I am also part time, organist only, in New England. I'm between two churches so I play 3 masses per weekend plus one choir rehearsal . I figure I make $400 each week, extra for funerals and weddings. I don't have a degree in music either. I love this and would do it for less but my husband says I am underpaid. I don't really care because I have two beautiful organs to play! Oh ,I also pay for my own organ lessons.

You are underpaid, but I realize there can be extenuating circumstances. For example, our parish still has $1 million in debt to pay off from our former free-spending pastor. Knowing that, I take a small salary and I am likely underpaid. I am blessed to not need the money so I am happy with that. Your situation may be different.

I know that money is a sensitive topic...

Actually, it is the lack of money that is sensitive.

If you are working in a supportive environment that's worth an awful lot.

trenton j conn says that he is quite happy with his situation even though he realises that he is underpaid. There are many like him, who do their work as an act of love regardless of the salary that they draw. This is all well and good if other factors are favourable.

I am troubled, though, that several of the above commenters seem to think that being well treated and appreciated is worthy of consideration as part of one's compensation. This, emphatically, is not something that should be thought of as a make up for poor salaries. Being treated fairly, being respected, having the pastor on one's side, are normative (if not normal) in any employment situation. These things are to be expected regardless of salary. If, as often happens, these factors are not enjoyed by a given musician no amount of salary can make up for them. They are requisites for sane employment, and where they are lacking one should be on the look out for a better post.

Trenton seems to be doing stellar work, enjoys his situation, has his pastor's full backing and appreciation, and does not mind the small salary he receives. This is all well and good - for him. He can only be commended. His is one very lucky parish. One might suggest, though, that he (or anyone else) should be getting a salary of at least $20 to 25,000 for what he is doing 'part time'. (In some parts of the country, perhaps even more.) Too, one might note that his parish could not replace him for the salary that he draws.

The big question in all of this is benefits.

Matilda's and Incardination's points are spot on. Reflect on the bad old days of "renew" when the liturgy committee (!) would insist on getting into the mix. :-/

that said, I hope to see more comments in this thread about benefits...

@trentonjconn, when you're away, does the church hire a substitute? If so, what is the rate? If my church went by the minimum AAM rates, they would be paying a substitute considerably more than I make in a week for the same number of Masses and rehearsals!

I think your job should qualify as half-time. If I understand correctly, you plan, conduct, play for, and are in general responsible for one Mass per weekend and holy day. Is that correct? That is not a full-time DM job, which ordinarily entails oversight of the parish's music at large, and multiple Masses. On the other hand it sounds as though you take care of everything, at a high level, for the "big" Mass of the weekend. So I would say half-time.

In the US, your pay is low. It should be half of a professional level salary.

In the UK it would be perfectly normal.

People who think you are being overpaid are probably considering only the show-up-on-Sunday part. This is a big problem. Often people who feel they themselves are not "musical" think that people who are "musical" just show up and know exactly what to do without planning or rehearsal. They don't consider the backstory.

@madorganist when I'm away, they don't have music because there are no other available liturgical organists in the area. I think I may be the only Catholic organist within at least an hour in any direction. A Presbyterian organist fills in for weekday funerals frequently, but he works in his own parish all day on Sunday. If I'm gone, the priest leads chanted a capella ordinaries, and maybe a few of the volunteer choir members might sing settings of the propers to psalm tones.

Ken's observations are worthy. One might add, though, that most church musicians do what they do because they love it and, typically, go far above and beyond the call of duty, no matter what their official duties are and no matter what they are paid. This is as true of the highly paid and skilled as it is of the minimally paid and less (or more) talented. As for being treated well and having one's work appreciated, this is common human (and especially Christian!) decency and should be shown one's employees regardless of what they are paid. Some pastors and priests, and some congregations get an A+ on this score; some get an F.

Ken, I think it depends. First of all, I tend to compare based on salary per Liturgy (that eliminates the factor of experience vs. hours of work)... but at the end of the day, how does one actually measure level of expertise? I rather think that the truest assessment is based on results, rather than something like having a degree, say - which may or may not be a good indicator.

In one situation I encountered, the director / organist had everything that would have indicated experience and expertise... an advanced degree from a highly respected music college; a working knowledge of chant; knowledge of composition and hymnody. He had been working in music for several decades, director of the parish choir in question for about 14 years.

Under that particular director my impression (some Masses that I attended, and from talking with choir members subsequently) was that the music program really struggled. One of the Masses I attended towards the end of his time directing was a special Mass for a visiting dignitary that drew attendees from around the region. The chant was acceptable for the Ordinary (but largely forgettable - very limited sense of interpretation or nuance) and the Propers were in really sad shape. At least a third of the Propers were sung by two strong voices a full step (sometimes a third) apart. It was one of the most teeth-grating experiences I've ever had at Mass. I also couldn't understand why there was no polyphony from the adult choir - until Communion when they sang Mozart's Ave Verum. It was another teeth-grating experience.

When I took over (maybe 5-6 months after that Mass), there was a sheet posted in the practice room - "pieces we know in parts". It listed FIVE pieces (five - in 14+ years). I still remember the pieces (Mozart Ave Verum; Cherubini Veni Iesu, Amor Mi; Traditional O Sanctissima; Soul of my Savior; and O Lord I am not Worthy - of which only the Cherubini and the two English pieces were reasonably proficient).

When I came on board, he was still the organist (he lasted another 5 months or so). When I started, he did not attend the rehearsals, just showed for the sung Mass on Sundays and Feast Days. He was making 3x what I made i.e. per Liturgy. (Not complaining, just observing).

I started a robust chant program, and while it took time to develop, it was reasonably good within 2 years and quite strong within 4. We also started some easy 2-3 part music as well as some basic 4 part motets... about 30 in the first season. By the second season we were starting to get into more robust repertoire; by year 4 and 5 we were singing rather advanced polyphonic Masses and motets.

I never requested a raise, although the pastor voluntarily increased my salary somewhat (his original salary was still more than 2x what I made at the end). I might also point out that, while I don't play the organ, that was not an issue as we only had an organist for 3 of the 6+ seasons I was there - and the organist was mostly part-time at that. One of the first things I did was to stop accompaniment for everything except hymns and the occasional piece like the Cherubini or the Mozart. I wanted the singers to be self-reliant and not rely on a crutch, and largely that worked.

The first director certainly had the experience and expertise... but he wasn't able to translate them into a satisfactory music program. I do put in a lot of hours... mostly not in practice (although I could certainly use that time effectively!) - but primarily in developing and working a disciplined plan to accomplish our goals; doing LOTS of music entry into Finale; doing LOTS of time reworking revisions of our choir books; etc..

It shouldn't matter whether I spend lots of time or little time behind the scenes. It also shouldn't matter what degree or certification I do or don't have. What SHOULD matter is the end result. Period.

Short notices are what prompted us to name our choir Magnum Hysterium.
:-)

Still, short notice may be much less due to inconsiderate attitude than to a certain confidence level in the director, choir, and their proven ability to "make it so".
That said, with the pastor pulled in 10 different directions at any given time, it is possible to help him understand that reasonable time is needed to bring off changes in an orderly manner. Reminders of this, now and then, are a good idea.
I think priests in general will genuinely appreciate people they can rely on.

Back to the original post: This, this, this.
>> I've had my greatest professional satisfaction when my pastor has hired me to do a job to a high level and then stepped out of my way and allowed me to go to work. I've had my greatest professional disappointments when my pastor (or someone else, a middle-manager type) has insisted on micromanaging how I achieve results.
Thanks for this thread & the very helpful insights from everyone who is responding!

What SHOULD matter is the end result.

Amen. Alleluia. The ability to teach and lead is not granted by college degrees--albeit they can give someone the "what to teach." On the other hand, so can a wide-ranging reading program.

I really like Ken's analogy with diamonds and gem stones.
When stressing diction and rhythmic accuracy to singers I have often suggested to them that every syllable and every finely delivered note is like unto an expertly crafted precious stone that we are offering to God.

That seems low for your work. It sounds like you are doing 3 liturgies?
About 10 years ago I was receiving $75 per mass plus $50 per rehearsal. It was a very small parish. I did not have any office hours and as a new mom could be at home with my baby nearly fully time and could plan and practice at home. However, it was stipend work so I paid my own taxes. That was very low. It was my first job and I had plently other music gigs so I was happy. The pastor even refused to take a salary for 2 years in order to keep the church doors open. It was a great place for a first job.

Now working full time, I still think I deserve a higher base salary, but the benefits are just wonderful, and the flexibility allowed by my employer makes all the difference for me as a single mom. I do wish there was a culture of better pay for musicians. Liturgy is an important place to spend the money.

Aristotle - it reads like a full time ministry; to my eyes.

You are the musician, essentially, for two entities: a school and a church-parish.
This seems to me incredibly burdensome.
Each of these ought to be and is a full time job in itself.
I must admire your dedication and stamina!

I once worked for a parish that ran a K-12 school, and the two were tied together marginally, and in annoying, frustrating ways. I am very glad that you find yourself in a much different situation! For me, onward and upward! :-)

Edit: Hey, it's my thousandth post! What do I win?!