass. Hymn playing is also is often not covered.

These are important questions to ask about when interviewing. They are interviewing you, but you need to interview them.

For the working musician, often the AGO exams are more precisely aligned with the requirements of the job, and do include representative major works but within a balanced program.

Otherwise, one is a mere administrator who is a disappointment as a musician. (We have too many of these [sopping up jobs that their betters should have], and, sadly, this seems to be all that many churches want.)

Well, that's because that's what most priests are: administrators, and in many ways they have to be. I've learned in my experience that administrative minds like other administrative minds. It simply makes their lives easier to deal with someone who thinks like they do (doesn't it work that way for all of us, though?). Many priests want someone who will be able to see problems coming and resolve them through preventative maintenance. Most of the problems they're interested in, though, are not musical problems, but administrative ones, such as scheduling cantors, resolving disputes, money or marketing issues, etc. It's as I've said before, it's all about the priorities of the priest: what is important to him? The answer to that question will influence heavily what he perceives to be your most important duties, and therefore whether or not you are successfully doing your job. This is also why someone can be a substandard musician and still retain a position as a DM for many years: if that person has a good sense for business and administration, they can keep the priest happy, especially since most priests nowadays either don't know the difference between good music and poor music, or they don't care about it. It is worth mentioning, I think, that administrative types generally view music as a tool: a means to a specific end, and not a necessary part of life in its own right. In their eyes, your value as a musician will depend on to what end you serve administrative interests.

Now, to the original post.

I think I support the positive side of the proposition here: a music degree is definitely necessary if one wishes to be a parish musician. There are several questions which arise from this proposition, which I think are wise to consider:

1. What is the difference between a musician with a degree and one without?

One has attended an accredited school of music at the post secondary level, and the other has not.

2. Is it possible to receive musical training without a degree?

Yes. Many people take lessons on their respective instruments, or voices, and contribute to professional performing ensembles all over the country, and possibly the world.

3. What is the difference between a trained musician and an untrained musician?

This question is a bit more specific, and I think more to the point. A trained musician has been taught the rules of the art, and has studied and practiced the necessary skills to be able to follow them. "Untrained" is probably not the best term for what I mean here: perhaps "incomplete" is a bit more accurate as the trained musician has completed a program of study designed to produce a specific standard of performance. In essence, the degree indicates that the program of study has been completed, and that the specific standard of performance should be present.

4. Why is that training necessary in order to do the job?

Accompanying a choir or congregation, training/conducting a choir, and selecting appropriate repertoire requires a basic level of knowledge and training in order to successfully execute. It also depends on the nature of the training. Many music majors have professional training in instruments that really aren't used frequently in the liturgy: i.e. orchestral instruments such as flute, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, trumpet, horn, percussion, etc. You'd really want someone who has keyboard and voice training, especially since the Church places emphasis on these media, particularly the human voice.

5. What level of training is necessary in order to do the job?

I'm not actually sure if I can answer this one yet. At a minimum, you'd probably want someone who could play keyboards and sing. Again, the Church places emphasis on these areas.

6. How do we ensure that a person has the necessary training?

The degree is a good place to start, but I know places that require auditions, and that is really I think the best way: the proof is in the pudding, after all.

For the working musician, often the AGO exams are more precisely aligned with the requirements of the job, and do include representative major works but within a balanced program.

I second this. The AGO is a great organization for information regarding necessary musical skills for the liturgy.

I have two music degrees. I chose to study music in college because it's what I do best and what I am passionate about. It was not until graduate school that I really started to think seriously about what I wanted from a musical life or what it wanted from me. It wasn't anything in a classroom that provided the answer, rather it was God himself. A decade of orchestral and chamber performing was already behind me when I became a church musician, and I had sense enough to join university choir as an undergrad, so I was definitely prepared on that end of things. As some here already said, to be a successful church musician a person needs the right mindset, they must be naturally spiritual or always working towards a stronger faith and relationship with God. College doesn't teach that. All that being said, having ANY degree helps you in life. I work outside of music as a florist and just got hired with a very large and prestigious floral design and event company in my town. Having a degree shows that you are mature, hard working, and willing to finish things. Prospective employers trust you more. I'd say having "some college" and an unfinished degree, ie: you dropped out-is worse than having no college experience at all.

Having a degree shows that you are mature, hard working, and willing to finish things

I don't think you are willing to argue the converse, are you? That NOT having one shows immaturity, laziness......

Perhaps you want to insert a modifier like 'having a degree COULD show....'

I will be 66 this coming January 7th, and I still don't have any degree. I've built pipe organs (also tuning and maintaining them), repaired woodwind instruments (with quite a bit of my woodworking and other pipe organ building skills making it an easy transition), been an Administrative Assistant (4 years at Catholic Radio Association), and am currently the Associate Musician and Financial Secretary at my parish. I have worked with and for many people who have multiple degrees, and I always found that there were things I know that they didn't. I love Gregorian Chant, as well as Anglican Chant and hymnody, but the groundwork for the Gregorian Chant is from 3rd-8th grades at a parochial school just before the sorrowing effects of Vatican took over everything! The music I worked on at university was not heading me for success at a Catholic parish, but the teaching of the Liturgy AND music in Catholic colleges was somewhere between a sad joke an insult to the Faith. I have always sought out parishes and priests to serve who were on the same page as I, and that included my 16 years at Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston. All three of my sons have degrees, only one of them a 2-year degree, and he is the one who has paid off his college loans while the other 2, and me, are still paying for years to come.

My Mother always told me that "the day you stop learning will be the day you die." I don't think that sentiment is expressed anywhere in today's school system, public or private. I do not think a degree should be an absolute requirement to even get an interview with a prospective employer priest, but many Diocese's have just that particular requirement.

I think things need to be done on all fronts to change how we look at "education".

Welcome, Emma!
For an introduction to the 20th-century music documents, see the article series "Buried Treasure" by Susan Benofy, on the website of "Adoremus".

out of all I recommend two:

1. https://adoremus.org/2007/12/31/Tra-le-Sollecitudini

This is the first and foremost document in the list which chonak has steered you to in the link above on buried treasure.

2. The Papal Legislation on Sacred Music

With these you will gain a wealth of knowledge on the wishes of the magesterium.

PM me for more if you are interested.

Emma, if you do not play the organ, learn how. That will greatly improve your chances of becoming gainfully employed as a DOM. Best of luck!

That being said, how many conversations have we had here about non degreed DoM's getting into places they have no right to be, they barely read music, have little to no musical knowledge? I should know, I work under one...

ouch

Anyone who hires on the basis of character displayed by sticking to a degree program instead of ability to deliver the goods shall have their reward: it's quite rash not to add "or equivalent" to one's requirements and I'd advise anyone who has the chops to consider that wording implicit when skimming the ads (my view is possibly colored by having a father who dropped out of Julliard to play for Toscanini and a mother with a high school degree who studied on her own and passed the Bar exam, becoming the first woman Federal Magistrate).

If one is really so overwhelmed by the number of applicants that one can't audition them, the AGO certificate is a more reliable predictor of who can read music than some random BA, and the fee for the exam is (I think) still under $100. A PhD in Latin on the other hand might really tell you something ;-)