One thing that worked for me: If you asked a professional plumber or roofer in your congregation to do plumbing or roofing work, hopefully you would not expect the work to be done for free. Such professionals are welcome to volunteer their services, but it should not be expected.

 

I am retired as a church choir director (and still a university music professor), so I have this issue in my church. I volunteer to sing in the choir, to serve as a deacon, to work on the finance committee, etc. But when I conduct the choir, I expect to be paid. I don't care how much, but it is my profession, and like the plumber and roofer, I should be paid unless I offer my services for free.

 

The argument I used which finally convinced the powers that be: If you asked an ordained minister in your congregation to read a scripture, would you pay him? Not likely. But if you were to ask him to preach a sermon, I am certain he would be paid or at least offered an honorarium.

I like your logic, John, and Lee's as well.  I was on singing staff for a similar church for several years, and this issue, though present,  generally did not flare to a problematic level.   That was likely due to the fact that our church openly accepted a part of the population that others did not (GBLT), and many were glad to donate for  such opportunities, even though they might have expected pay elsewhere.   It was, in a sense, their "tithe" - affirming the church's mission.   But that is an unusual situation.

My personal experience includes performing and directing [church choral, community masterworks, professional light opera, community theatre, ] - in situations where I was compensated, and in a few selected other situations where that was not possible.

I also recommend that the following be considered:

1. Life choice: A person who chooses music [or other arts] as a profession has invested more into it; they usually have earned  one or more degrees.  They have invested much time and money - for tuition, transportation, childcare [in many cases], and possibly, household help and tutoring.  Some musicians/artists/performers have fine ability in other areas - they might have earned more of a secure income had they chosen "Doc, Lawyer, Bus. exec.", but they followed their heart and chose to gain training and credentials in the area of their passion.  Do we wish to send the message that this is not valuable? ... That students who wish to be professional music/theatre/dance/artist [yes, there are pros who paint while Bible stories are read - beautiful work] performers should not bother with degrees, because they may have to step aside regularly so that a volunteer [ who made a different, though totally valuable and respectable, choice]  has an opportunity? There was an expression used during a recent decade re: races, job procurement, etc. - "S/he wanted it more!".  Let's not forget the theory courses we took, the [required] recitals we attended, the secondary instruments we practiced.  Doesn't that indicate caring?  If the degreed/professional-person's skills have diminished significantly, it is certainly reasonable to use a volunteer who is competent.  (It has been mentioned recently on Choralnet that a degree doth not always a good teacher/performer make - this is true. )

Donating our talent may be a part of it, but largely, we are sharing based on what we learned and developed - at significant sacrifice.  Should not churches lead the way in respecting the education and professional status of thier members/artists?  That is not to say "treat them like divas" - quite the contrary - the artists should behave as graciosuly as the best church member; we are role models.  But each time an artist is expected to negate their preparation by volunteering, we wear down the respect of our profession.  We increase the chances that teacher positions, as well as church positions, will be cut - if not in our situation - in other situations, where there is less financial security.  Subsequently the quality of our profession falls, as less-prepared musicians/artists are used.  (I know you know this.  I include it in case you wish to quote something for the powers-that-be. ;)

2.  Preparation  - When we are singing anthems in the choir, generally we can attend rehearsal, sight-sing the material, and be adequately prepared.  If we are to prepare a solo [singing or instrumental] we will likely spend significantly more time in preparation - besides practice, we might take it to a voice teacher, and/or have extra rehearsing with an accompanist.  The same would be true for other arts.  The complexity can be considered here - this relates to your "above and beyond" concept, John.  A verse of "Amazing Grace" before the choir comes in, generally,  should not requre an honorarium.  "Rejoice greatly" from Messiah should, unless the singer is on regualar staff.

To your specific examples, I would say that, unless your church is extremely wealthy, it is not necessary to pay an actor to read one paragraph-long passage.  [If s/he feels over-extended in that, perhaps they will have to deal with the dissapointment of not reading.]  But if they read 4  passages - including the Gospel and Epistle, for a month, it would likely affect their time and brain-space as that relates to prep for other work - and a small honorarium might be appropriate.   As to the productions, how are they set up?  If it is like Community Theatre {everybody is considered, no Equity/Non-Equity issues} then generally no one is paid, except perhaps the Director and Music Director/Accompanist.  This should be publicized, and explained clearly at auditions.  However, if it is not an auditioned production, and a professional actor/actress is simply asked to play a leading role, then compensation is reasonable, as  s/he might have to refuse another paying role to keep the committment.  Or if it is set up as a professional, Equity-level production, with auditions, then, hopefully, the quailty of the production would draw audience and adequate ticket sales toward compensation for most.

The flute-player-anthem scenario is sort of "half & half" - it is reasonable for a small compensation, since s/he might have to practice it outside of rehearsal.  As to the kids' musical, is his/her child in it?  Would s/he be attending anyway?  A small honorarium might be good either way.  If I have to prep my flute part, then I've got to get someone else to help with my child's costume and suchlike.  However, would s/he accept a professional gig, thus missing the child's performance (maybe watching dress rehearsal would suffice) if one arose?  Then compensation might be necessary.

"Above and beyond" is a good term.  Other careers [medical, law, repair, design/architecture] have standards and policies about services that are difficult to measure, but are given sort of an educated-but-arbitrary price.

Pushback will happen in any church, school, organization...because people are different and have different feelings.  (That does not mean you are wrong, or that you need to doubt your good decision process.) Perhaps a document, similar to a fee list for weddings, would help to clarify.  While you cannot predict all the scenarios, some samples can give a guideline.

Best Wishes; please share what worked well!

-Lucy

I agree with Lee.  Of course, in my community most of the professional artists, musicians and actors (collectively "artists") also have day jobs, as the community doesn't support many full time artsts. In fact, there are many non- or semi-professional artists in the community that are very fine artists and are easier to work with than some of the professionals.  I have a day job that supports me.  I also have a masters in music and have been conducting and performing for many years as a semi-professional.  I will generally donate my time to sing, play or conduct for services at my own church, the exception to that being when I have served as interim director.  For a fine arts event that draws separate donors and reaches out to the community, I would think it would be fair to offer those church members that go "above and beyond" the same compensation you offer anyone else who is doing the same type of performing.  That said, you should expect the same type of effort, preparation and relative quality that you would expect from a paid professional from outside the church.  The church memember is always free to refuse the payment or donate it back to the church or the fine ats series. 

Hi John,

I normally have a conversation with member-artists about whether they would like to be paid.  Those who are better off tend to not, those who are unemployed or make their sole living in music may appreciate it, particularly students, and if I can afford it, I'm happy to pay them.  Someone is a member of the choir and also plays flute, I would not pay them unless it is a virtuosic piece and they have to put in several hours of practice.  And then I would just ask them when first discussing the piece and the timeframe.  If I think they might want payment I say "I'm happy to pay you $XX.00 if that would help," and they either say it would help or decline the payment.  If I really am counting on their services and I know it will be a tougher assignment, I'll open with "I'll pay you $XX.00 if you'd be willing to play this with us."

 

Another thing is that members might get a smaller "honorarium" as opposed to the "going rate."  I know in Des Moines the union musicians have to be paid at least 35.00 for a church gig.

 

I think the policy can be to ask each artist you might work with if they would like their playing to be their "offering", or would they appreciate compensation.  I know one singer at a local church who insists on being given a check, but then writes an equal check back to the church each time he is paid.  

 

Larger churches tend to like policies.  I would encourage you to come up with a policy that is very flexible, because it all depends on how much you are asking of them, whether they want to be paid, how much they feel they need, whether they know the piece or not.  Once you know who wants to gift everything and who wants to be paid from time to time, it is much easier.

 

For a larger work like a musical, same rule applies.  Ask what they need.  If you have open auditions, you don't need to pay.  But if you are building a show around someone's talent, just find out what they are expecting before you make your budget.

 

Good luck!

 

Ben Allaway

This has basically already been said, but my simple rule of thumb has been to pay them when it requires any *extra* work on their part. The second determination would be whether *I* asked them to do it, or instead they showed up and offered. 

 

And of course, if there is any uncertainty, there is no harm in asking them what they would prefer. Some musicians don't mind at all -and in fact enjoy- helping out at a church service at which the would otherwise already be at, but others view it like "I spent lots of money learning how to be excellent at my instrument, so any time I work for 'free' I am devaluing myself and all of my colleagues," which I think is an equally fine attitude to have, so then you just have to decide if what you are asking them to do is worth what they are asking to be paid.

Interesting that this has come around again, since the original posting was back in March (I admit to a doubletake, since there were two postings from our late colleague, John Howell - I thought that either there had been a horrible mistake along the lines of "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" or he was still communicating with us from beyond the grave!).  On a broader note, this is an issue of great concern and angst for many of us who are musicians in the Catholic Church.  For far too long the Church's attitude at the parish level, at least in this country, has been "go with the volunteers and damn the professionals" at any place except cathedrals, major churches, or parishes where the pastor has been himself an avid musician.  The argument used has been it's an offering of "time, treasure, and talent."  Well, sadly, many musicians find (as does the rest of the world) that "thank you" doesn't pay bills (and let's be honest, many times you don't even get "thanks!").  So, for me at least, the issue is a painfully present one, as too often, it ends up being a case of "you get what you pay for" - and then, pastors come up to you and complain about the quality of the music, that people don't sing, yada, yada, yada.  I admit to being brutal with such comments - education sometimes involves "tough love."  So the bottom line is, Lucy's extended but thoroughly cogent discussion should make it not only clear, but compelling, for churches to compensate people adequately for what they bring to a Sunday service that is indeed "above and beyond" - and accepting as final any decision to the contrary does a disservice to one's colleagues, and to all of us in the larger sense.

 

Chantez bien!

 

Ron