PipeChat Digest #3726 - Wednesday, June 4, 2003 Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@classicorgan.com> RE: the AGO by "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <firstname.lastname@example.org> RE: the good old days by "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <email@example.com> Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) by "Blair Anderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Copyright petition by "Emmons, Paul" <email@example.com> Re: Craig Whitney interview on NPR by "Bill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> RE: Copyright petition by "Andrew Mead" <email@example.com> RE: Copyright petition by "Andrew Mead" <firstname.lastname@example.org> RE: Copyright petition by "Emmons, Paul" <email@example.com> RE: Opinions welcomed by "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) by "Nelson Denton" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@classicorgan.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:23:03 -0400 Blair, For traditional organists, and those who are in the organ trade, these are = tough times. I have placed a number of instruments over the years that = now are no longer used, or not regularly used. I sure in the business can tell of similar stories. I have also heard of job descriptions being changed when a music ministry director was hired. The organist along with the choir , was reduced to either the so-called traditional service, or if only one service they only did half the number of hymns, = and organ selections. So as angry, and disappointed as you are, it is a wake-up call to all of us. This kind of thing is accelerating of late. The organ business has slowed down of late, and that can be partly blamed on the economy, but = also on the changing tastes of those in charge in many churches. It sounds like the best thing to do is look elsewhere where your talents and music making will be appreciated. Let us hope that, people in churches get tired of these happy-clappy, little substance type contemporary music, and return to the more traditional great hymnody and sacred music of a better era, when churches were full, congregations sang, and generally was more satisfied. Regards, Arie V. At 07:02 PM 6/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Gentle ListFolk: > >I need some opinions to determine whether or not our Choir Director and >myself (organist) have been mis-treated or mislead. I will do my absolute >best to tell only the facts, the truth, and stay away from hearsay or >gossip. > >The background: > >I am the organist in a suburban church in a moderately-sized city in a >Canadian prairie city. It is a congregation of the United Church of = Canada. >The city has less than one million people. Our church has a membership of >some 450 families, a sanctuary that seats 525 when absolutely full, a >bright, light sanctuary (built in 1948) and have always maintained a high >standard of "traditional" worship and music over the years. Currently the >choir has six paid soloists (2 S, 1 C, 1 T, 1 Bar, 1 B) and a >twenty-year-old Allen 505 S which has been cascaded and sounds = particularly >well in the space. > >The Choir Director has many years of choral experience including a few = years >as a choral scholar at St. John's College, Cambridge, has taught high = school >music for nearly 30 years as well as church choirs, amateur and = professional >choral groups, an adjudicator across Canada, and a lovely Bass soloist. > >I have been playing the organ in United and Anglican churches since 1966 = and >can play almost all genres of organ music including some of the more >complicated Bach fugues and the Widor Toccata, etc. I am known for my >service playing skills, hymn leadership, and choir and solo = accompaniment. I >believe that organ music in church, for me, is a true calling and I = express >myself through the organ as the spirit moves me. > >There are three other United Church congregations in our area of the city >that are in similar situations - falling attendance, reduced giving, and >increased expenses. It was decided a year ago to merge the three >congregations into one. One of the three buildings was too small and in >great need of repair, so the decision was made to choose from only two of >the three buildings. Unfortunately, the building chosen was not ours, but >rather the smaller of the two sanctuaries (525 versus 430). The church >chosen has an ancient three-manual Allen installed in 1954 at the rear in >the balcony of the building. It is in desperate need of replacement. It >hasn't been much of an issue in the past two years as the organist and = choir >director were let go two years ago and the congregation has been = struggling >along with the "praise band" model of musical worship, including words >projected on the front wall, etc. They are of the firm belief, at least = some >members of the congregation, that this form of worship is the future. > >As part of the amalgamation, each musician on the staffs of the three >churches were given their notice on February 1st of this year. The >amalgamation is to take place on July 1st this year. So, there was a team >music ministry from our church, an organist/choir director from another >church and the contemporary worship leader from the church chosen. > >When the Job Descriptions were presented to the staff members, there were >two positions to fill: Choir Director/Organist and Contemporary Music >Co-ordinator/Accompanist. The descriptions clearly delineated a = difference >between the two worship styles as the "new" amalgamated congregation is = to >meet all together at 10:00 for 15 or 20 minutes of worship and then split >into three "tracks": traditional, contemporary, and children. There was = no >indication that there would be any blending of services now or in the >future. Older people, who are, face it, the best givers and stewards in = the >church, were extremely happy that they were finally able to worship in a >"traditional" manner without the pressure of turning congregants off who >wanted a "contemporary" style. In short, attempting to be all things to = all >people. > >The Choir Director and myself discussed whether we should apply or not as = we >are both staunchly traditional and really are of an age and experience = that >we don't want to have to deal with praise band or "contemporary" worship >music styles. We don't want a microphone used for anything but speaking - >something that we were completely able to achieve in our current, but >soon-to-be-shut sanctuary. The new sanctuary needs a new organ (we were >willing to move the organ from our church there and install it = temporarily, >but clearly a new instrument would be needed as soon as possible). The = choir >needs to move from the rear of the church to the front - extensive >alterations need to be made to accommodate the choir and organ console at >the front of the sanctuary. The chosen church is wider, shorter, and has = a >roof that is really like a large inverted bathtub. Our sanctuary has a >pleasant 2 - 3 second acoustic when full. The chosen sanctuary has less = than >1 minute when empty! Our sanctuary is cheery, light, bright with tall = light >coloured glass windows on three sides. The chosen church has small dark >coloured glass windows at chest level on two sides. There are no windows >above your shoulders. It's dark at any time of the day, even with the >lighting fully on. > >We decided to apply and to ensure that we spoke, at length, to the >principals of the "traditional" service and use the Job Description as = the >basis for our answers. We were interviewed individually as that was what = was >requested. I had applied with the understanding that I was eminently >qualified for the single position, but that we wanted to work together as = a >team. > >The positions' salaries were $CDN3,000.00 apart - the "contemporary" = music >leader was paid the higher salary. > >Everyone in our church agreed that we were the best suited for the = position >- the best qualified, the most experienced, and the most personable. > >Both of us left the (separate) interviews feeling we did well and were >confident that we were successful in our application. > >Guess what? We weren't. The position was given to the Choir >Director/Organist of the smallest church with the smallest organ, with = the >smallest choir, with the least experience and ability. We were told that = we >weren't flexible enough for the "blended" services that they intended to >have in the new church - of which we were absolutely not aware! > >We are gobsmacked! We are disappointed, confused, angry, disheartened, >upset, spiritually broken, and in need of some opinions and suggestions. = I >will reply to anyone off-list if you wish further clarification or >information. > >CHEERS! Blair...
(back) Subject: RE: the AGO From: "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:17:54 -0400 Andres Gunther email@example.com Living in other country I am not acquainted with AGO matters, but = following called to my attention: > Amateur organists and pianists pressed into service as organists need > workshops in the basics: pedals, hymn-playing, choral conducting, > repertoire, etc. > Not only amateurs!- Two of my colleagues who have far more advanced music degrees than me (one of them was my organ instructor) are not able to play even a wedding, much less to accompaign a congregation-hymn singing or = play at a solemnity. Not that they lack musical background- but they were = trained as recitalists, not church musicians. The techniques are different; repertoire needs are different (recently discussed on the "Bach in Church" thread) and knowledges in liturgy (that are not = teached at the "Conservatoire") are a must. (Not consider choir and chamber orchestra conducting and managing; how to deal with a "Consistorium" or church board, a pastor, a custodian, even how to *behave* in church!...) > I'd be interested in master classes on Tournemire's L'Orgue Mystique, > for instance, or possibly a presentation on the "new" Solesmes rhythmic > interpretation of the Chant, or a series of master-classes using Dupre's > Improvisation Method as a text. None of those things would interest the > amateur organist. Perhaps yes... but I agree that these advanced programs cannot be taken by amateurs: They pre-suppose advanced music knowledge. Cheers Andres =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D First was the cat, then was the Orgler. The Orgler got a pet and the cat got something to wonder about.
(back) Subject: RE: the good old days From: "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:26:01 -0400 Andres Gunther email@example.com Thanks Bud for your postings; I will add some food for thought: > Mass was in Latin, the communion fast was from midnight, fish on Friday > was the rule, women had to cover their heads in church, "fiddle-back" > chasubles were still in style, Seems to be that these things will come back to catholic church soon (and = a servant will have to study latin as fifth language :)- but: will it bring back the heroe status of priests, the youth respecting the elders, and = stop the juvenile delinquency? Will it fill churches again for long? For us: Will it bring back the due respect and proper wages to church musicians (I am referring to the horrible post-VCII-concile circumstances in my country!); will it bring education programs for amateurs so they don't have to remain at "amateur status", will it bring advanced education programs for professionals who want to learn, update and improve? Will it bring back the generalized love for organ music, the idea that an pipe organ must last for generations, = not a decade or two until the next organist wants a new "a la mode" instrument and the "old" thing is thrown to the landfill? To the other side: Will *valuable* post VCII church music (and there is a good repertoire in Latin America) be respected- or discarded because "pendulum swung back"? Bringing back ancient rites (and "resurrecting" organs that *got lost in history* since long ago as seems to happen in certain = european regions recently) only has a sense if it goes hand in hand with a proper change in overall education patterns back to now almost forgotten values, = I think. Half thoughtful, half devil's advocate as usual in these cases... :) Andres =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D First was the cat, then was the Orgler. The Orgler got a pet and the cat got something to wonder about.
(back) Subject: Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) From: "Blair Anderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:18:54 -0500 Gentle ListFolk: I beg your humble indulgence. Since I posted my "Opinions welcomed..." posting yesterday, my ISP decided to stop sending me my E-mails! As a result, I haven't read anything on the topic since I posted. If some kind, cordial, and willing mailing list participant has kept these messages, I would certainly appreciate having them sent in my direction. In your (their) honour, I will be sure to play a resounding C Major chord = on full organ on Sunday morning during practice time, of course... ;-) CHEERS! Blair... _________________________________________ When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. - Abraham Maslow
(back) Subject: Copyright petition From: "Emmons, Paul" <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:18:17 -0400 I encourage you to sign a petition to congress on behalf of a law that = would establish a fee of $1 per work on publishers who wish to avail themselves = of the copyright extension granted by the Sonny Bono act. Personally, I think that this fee is too low and wish it were at least $5 = or $10. Most publishers still in existence would not hesitate to pay $1 to extend their prerogratives over anything for another generation or so. = Look what has happened in our field, with music of the 1930s, once disdained, becoming popular again. Even as it is, I'm afraid that this bill is a quixotic gesture. However, anything we can do to protest the distortion that recent legislation and supporting court decisions have imposed on the public interest is well = worth a minute of our time. The explanation and petition are at: http://www.petitiononline.com/eldred/petition.html Thank you!
(back) Subject: Re: Craig Whitney interview on NPR From: "Bill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:25:45 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=3D_NextPart_000_008C_01C32A83.A87F4020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=3D3D1286349 ------=3D_NextPart_000_008C_01C32A83.A87F4020 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DVerdana size=3D3D2><A=3D20 href=3D3D"http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=3D3D1286349">= ht=3D tp://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=3D3D1286349</A></FONT></D= =3D IV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DVerdana size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DVerdana size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DVerdana size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=3D_NextPart_000_008C_01C32A83.A87F4020--
(back) Subject: RE: Copyright petition From: "Andrew Mead" <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:10:25 -0400 Paul: You've posted this request to Americans and non-Americans. If non-Americans "sign" I think it could potentially invalidate the entire petition. I'm not going to sign-not because I disagree with you, but = because I'm not American and I live outside the USA. BTW, I have signed petitions originating from the USA that I disagreed = with in the hope of invalidating them. AjM -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Emmons, Paul Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:18 AM To: 'Piporg-L'; 'PipeChat'; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Copyright petition I encourage you to sign a petition to congress on behalf of a law that = would establish a fee of $1 per work on publishers who wish to avail themselves = of the copyright extension granted by the Sonny Bono act. Personally, I think that this fee is too low and wish it were at least $5 = or $10. Most publishers still in existence would not hesitate to pay $1 to extend their prerogratives over anything for another generation or so. = Look what has happened in our field, with music of the 1930s, once disdained, becoming popular again. Even as it is, I'm afraid that this bill is a quixotic gesture. However, anything we can do to protest the distortion that recent legislation and supporting court decisions have imposed on the public interest is well = worth a minute of our time. The explanation and petition are at: http://www.petitiononline.com/eldred/petition.html Thank you!
(back) Subject: RE: Copyright petition From: "Andrew Mead" <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:15:45 -0400 My apologies to Paul for my last message. It was intended for him alone. Sorry! Andrew Mead
(back) Subject: RE: Copyright petition From: "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:14:11 -0400 No problem, Andrew. It's good of you to warn the 'furreners' that they shouldn't spoil it (unless they want to!). I apologize for my provincialism, should have remembered that these are cosmopolitan lists, and mentioned your caveat myself. The fact that non-Americans are not entitled to sign the petition, of course, brings up a couple of larger ironies: 1) What is illegitimate about the interest of someone elsewhere in the world in using an American work that may or may not be under copyright? They labor under the same obstacles as Americans do. 2) If memory serves, one of the arguments of those urging longer copyright terms is that it would bring American practice into conformity with the = law elsewhere in the world. The testimony or expressed opinions of others who are already living under those conditions should be particularly appropriate.
(back) Subject: RE: Opinions welcomed From: "Emmons, Paul" <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:01:41 -0400 Andrew Mead writes: > I would not like to see organists "organize" and form trade unions. = There would be some short term benefits, but the end would be very bad. How and why would it be very bad? IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE MUSICIAN'S UNION IN THE HOUSE??? This union continues to exist and be found useful to its members, even though there are also many non-union musicians doing paid gigs and no one harasses them or their employers, as far as I know. But I'm not a member = or well informed as to how it works or is effective. There must be someone here who can speak from experience. If the AGO were or became a union, it would function comparably. I can only muse in general terms from my cobbled-together populist libertarian philosophy. I believe in economic efficiency, which means basically a capitalist environment, but I don't really *like* it and it's certainly not my religion (unlike many libertarians, alas). If laissez-faire capitalism were allowed to run rampant and roughshod, it = would be hell on earth for 99% of us. Have you seen "Angela's Ashes?" It refreshes one's education, were it needed, as to the squalor and = deprivation in which millions have subsisted lifelong in industrialized, western, 20th-century Christendom. There but for the grace of God go you and I. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that some with power would view with utter equanimity the prospect of most of their fellow men living in such a manner again, as long as they continued to labor at least fifty hours a = week and reproduce themselves. Things are heading that way these days. On the other hand, I don't care for the effect of a large, coercive, overweening government as to either economic prosperity or personal = freedom. That leaves unions and co-ops as the best friends of the Reinken file. = The proletariat, as we are called, didn't have it so good in the 19th century. Then labor unions became standard. We had it better. Now we're having it worse again-- and whadya know, this deterioration corresponds to a decline in unionism. The only way I wouldn't care for the A.G.O. being a union is if it started to dictate who is hired or how hiring decisions are made. Most churches are small, relatively intimate organizations, and some have peculiar moral/ethical/theological positions. My concerns for social justice notwithstanding, I think that such organizations should have the right to hire whom they please for whatever reason. It is how they are sometimes treated after that point that sometimes rankles, and here I think a union, or quasi union, can be valuable. As an academic, I've been non-union and I'm now union. I'm here to say union is better. >
(back) Subject: Re: Opinions welcomed... (Long posting) From: "Nelson Denton" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:20:55 -0400 I can't believe a Canadian church with 450 families on it's roles would be closing. What is your Sunday attendance? Here in Southern Ontario 100+ people at a service is considered a good attendance! It seems somebody is playing with the numbers. Has anyone considered forming their own church? I've seen that done in = many churches where the new dogma ran opposite to what the people wanted. You could rent the old building and find your own minister who will preach traditional services. I've seen it happen here with attendance climbing through the roof. I'm amazed how many people will jump ship if given the chance to go to a traditional service. My own church has grown = considerably after the "happy clappy/drum services" were dropped in favour of the traditional Presbyterian service. Nelson --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01-Jun-03