Today, almost all churches have employed musicians to provide music for
their Christian worship services. These
musicians are either members of sister churches or members of the same church
that employed them. The experiences and the qualifications
of our church
musicians vary in two folds. While others obtained their experience and qualifications
formally, others obtained theirs informally. Those who obtained their knowledge
formally probably have qualifications and/or certificates from certified
bodies; such as universities, the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music
(ABRSM) and other certified
schools and bodies. The musicians who obtained their knowledge informally
were probably taught at home, or by a senior musician, or were self-taught. However,
whatever your background is, you are expected to produce quality music for the
purpose for which you were employed.
Christian knowledge informs us that God created man to work for his food,
and that those who ate without work were thieves. This is backed by scripture: “and
also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour,
it is the gist of God” (Ecc. 3:13, KJV). Another supporting scripture says that
“for thou shall eat the labour of thine hands, happy thou shall be, and it
shall be well with thee.” (Ps. 128:2, KJV). Before I continue, I want readers
to be informed that there are church musicians who provide their services for
free, probably there are other sources of livelihood for them. On the other
hand, there are church musicians whose source of livelihood is their music
career both inside and outside the church.
In Africa, most church members and
leaders ‘criticize negatively’ their musicians when they talk about ‘money’; this
should not be the case. Church leaders must focus on constituting a
remuneration structure for their musicians, employ quality musicians, and
perform their responsibilities that will make these musicians function properly.
It should be noted that musicians who are employed and remunerated in the
church are employed as any other staff or worker of the church, and so they
should be accorded every benefit.
In some churches, although there is a remuneration for musicians, only
instrumentalists are remunerated and not the directors or song teachers. It is
high time those churches know that the organist, choirmaster, director, song
teacher, etc all have different roles and must be treated as such. The organist
is the organist and not the choirmaster or the song teacher; his basic role is
to learn pieces and accompany the choir, just as any other instrumentalist. The
choir master/song teacher/band master/music director, etc is also responsible
for spearheading the selection of songs and teaching them to the choir or band.
However, the choir master/choir director may have extra administrative roles to
play.
Let us study the illustrations below:
(A) In the Methodist church choirs: there are usually a choir master and an organist. In situations where
the choir master is a technical person, he performs all technical duties,
including selection of songs, teaching of songs, and all other choral
management duties, as well as administrative duties. Where he is not a
technical person, he performs only administrative duties, while his technical
duties are performed by an assistant appointed for such or the organist. There
are however general assistant choir masters. The organist, on the other hand,
is responsible for learning pieces and accompanying the choir and not teaching
music. However, the organist can be given the extra responsibility of teaching
songs. In situations, where the organist is serving as the choir master or
teaching songs at the same time, he will be known as choirmaster/organist.
(B)
In the Methodist church singing
bands: there are usually a band president, band
master and band organist. The president is strictly for administrative
purposes. The band master is responsible for the selection of songs, teaching
of songs, and all other choral management duties. Lastly, the band organist is
responsible for learning pieces and accompanying the singing band and not
teaching music. Similarly, the band organist can be given the extra
responsibility of teaching songs, where there is no bandmaster, and he will be
known as bandmaster/organist.
(C)
In the Presbyterian church choirs: there are usually a president, choir master and choir organist. The
president is solely for administrative duties. The choir master is responsible
for the selection of songs, teaching of songs, and all other choral management
duties. The choir organist is responsible for learning pieces and accompanying
the singing band and not teaching music. Again, in the absence of a
choirmaster, the choir organist can be given the extra responsibility of
teaching songs, and he will be known as a choirmaster/organist.
From the illustrations above, about eight possible church
music offices are realized – choir president, band president, choir master,
band master, choir organist, band organist, choirmaster/organist, and
bandmaster/organist – and each has a defined role to play.
It is worth to know that in some well-established churches in Europe,
choristers are employed and remunerated for their services to the church. They
can be either members of the church or otherwise, they are really employed
professionally; their qualifications and experiences in the industry are well
considered; but this is not the case in Africa. However, I believe churches can
begin to indirectly remunerate choristers for their numerous services. It may
not necessarily be physical cash; but can the choristers’ transportation to
practices be considered? Can choristers be motivated by the church in different
possible ways? It is high time our churches begin to look at these.
Church musicians should also not take the church for granted, for
remunerating them. They should make sure that their produce is worth what they
gain as remuneration. If they work hard and their produce is even more that
what they gain as remuneration, they may not have to fight for an increment,
for their produce will tell it all.
I seek to inform the church that there are different offices in the
church music career and for that matter, the church should not just join
offices and think that one person is supposed to perform all those duties,
without remunerating him accordingly.
If an individual is given ‘one duty’ to
perform in the church, the church has ‘one responsibility’ to perform on him;
but if an individual is given ‘two duties’ to perform in the church, then the
church also has ‘two responsibilities’ to perform on the individual.
While others only love to seek money, hopping from one church to the
other, there are quiet a good number of good or quality church musicians who
are loss by churches all because they don’t remunerate them well. Other church
also take advantages of these situations and poach church musicians, employ
them, and ‘treat them well’ for a good and quality music. You don’t want this
to happen to your good church musicians.
It will be very appropriate to structure the remuneration of church
musicians, considering the qualifications and experiences of musicians, rather
than thinking that the job should be free. If you employ a church musician who
will work for free, so be it, but if the person will have to be remunerated,
you only have to refer to your remuneration structure. Possibly, there may be the
need for some adjustments.
Comments
Post a Comment