Wedding music

[Durham]

The figure was in fact quoted in other papers as well.

The point I was really making was that this was a religious service not a concert.

Although the lay clerks are professional musicians and are no doubt entitled to receive royalties calculated under Equity rules I think they should be very uncomfortable about whether this is really appropriate remuneration in the circumstances considering they are evidently normally paid ( according to reports ) £85 per service.

As the Bishop of London said in his excellent sermon this was at heart a wedding service like any other.

Also, does anyone really think that £7,500 each is proportionate reward for singing three hymns, three anthems and an Amen. None of which was very demanding and certainly would not have taken days of rehearsal/ session time as would a commercial recording.

As I said above most of it should be donated to Royal Wedding charities.

I feel very strongly about this

VCC

I'm afraid you will find that musicians who work professionally for the church also feel strongly that their work be compensated at an amount that is not less to that of musicians performing outside the church. Also, it is simply inaccurate to suggest that the music was not rehearsed extensively over several days and further 7.500 is but a fraction of the fee musicians in other arenas earn as a matter of course, and with far less, if any, professional training.

[Magnificat]

Durham,

Whether the fees they receive for services generally are fair or not is one thing. No doubt the lay clerks are underpaid. If they feel strongly about this presumably they can go elsewhere or do they feel that the church is exploiting them because work is not abundant? I would imagine few churches/cathedrals could afford the £85 paid to the WA lay clerks ( if this is correct ).

As far as this Service is concerned the fee ( if correct) is just so obviously excessive it is outrageous. I can't be the only person that thinks this is money for old rope however well qualified thesingers may be.

All I am saying is that the men should not be looking to make unjustified money out of a church service. I still think £1000 would be ample and that the rest should go to Prince William's charities.

As I have said above the singing was superb and as the Mail also said the camera shots of the choristers were sublime despite picking up the politicians in the rear stalls where Kenneth Clarke had never looked so angelic !!

VCC

[Triforium]

I believe there were similar arguments last go round when the Vicars Choral at St. Paul's received something like £800 each - if I recall correctly.

One way to look at the fee structure is to think of it as two parts, part for the service on the day itself, and part to cover royalties. Presumably the proceeds from dvd sales and/or rebroadcasts of the event are not all going to charity.

[Wolsey]

The figure was in fact quoted in other papers as well.

The point I was really making was that this was a religious service not a concert.

Although the lay clerks are professional musicians and are no doubt entitled to receive royalties calculated under Equity rules I think they should be very uncomfortable about whether this is really appropriate remuneration in the circumstances considering they are evidently normally paid ( according to reports ) £85 per service
[snip]
Also, does anyone really think that £7,500 each is proportionate reward for singing three hymns, three anthems and an Amen. None of which was very demanding and certainly would not have taken days of rehearsal/ session time as would a commercial recording.

As I said above most of it should be donated to Royal Wedding charities.

I feel very strongly about this

VCC

And I feel strongly about this as well.

Yes - it was a broadcast service; we know. And who are you to dictate what is or is not "proportionate" for a service in which these church musicians were exercising their craft of music to a worldwide audience, and where their art will be available for download in any part of the world - and on a variety of media - for years to come? The musicians were not paid by you - even indirectly, so the details of their payment is simply none of our business, and they may apply the fees they have received in whatever way they think fit. If you evidently think you are more qualified than Equity to calculate the royalties due, then I am sure that they will be pleased to hear from you. In any event, we are not discussing 'taxpayers' money', and I really do not see any reason to clog up the boards with such an irrelevance. Why on earth are you implying that as far as a church musician is concerned, the labourer is less worthy of his hire when his work is now available for posterity at the click of a mouse in any part of the globe?

[jamiepompey]

Durham,

Whether the fees they receive for services generally are fair or not is one thing. No doubt the lay clerks are underpaid. If they feel strongly about this presumably they can go elsewhere or do they feel that the church is exploiting them because work is not abundant? I would imagine few churches/cathedrals could afford the £85 paid to the WA lay clerks ( if this is correct ).

As far as this Service is concerned the fee ( if correct) is just so obviously excessive it is outrageous. I can't be the only person that thinks this is money for old rope however well qualified thesingers may be.

All I am saying is that the men should not be looking to make unjustified money out of a church service. I still think £1000 would be ample and that the rest should go to Prince William's charities.

As I have said above the singing was superb and as the Mail also said the camera shots of the choristers were sublime despite picking up the politicians in the rear stalls where Kenneth Clarke had never looked so angelic !!

VCC

Magnificat,

I have to say you are just wrong with your view on this subject. It may have been just a "religious" service to you, but doesn't that also count pretty much every other performance the Abbey choir gives? Of course it does. It's their job to sing at religious services, that is what they are paid to do. Not to mention that this service, as a wedding, is also outside of the usual responsibilities stipulated within their contract. How often do you think the singers will get the opportunity to earn a generous fee again in their lifetime for demonstrating their great skill, as they do on a daily basis. Probably never again. They could also claim to be at the top of their profession in their field and yet their usual rate of pay is paltry when you compare it to other occupations top rate of pay. I could go on but I think I've made my main point!

Also, seeing as the album of the wedding service is now at no.3 in the iTunes chart I'd hardly say that £7,500 per head is particularly excessive. Especially when you take into account some of the other artists in that chart who get paid an awful lot more than that for releasing a 'live' album. Excellence is justly remunerated in this instance (for once!).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

£7,500 does seem a little excessive for a single wedding, but I'd rather pay a Westminster Abbey chorister that sort of figure than the likes of Elton John, Russell Watson, Katherine Jenkins, etc.

[Gabriel Jackson]

The figure was in fact quoted in other papers as well.

The point I was really making was that this was a religious service not a concert.

Although the lay clerks are professional musicians and are no doubt entitled to receive royalties calculated under Equity rules I think they should be very uncomfortable about whether this is really appropriate remuneration in the circumstances considering they are evidently normally paid ( according to reports ) £85 per service.

As the Bishop of London said in his excellent sermon this was at heart a wedding service like any other.

Also, does anyone really think that £7,500 each is proportionate reward for singing three hymns, three anthems and an Amen. None of which was very demanding and certainly would not have taken days of rehearsal/ session time as would a commercial recording.

As I said above most of it should be donated to Royal Wedding charities.

I feel very strongly about this

VCC

If indeed the fee was £7,500 it is by no means excessive. The fee was not for singing at a wedding but for singing at a wedding that was also a media event watched by, it is estimated, two billion people. A wedding that was recorded for CD and download which will generate a substantial amount of revenue for Universal Music. Their fee, whatever it actually is, buys out their rights in all media, in perpetuity. (The music may not have been very demanding but there would have been a substantial amount of camera rehearsal etc. for the TV broadcast, as well as purely choral rehearsals, so rather more of their time will have been called upon than is being suggested.)

It never ceases to amaze me how other people seem to think it their right to pontificate about what musicians should earn, usually when they have no idea of what is actually involved.

[VodkaDilc]

Returning to the rather safe choice of music, at least for the major part of the service, I notice that The Guardian has suggested that Charles "took a tight personal grip" on the matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/30/wedding-music-traditional-prince-charles?INTCMP=SRCH

However, even for his own wedding thirty years ago there was a little more originality: the Mathias piece, a new arrangement of the National Anthem (Willcocks?) and Dame Kiri singing Handel. I also wonder whose hand was responsible for the wonderful music in Diana's funeral (Tavener, Verdi and so on).

Wouldn't something by Tavener or MacMillan (Catholic, but so what?) have given the musical content a bit more "bite"? (Just think of the drama MacMillan's music brought to the Westminster Cathedral service when the Pope visited last year!)

One more point, which I have not heard mentioned yet: why did they have to mangle Crown Imperial? The first section was cut to such as extent (allowing the major part of the procession to accompany the slow theme) that the piece lost all structure. (I was also irritated by the couple leaving the Abbey just as the slow theme was due to be recapitulated, but I suppose that could not be helped.)

[Flosshilde]

(I was also irritated by the couple leaving the Abbey just as the slow theme was due to be recapitulated, but I suppose that could not be helped.)

I can just see them rushing back in by a side door to walk down the aisle again

[Oldcrofter]

I'm sure you're right, Caliban (Message 70)

Rutter is Marmite, CFM is toast. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, miserable or otherwise. When did I ever deny that ?

I'm not at all miserable, having spent an hour or so with friends in the early morning sunshine singing Dowland, Morley, Weelkes, Wilbye, Byrd and Gibbons
- no, no Rutter - high on a hill, to welcome this May morning. And then to a hearty breakfast with same friends.

But at least I tried to put forward a few reasons (Message 61) why one might consider Rutter has some claim to acceptability.

And anyway, the discussion's moved on to the far more interesting topic of how much Wabbey singers get paid - now that's a real musician's debate, like the nearest best pub to drink in after the show and how long it takes to get from pit to pint.

[ardcarp]

why did they have to mangle Crown Imperial?

Well, what was left of it was completely drowned out by bells anyway. Even the lowliest village organist knows that (usually) only the first few bars of his wedding sortie are actually heard.

Reverting to singers' payments, I would say the very competent singers in the London circuit are wildly under-paid. OK, they may receive £70 - £85 per service, but this has to include their often substantial travelling costs. And those who sing in top recording choirs (Poyphony, Sixteen, Tallis Scholars) do not, as I understand it, get any sort of royalties based on CD sales. They just get a flat fee. Only when a singer hits the heights and becomes a solo artist of renown can he/she begin to command fees running into Ks. I simply don't buy Magnificat's argument that Wabbey men should be doing it for love/duty/religion/patriotism. Lots of amateur singers do give their services for any number of reasons, not least enjoyment, but the guys we are talking about are actually trying to scratch a living from their art. I'll make a wild guess, Magnificat, and suggest you have a salary paid into your bank monthly. To be self-employed, especially in the arts, can be scary. You may get a big cheque one day, but very little the next and the next....and the household bills just keep on coming.

Sorry...end of rant.

[doversoul1]

ardcarp

To be self-employed, especially in the arts, can be scary. You may get a big cheque one day, but very little the next and the next....and the household bills just keep on coming.

Being freelance myself though not in the art, I can hardly watch an orchestra performance without wondering (worrying, more like) how all those people make living… I prefer to listen to the radio (I know they are the same people but rationality isn’t my selling point).

[Magnificat]

having eventually tracked down the original Daily Mail article that started this discussion I would say that there is absolutely no implication that choristers would be receiving a £7,500 fee. This seems to be a figure simply plucked from the air as a guestimate of what they might receive over a period of time from CD, DVD etc. sales. The DM gives no details of how they arrived at this figure so perhaps we should take it with a pinch of salt. Perhaps the friend of a friend of a messageboarder would be able to find out exactly what the choristers received as a fee for Friday's service.

mercia,

I have made some enquiries since my last post and I am told by someone who knows what happens in these situations that the lay clerks will be paid 'a lot of money' and that the £7,500 figure could well be right.

I accept what Gabriel Jackson says is the reality of the situation; but despite this I still think that for them to be given a payment of almost 100 times their normal fee for a service is bordering on the unethical.

Royalty rights etc have no place in the context of a religious ceremony as far as the people who are involved in the religious life of the Abbey on a daily basis are concerned.

I would still like to hope that with a windfall of this sort the men would at least consider making a decent donation to Prince William's Royal Wedding Charity as should the other professional musicians involved.

As far as any record company is concerned they too should make a considerable donation from profits.

VCC

[MrGongGong]

mercia,

I have made some enquiries since my last post and I am told by someone who knows what happens in these situations that the lay clerks will be paid 'a lot of money' and that the £7,500 figure could well be right.

I accept what Gabriel Jackson says is the reality of the situation; but despite this I still think that for them to be given a payment of almost 100 times their normal fee for a service is bordering on the unethical.

Royalty rights etc have no place in the context of a religious ceremony as far as the people who are involved in the religious life of the Abbey on a daily basis are concerned.

I would still like to hope that with a windfall of this sort the men would at least consider making a decent donation to Prince William's Royal Wedding Charity as should the other professional musicians involved.

As far as any record company is concerned they too should make a considerable donation from profits.

VCC

So you really are suggesting that musicians should somehow work for nothing because its a "religious service " ??
Its easy to spot the children of musicians ........ they are the ones without shoes !

[David Underdown]

Even at an "ordinary" wedding the organist's fee is doubled if a video is made of the service