"Canon David Felix (Chester) told the Council: "Hold your nerve.? They should challenge the organist mafia, where added fees were nothing short of extortionate and morally unjustifiable. It was surely time for a new approach, working with the RSCM and other bodies to come up with a draft contract for fees that would do away with antediluvian cartels?.

The Synod took note of the report. "

To describe the majority of organists' fees as being 'extortionate' is unrealistic. My fees do not pay for my organ lessons, let alone anything else.

Barry Williams

If he wants to change organist's pay/fees to levels that are commensurate with the skills required and the hours involved I think the Canon might be in for something of a shock.

Shall I just nip down the road to Chester and give him a piece of my mind ??

We should take issue with the word 'mafia'. The problem is that there is NO consensus on fees, and on what is acceptable, and organists are undermining each other left, right and centre, and playing for the Love of God rather than working together to safeguard a reasonable standard of remuneration for all who are up to the job. Organists, often by their own nature, as well as by the nature of the job, are in isolated positions, and to use the word 'mafia' is inflammatory, erroneous and manipulative of public opinion. I have heard of SO many churches recently in which the long-standing and long suffering organist could take no more in terms of undermining and undervaluing that he or she walked out, never to return, that this really makes me wonder if there is a conspiracy to get rid of them all completely. If the churches are short of money they should consider taking a look at the clergy's fees. A cr*p clergy person can empty a church overnight. A good organist can bring people in and keep them there.

........... but we will set the quota to whatever we like, and we expect it to be paid in full and on time.

And who is calling organista the Mafia?

SB

It also illuminates very clearly how the clergy regard organists.

I'm not sure that I would put it quite that strongly, but I do get a very strong impression that most parish clergy see organists as an undesirable irrelevance. This is because, as a breed, we are seen as reactionary (and maybe we are). We are part of the "old and boring" image that the church has spent the last half century trying to bury, but because a significant number of the aging faithful still like "old and boring" we continue to be tolerated - just. However, I am quite sure that most clergy would secretly (or maybe not so secretly) rather that their congregations were wholly signed up to their "modernising" agendas and their churches organ-free zones. Am I being too cynical?

I really don't think you are. Organists are often a thorn in their sides because the organists often know more about liturgy than they do, and this doesn't appeal. It also doesn't appeal when the music is complemented and the sermon is not. Many don't want to modernise for its own sake; they simply want full control without the uneasy feeling that somebody who is paid less might receive more respect. Unfortunately it is often silent respect as congregations and vestries - and even choirs - are loath to be at odds with the clergy. Or am I being too cynical too?



Could this be because most organists ARE actually relatively advanced in years because most of the younger generation have more sense than to sit practising for hours at a cold console for pitiful money and no respect?

hear hear.

Just to clarify, on re-reading the original post, quoted in maggie's post - in what context is the word 'added'? Added to what? Is it fees for services that being questioned, or fees for weddings and funerals?

I do not yet have a copy of the article concerned, but I think this goes back to an article in The Telegraph a few months ago, when the journalist concerned complained about the cost charged by organists for weddings, and the fact that organists still demanded payment even if the happy couple brought their own (as it were). (There was some discussion on this forum at the time.)

My take on this is that the church is currently losing a lot of revenue because many people now choose to bypass the church altogether for both weddings and funerals; often on the grounds of cost. In our own parish income from weddings and funerals has fallen to about a third of what it was just three or four years ago; partly because a local country estate is offering complete wedding packages to include a church service in their own private chapel, which is conducted by a retired clergy person of whatever denomination they choose. (And incidentally, the clergy are paid considerably more for taking these services than they would ever have received in their own churches.)

In another local example, a church which was closed by the diocese was purchased by an enterprising undertaker with a view to providing a one-stop funeral service; again using hired in clergy. (It just so happens that the Undertaker had become licensed as a Reader before starting this enterprise, and so would ahve been able to conduct many services himself.) In the event this project didn't go ahead, but I daresay there will be others operating successfully on a similar business model.

The church is therefore keen to regain this lost ground by cutting the cost of weddings and funerals. They cannot afford to cut the clergy fee (which ultimately goes to the diocese anyway), and they don't want to cut the PCC fee as that helps to pay the Quota. Therefore they feel the only option left is to do what any business does to increase it's margins - to cut what they pay to sub-contractors, (in other words, organists).

SB

I see! Thank you for that.

I honestly don't think age has anything to do with it. The antagonism is aimed mainly at the type of music we tend to prefer and those who stick up for it.

In all fairness, (and from our own experience), I would say this reputation is largely self inflicted.

We are lucky that our local organists association (the NDSO) is very welcoming to new and younger members, but we know that this is by no means universal.

SB

Yes, and those who are antagonistic towards traditional music seem to prefer ephemeral and transient choruses, lacking in substance, theology and challenge and often, though not always, performed by those who do not have the expertise of traditional church musicians.

Strangely, these self-same folk seem keen on 'nave altars', 'the peace' and the consumption of coffee after divine worship, with implied criticism of those who choose, for whatever reason, not to partake.


Barry Williams

We had a visiting [retired] priest recently, who, we found likes to minister in a 'peace free zone'.

Immediately after the intercessions he announced that those who so wish may like to share the peace, but the rest of us will now sing hymn number 123. This caused a moment of panic in the loft, but was quite hilarious all the same.

However, the visiting cleric and his wife did stay for coffee after the service. I must say that talking to them was very enlightening indeed.

SB

Are we soon to read in CT that he has found a horse's head in his bed?

......... and will any bodies be found dangling from Blackfriars Bridge?

SB

My dear Friends,

I have written (by email) to the Canon and pointed out that the fees I receive do not even pay for my organ lessons.

Let us all exercise the utmost courtesy on this Board, remembering that a recent thread was (quite properly, in my opinion,) deleted as a result of postings that fell below the usual standard here.

Barry Williams

Barry, If you get a reply I hope you will press the canon for a full justification of his claim that our fees are extorionate and why he thinks they are morally unjustifiable.

I think we should also be careful when talking about identifiable individuals. There have been topics about conflict with clergy on which I could have said a lot more, but it is too small a world. The forums pop up when we google pertinent words, and somebody could stumble upon a thread in which they feature without even having heard of the AB forums.

I know of several clergy who are also organists, including the Rt Rev Mark Bryant, (Bishop Suffragan of Jarrow); and I am sure there will be many others.

I wonder what their take is on this matter?

(Maybe the critics have no appreciation of music, and have no idea of the practical difficulties of providing quality music in church?)

SB

Yes, Dulciana, I agree.

I have come across several examples where organists have not been appointed to vacancies because someone in the church has 'googled' their name and found intemperate remarks on an organist's Discussion Board.

Many more people read such Boards than are members.

Barry Williams

He would be my favourite priest! Send him here.

Our vicar doesn't get paid anything. I was a bit surprised to get paid when I stood in for the organist one week. No one else who does things in the church gets paid so I've never really understood why the organist does. Maybe it's different in other churches.

^^

I think I'll keep out of this one.

" No one else who does things in the church gets paid so I've never really understood why the organist does. "

Organists are paid because they are doing work for the church. It is exactly the same as the church paying someone to repair the roof or mend the plumbing. Fees are a part of their livelihood. The Bible teaches that the labourer is worthy of his hire. There many other passages of Holy Scripture supporting this view.

Obtaining a professional organ diploma, such as LRSM, ATCL, etc., can cost several thousands of pounds in lessons, examination fees, including ABRSM grades that are necessary to obtain entrance to LRSM, plus the charges for using the organ for rehearsal, often between 5 and 10 pounds per hour, plus the cost of music. It is wholly reasonable when those expenses have been met from taxed income to recoup them by charging fees.

On earlier post on this Board I estimated the cost of getting FLCM last September at about 2,000 pounds. BF, L & BM put it nearer 4,000 pounds. All of that expenditure was met from taxed income and cannot be claimed as a tax deduction against any fees earned from the playing the organ.

Barry williams

Amen.

A misconception may be that the organist is a member of the church in the same way that the warden, etc, is, but, while this may often be the case, it is no more likely that he will be a church member than any other professional who is paid by the church to do a job. When they need wiring done, they pay somebody who is capable of doing the job properly, and the job of organ playing is more similar to this than it is to the job of warden. (There has to be another word for 'job' here... ) Someone who applied before I did for the job that I now do offered to do it without payment, and the church's response was that 'nobody plays here without being paid'. I doubt if this is simply out of the goodness of their hearts; it also means that it's easier to get rid of somebody who turns out NOT to be able for the job.

Well yes, I suppose so. The churches I've belonged to have always had a church member as the organist. Our graveyard is cared for by two men who do it entirely for free, giving up huge amounts of time to keep it nice. They even hold fund raising events to get themselves vital bits of equipment. And, as I said, the vicar isn't paid at all but he still had to do his however many years of vicarring training.

If I may say so, I think this is missing the point.

If a church member is a plumber, why should he or she do church plumbing work for nothing? It is his work. He has household bills to pay, possibly a mortgage, food to buy, etc. Organists are in the same situation as the plumber. They too have bills to pay. Organ playing is their paid work. There is nothing inappropriate in asking people to pay for a service that is their job, whether it involves, plumbing, music or whatever. Are the two worthy gentlemen who do the graveyard professional gardeners?

If the plumber (or the organist) wishes to make any contribution to the church it is far more efficient to do it by Gift Aid, which increases the monetary value of the contribution by 28%.

Further, payments for work induce a proper sense of responsibility on the part of the worker as well as the payer. All of this is in accordance with Holy Scripture. (II Corinthians Ch 9 v 7, etc., etc.)

Barry Williams

Sometimes, musicians are their own worst enemy, and I include myself in that! I played the organ in local Methodist churches for 12 years, for no fee. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy aspects of it, but the more I did, the more they expected, and the more they took advantage. I learnt the hard way, and now, I wouldn't take on any organ playing work without some form of remuneration.

In a way I can understand the mindset of Christian organists who are willing to do the job without payment. But 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' doesn't work in churches any more than it does in a Communist society or in any other community. 'Needs' increase and 'abilities' lessen in the real world because of the nature of the human condition. Consider the expression, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Why is this? Either the giver or the receiver is under a compliment of some kind. Something is being 'paid for', or something is expected, orr at least hoped for. A conscience is being salved, the 'need to pay', in order NOT to feel under a compliment, is being indulged, or a precedent is being set. The organist may want to give of his skills to God, and may feel initially that this is what he is doing, but in reality he is giving to humans, which is a different matter entirely.

And what exactly do we mean by 'church'? Is it a building? Is it a group of Christians? Where are its boundaries and who defines them? Vestries, clergy, etc, are all transient - as are buildings, if their upkeep is no longer viable. If an organist truly wants to give to God, and uphold standards of worship and reverence, there are several considerations. Firstly - is he doing this for free for the sake of this indefinable 'church', or is it for his own pride and sense of worthiness? Secondly, is it the case that doing it for free is the best way to go about this doing it for God? A set fee for a set job means the best man will GET the job. There will (because of human nature) be more competition for the job, and it may then not be the one doing it for free who would then have it. If a good musician brings sinners in by virtue of the fact that they like good music, or if he encourages those to stay who might otherwise fall by the wayside, then it is better to pay for the good musician than to accept what is free for that reason alone. 'One of us' - as in, a Christian organist who will play for the love of God alone, implies a closed society. You're either 'one of us' or you're not. When Jesus was gone the disciples didn't close ranks; they dispersed in order to spread the news. They certainly didn't only keep the company of fellow Christians who lived the life of the privileged, and who were able to give freely of their skills without payment, safe in the knowledge that the next meal would appear on the table regardless. They had been fishermen who worked for a living. Joseph was a carpenter. Jesus himself was different, but we are not Jesus, and should not have the arrogance to think that we are comparable. We are humans who need to earn our living, and who need to respect the fact that others with skills that they have worked for need to do the same.

With respect, this verse is about giving, not about being paid. ("Each person should give as he has decided for himself; there should be no reluctance; no sense of compulsion; God loves a cheerful giver.") The money was to go to the needy. I would be surprised if there were many in the Early Church who were paid for what they did (as opposed to being given food and shelter).

Someone has quoted the passage when Jesus is commissioning the disciples: "The labourer is worthy of his hire" - the whole verses in full (in the Revised English Bible) read: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. You received without cost; give without charge. Take no gold, silver or copper in your belts, no pack for the road, no second coat, no sandals, no stick; the worker deserves his keep." i.e. those working full-time in God's service should be given food and shelter - not paid a salary.

I think it's very dangerous to use the scriptures to back up a particular point of view.

I have offered to be Organist and Choirmaster in two churches for nothing, but in both cases the Vicar has said that I must take the money so as not to set a precedent (and of course, it can be given back without any loss through tax). I think they were right. Running a choir and playing the organ can be a big job and so time consuming that it does deserve remuneration.

However, for someone just playing the organ I think it might depend on what sort of church it is and how professional the organist is. After all, one gets free use of the organ, and the satisfaction and pleasure of indulging one's ego by playing the organ to a captive audience!

I don't think any of us have the right to tell others that it's their duty to demand payment or that the church should feel obliged to offer it.

Thank you for your thoughtful response on this thread.

"With respect, this verse is about giving, not about being paid. ("Each person should give as he has decided for himself; there should be no reluctance; no sense of compulsion; God loves a cheerful giver.") "

Surely, those who think that organist should not be paid are asking them to give their time - time that could be used otherwise to earn fees.

" Those working full-time in God's service should be given food and shelter - not paid a salary."

Those working part-time in God's service still have household bills to pay. Even those cathedral (and some parish) organists who are provided with accomodation are also paid a salary for their work.

"I don't think any of us have the right to tell others that it's their duty to demand payment or that the church should feel obliged to offer it."

"I think it's very dangerous to use the scriptures to back up a particular point of view."

Yes, but organists are entitled to a fee so that they can live. Fees pay the bills. Often, those who expect organists to play without a fee are very quick to quote Holy Scripture to support their view. The difficulty with quoting Holy Scripture is that the circumstances were so very different from those of the church today. Although organs had been invented long before the church, they did not come into worhsip for many years.

"Running a choir and playing the organ can be a big job and so time consuming that it does deserve remuneration."

We agree, but at what point does it become sufficiently large to merit charging a fee? I suspect that few church members realise how much 'non-contact' time is involved - choosing hymns, selecting voluntaries, private practice of the music, marking scores, seeing wedding couples, looking after choir children, dealing with parents, etc. Much of this work has to be done even when one is not also the choir master.

Stephen: What do you think about people in my situation, where organ playing is not my living, but the cost of lessons, examinations, etc., exceeds the fees I get. Do you think that I should charge for playing for services to cover the expenses I incur in learning to play the organ? ( I never charge for recitals - almost all of these are arise in my capacity as Diocesan Organ Adviser, a job for which reimbursement of expenses is rare.)

Barry Williams

Organ playing is not my living either, but I accept a fee of sorts because it is their way of making sure I turn up.

Unlike the treasurer, the flower ladies or PCC chairman, if the organist fails to put in an appearance one Sunday then it will be remarked upon. The organist does not always play the organ because they are in agreement with the words being uttered by the Incumbent; they go because if they don't, the service will not run as it should. There are non-stipendiary clergy and I don't really know why they do it but I suspect they would NOT say that it is because they can earn more in their secular career (even if they do). It may be to do with influence, authority, or a sense of vocation but they are fronting the show and that may be the appeal in some cases.

I cannot be the only organist who would often rather turn over in bed, because I've been working all week in the secular job and am tired. The financial reward is not huge and in a way it would be easier not to be paid because I would then go back to sleep on Sunday morning with a clear conscience.

Edit: Ooops! Wasn't going to join in with this one.

Very true. We have an odd arrangement in our parish, where two of the five some churches pay their organists for Sunday services, whilst the others don't; although their duties are much the same. This even applies to occasional organists, who will be paid at one church but not another.

All are paid for weddings and funerals, but there are large discrepancies between the fees paid.

I should say at this point that there is no correlation between the fees paid and the standard of music, which is a constant bone of contention.

Our Rector did try to introduce uniform fees at one point, but soon realised that it wouldn?t work as the churches operate in very different communities. I think somebody also persuaded him that more skill was needed to play a two manual 32 stop instrument with electric coupling and presets than a single manual tracker with five stops.

However, [speaking as a PCC member] if an organist is paid there is at least the option of terminating their Contract if the quality of music drops too far, which is much more difficult when unpaid volunteers are involved. This is a particular issue at present, as the lady organist at one of the unpaid churches is clearly no longer able play to a reasonable standard, but she clings on to the organ stool (and her position of honour as she see it) on the grounds that she has played without pay for n decades, and isn?t going to give up until she is ready.

I am sure Barry will remind us that the Rector has the final say over who plays, but in practice this jurisdiction can be difficult to enforce.

SB

I'd consider accepting food and shelter for my efforts instead of money...especially if they cooked the food too... but in this day and age, as opposed to in biblical times, these things generally only come in exchange for money!

Responding to Swell Box's point, indeed, in the Church of England, it is the minister who has the ultimate right as to what music will or will not be performed and by whom. That right comes by virtue of Canon B20. (It is not transferrable to assistant curates, churchwardens, worship groups, PCCs or incumbent's wives!)

However, it is far less easy to dispense with the services of a volunteer than a paid servant. The comments can easily be imagined - "He/she has been playing in this church for one hundred and twenty years. (And his/her mother an LRAM, you know.) It is his/her life and that new vicar has just sacked him/her. I think we should tell the local press."

At this stage the bishop/archdeacon/rural dean implores the new vicar to 'find a pastoral solution' and the situation deteriorates.

Before anyone dismisses volunteers, perhaps I might share the story of a very confident young lawyer (not me!) who went to a magistrates court in deepest Wiltshire and proceeded to give the elderly magistrate (who was attired in tweeds) a long but elementary lecture on the most basic principles of sentencing. The young man was dismayed when, despite these eloquent orations, his client got the standard tariff of three months in gaol. He went back to London unaware that he had just appeared before Lord Devlin, a retired Law Lord, who, having moved to Wiltshire, assisted the local Bench as a volunteer magistrate from time to time and had fogotten more about the principles of sentencing than most people had ever learned.

I recall the case of a seaside church where the organist had not turned up. A visiting member of the congregation offed to play, so the vicar took him to the back of the church and showed him the organ. " We will say that Gloria today, as it is probably a bit difficult for you to play at sight." They did indeed say the Gloria, but Christopher Gower, JP MA FRCO, at that time Organist and Master of the Choristers at Peterborough Cathedral, on holiday, played the rest of the service beautifully.

Between the world wars, it was common for an organist to play at a medium size parish church and take a few piano and organ pupils. That generated a reasonable living. Nowadays, organists salaries are nothing like as comparable and very few can manage just on income from a church. These days almost all organists need another source of income to survive. One or two enterprising churches have, when the church hall is built or rebuilt, provided accomodation for an organist. This is a sensible way of attracting a good musician. This was done at St Matthew's Croydon, though I think that the accomodation has long since been used for other church workers. Nevertheless, the principle remains sound. It is investment in the church's musical heritage.

Churches could not operate without volunteers. As Mel2 has pointed out, the role of the organist is crucial. Bad organ playing easily wrecks a service. Good organ playing adds so much, not just to the hymns.




Barry Williams

answering Mel2's post (I can't do multiple quotes and things).

There are non-stipendiary clergy and I don't really know why they do it .......................it may be to do with influence, authority, or a sense of vocation but they are fronting the show and that may be the appeal in some cases.

"May be a sense of vocation"? If I'm understanding this correctly then I find it offensive - certainly in relation to all the non-stipendiary clergy I've ever known. I know I've been lucky. Anyway, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

I cannot be the only organist who would often rather turn over in bed, because I've been working all week in the secular job and am tired. The financial reward is not huge and in a way it would be easier not to be paid because I would then go back to sleep on Sunday morning with a clear conscience.

If I agree to play the organ on Sunday mornings for no fee, then that's what I do. I certainly couldn't, with a clear conscience, just not turn up because I didn't want to. A commitment is a commitment.

Lionel Dakers used to say that the only voluntary thing about being in a church choir was the decision to join.

My wife and I gave ten years of our lives as church Treasurers for a large parish church I can confirm that it is, indeed a very demanding and responsible role, which takes a great deal of personal time and energy for no reward and even less thanks!

However, as Treasurer one can at least choose whether to go to church on a Sunday, when to do the banking and when to do the accounts. We could go on holiday for a fortnight and provided the bills were paid up to date nobody would mind. That is not the case with organists.

SB

Answer to Barry's post:

>>" Those working full-time in God's service should be given food and shelter - not paid a salary."

Those working part-time in God's service still have household bills to pay. Even those cathedral (and some parish) organists who are provided with accomodation are also paid a salary for their work.
I was only trying to give my understanding of the context of your biblical quotation. I have never felt guilty for taking a salary as an organist & choirmaster.

>>"I don't think any of us have the right to tell others that it's their duty to demand payment or that the church should feel obliged to offer it."
>>"I think it's very dangerous to use the scriptures to back up a particular point of view."

Yes, but organists are entitled to a fee so that they can live. Fees pay the bills. Often, those who expect organists to play without a fee are very quick to quote Holy Scripture to support their view. The difficulty with quoting Holy Scripture is that the circumstances were so very different from those of the church today. Although organs had been invented long before the church, they did not come into worhsip for many years.
Absolutely - the early church had no thoughts of lasting for 2000 years. It was quite different. That's why I think quoting the scriptures can be misleading.

>>"Running a choir and playing the organ can be a big job and so time consuming that it does deserve remuneration."

We agree, but at what point does it become sufficiently large to merit charging a fee? I suspect that few church members realise how much 'non-contact' time is involved - choosing hymns, selecting voluntaries, private practice of the music, marking scores, seeing wedding couples, looking after choir children, dealing with parents, etc. Much of this work has to be done even when one is not also the choir master.
I am not going to tell anyone whether or not they should have a fee. For just playing the organ in a small church with a small congregation it may not be appropriate: after all the organist's work is also his or her pleasure. It's just practising (with free use of the organ), turning up on Sunday and having the privilege of playing. (Weddings are paid for separately).

Stephen: What do you think about people in my situation, where organ playing is not my living, but the cost of lessons, examinations, etc., exceeds the fees I get. Do you think that I should charge for playing for services to cover the expenses I incur in learning to play the organ? ( I never charge for recitals - almost all of these are arise in my capacity as Diocesan Organ Adviser, a job for which reimbursement of expenses is rare.)
Wouldn't want to comment, really. I suppose it depends on whether the lessons and exams are demanded by the church or are for personal satisfaction. I certainly think that the church needs to be encouraging and supporting young organists - perhaps financial support for lessons in addition to any fee.

I do, I must admit, find it a bit sad, these days that youngsters are not prepared to do anything for nothing. I got so much experience when I was growing up playing in churches and for choirs - the experience was good for me and I didn't expect to be paid - perhaps a bottle of wine or something. I know those times are gone and I'm just a Grumpy Old man!

I have to admit that I find the tone of much of this discussion very depressing - what can I get, not what should I give? For those without a Christian Commitment I think they should play if the satisfaction they will get and the fee offered are enough, otherwise they shouldn't. If the church cannot get enough organists and there some around who are not playing (and there are no spare ones around here) then it needs to pay more or do without.

Some are more easily offended than others.

A non-stipendiary clergyman will almost always have a vocation; it would be naive to suggest that somewhere, someone's mightn't be wearing a little thin.
My point was that I have no such vocation to play the organ for services. I do it partly because I'm grateful to have the use of the instrument. The fact that I do it regularly I consider to be a rather generous gesture on my part, (less so now I do alternate weeks) since others can swan off for a weekend away occasionally without clearing it with a Lay reader; but perhaps I'm selfish after all.

If circumstances, eventually, are propitious when I am somewhat older I can certainly imagine volunteering and remitting any fee, in order to play and have an instrument to play.

My current position is that of DofM in a relatively large church where they actually want music management in addition to organ playing. It's thus quite a significant commitment, and requires significant effort in planning, administration, etc., before one sets hand or foot on the organ. I have a reasonable remuneration for it as a 'job on the side'.

However, during the past year personal circumstances have changed insofar as having been forced out of my day-job when the company decided to shift roles to places in the world where resource costs are lower than in the UK. Thus my only income now comes from music - and there is a limit to the number of choral societies one can take on, in terms of the number of evenings in a week!

Much as I might like to give my services to the church, I am unable to do so and so accept the fee - and look forward to the church retaining the ability to pay a musician for after I leave.

The whole subject of fees is a thorny one, and I feel needs to be viewed in the context of the church concerned.

As I mentioned earlier today we have five churches in our parish. Two are in fairly affluent villages, one is less affluent, and the other two serve former mining communities where support for the church and disposable income are both in short supply.

The organist at the biggest of the five churches in the wealthiest part of the parish is rewarded quite handsomely for his efforts. Apart from two stipendiary clergy there is also a paid parish administrator, who receives rather more for six hours work a week than most organists do. Under these circumstances I feel it is entirely right that the organist should be paid appropriately.

However, the churches in the less well off parts of the parish [where organists are unpaid] are largely kept afloat by retired or non stipendiary clergy, and by Lay Readers who give communion by extension. Given these circumstances I feel it is rather more difficult to justify paying a musician when everyone else is unpaid, and when the churches concerned struggle to pay their way.

Notwithstanding the above, I feel this thread has probably drifted a little , as I think the original post referred to fees demanded by organists for weddings and funerals that they didn't actually play for, and more specifically, that organists Contracts stipulated that they must be paid even where the family brought their own musicians and the incumbent organist didn't have to play a single note. I believe this whole matter and subsequent allegations of 'maffia like behavior' originated from a mischievous article in The Telegraph a few months ago.

SB

There's clearly a big difference between a large and relatively wealthy city church, with many services to be played for, and the church of which I am a part time choir member and occasional stand in musician. Our congregation is pretty small and everyone has to do their bit. As far as I know the gardeners are indeed professionals, and incredibly generous with their time and skills, as is our unpaid vicar. The choir isn't brilliant but it really isn't bad for a large village church and we're lucky to have a good organist and the part timers who come along for special occasions. I have to say that I like the set up where everyone pulls their weight and no one's set above anyone else in terms of the value of their job. The organist is paid, but not a lot!

If I agree to do something I do it to the best of my ability, whether or not I'm getting paid. I can't see that money comes into it in terms of commitment or how you approach it. Sorry, that sounds really pious! I consider that I'm lucky to be of some use to the choir and will happily help them out. Lots of other people help me with the many things I'm terrible at.

We only need to read this thread to see why organists are resigning and not looking for new posts. They are either resented for wanting to be paid or resented for playing for nothing. The blame for this sad scenario lies not really with organists themselves but squarely with the church. The decision to pay or not to pay should be taken by the governing body of whatever type of church it is - Anglican, Methodist, whatever. Amounts should should be black and white, on a scale that is commensurate with qualifications and responsibilities, and taking the money should be compulsory. In an impoverished parish it can be agreed that the money will be returned, but it should be paid out and accepted. Then there is no resentment, no misunderstanding, no taking for granted, no reticence to apply for jobs, no worries on the part of the church with regard to criticising, and no resentment from other organists because of high wages being earned, or because of a potentially good position being filled by somebody who doesn't have a clue what he's doing, but who is doing it for free.

I don't really feel I can let this one go unremarked on. I know so many young people who give up significant amounts of time to volunteering. I'm not going to pretend that it isn't sometimes because it looks good on a CV, or helps develop skills that you so desperately require to have any hope of finding a job in the current economic climate; but often it is because they perceive it as worth doing, or because it is intrisically rewarding. Some may even do it because of their faith - many of my friends identify themselves as Christian but a lot would rarely enter a Church.

There are far more volunteering activities out there than ringing bells, playing organs and arranging flowers: Lets be honest (although I stereotype!), the vast majority of these 'occupations' wouldn't suit the skills of the average under-25 anyway!

Actually, I agree with you absolutely. I was referring only to young musicians that I know - they want a professional fee for everything, even if they aren't in any way professional. Money is very important - iPhones have to paid for! However I'm really only comparing things to a different era, when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the countryside.

I agree that I should not have given such a blanket condemnation - the young people I know are mostly fantastic and, yes, often do a lot of voluntary work.

Thank you for your comment - I stand corrected.

This is something that society is just going to have to get used to. If these people don't warrant their fees, then the 'consumer' is at liberty not to employ their services. But if they refuse to be under-valued and refuse to work without payment, then that is their prerogative too, and I wish them luck. Money IS important; if I go into a shop for 2L milk and only have 50p I won't get the milk. If I can't show regular income I can't get a loan. And if musicians choose to spend money on i-phones, that's up to them! Music - whether in church or otherwise - should not just be an unpaid hobby for the wealthy to indulge in, and to be able to offer freely. If young musicians can't make money at music, they won't continue with music - or even study it in the first place. Where will the churches be then?

Everywhere, people resent paying accompanists for children's exams, and they resent paying more for the music at their wedding than for their hairdresser. Instead of berating those who demand reasonable remuneration we should applaud them, because they are doing us ALL a favour with regard to trying to put an end to music being viewed as a cheap hobby rather than as a profession. A major reason for the public's resentment at paying musicians is the knowledge that there are those who will do it for less, or for free.

I had this problem too at an RC church. They started to get very agitated with me if I needed a week off for something - eg. holiday. They expected me there every week for nothing. They really took advantage. In the end I left and I had been treated so badly by these people professing to be Christians that I took a break from church too for 5 years.

This is a good example of why it behoves the organist to start every relationship with a Parish on the 'right foot'. If you are professional in negotiating the terms of your employment, then nobody can misunderstand and take advantage. It is the same in any secular job - who would expect to just wander into a business and offer to work 10-12 hours a week for nothing in the hope that one day the business might turn around and offer me a fee? Get the subject of remuneration out in the open early on, and don't be afraid to negotiate or indeed to walk away if the Parish gets pious. They will soon learn when all they are left with is a 90-year old on the stool who plays everything manuals only with all the 8' + 16' stops drawn, extremely SLOWLY.