Resumption of sung services in cathedrals

[DracoM]

Wise words, alas!

[jonfan]

#88. Brilliant analysis Q. Let's keep up the positive!

[Quilisma]

I'm not sure that the argument about receiving extra fees for webcasting/livestreaming is now a winnable one for musicians. These means of reaching existing and new audiences are now an essential tool for music festivals and cathedrals, and if performers are going to seek an increase in fees because a concert is being webcast, that may well make that concert financially unviable.

In the case of a cathedral service, it would not be reasonable to expect an extra fee if 200 people turned up to Evensong one day, so why should one expect an extra fee if those 200 people happen to be sitting at home listening via the Internet? There may be a parallel to be drawn here with services such as weddings. The old rule of thumb was that you received 50% extra if an audio recording was made, or 100% extra if it was videoed. Back then, of course, a professional videographer had to be hired in, and such fee increases were easy to police. Now that so many people have smartphones, it's essentially impossible to regulate, and one has to accept that a number of people in a wedding congregation will be filming all or part of the service. The only realsitic way of dealing with this is to increase the basic fee.

In the case of cathedral lay clerks, they may have to seek a nominal salary increase to cover the possibility that some or all services may be broadcast in this way. Many cathedrals are struggling financially, and if musicians are going to seek a broadcast fee every time a service is webcast, that may ultimately put them out of a job.

Yes. My take on this is that it really isn't in the same category as if somebody decides they would like to have their wedding filmed, for example. In those instances there most definitely ARE agreed standard extra fees prescribed by the ISM, and presumably other equivalent bodies. (These fees ARE, and I imagine will continue to be, payable to salaried lay clerks on such occasions, just as they are to freelancers, and that is correct and understandable, although during lockdown I did see a number of people online moaning that lay clerks and other professional musicians are just operating a protection racket by demanding to be paid decent fees plus expenses for professional engagements, as if we should be "grateful for the experience" if someone wants to book us to travel hundreds of miles at our own expense to go and make music for several hours and be paid with a manky old sandwich: after all, music is just a nice hobby, right?) But if the filming is simply an access-related service then it seems to me that it is basically like keeping the door open: the service will happen the same either way, and just as it doesn't make any difference to the liturgy how many people (if any) happen to have turned up in person, it shouldn't really make a difference if there is an online adjunct facility in operation because "the show must go on" regardless. It's not as if we are being taken advantage of or as if any "product" is coming out of it, whereas in the circumstances for which specific extra fees have previously been mandated there is certainly always a sense that the filming, recording and/or broadcasting is a specific feature in its own right. Live-streaming itself should not really constitute any extra workload or stress for us, because we should always be trying to be at our very best anyway regardless of whether or not we happen to be on microphone and/or camera. Even under "normal" circumstances, with no recording of any sort, one never knows who might happen to be listening on any given occasion, and it shouldn't really matter. However, if the filming and recording is being done on the grounds that it would just be a nice idea, rather than that it would help others who can't come to be able to participate, then there is still a case for remuneration. There is of course the "slippery slope" counterargument, but in institutions where there is genuine goodwill and no hint of any desire for anybody to be exploited I don't really think that holds water. I don't think it does us, or our case, any harm whatsoever by showing a willingness to be reasonable about these things, particularly under the current circumstances. No doubt some kind of consensus will eventually emerge about these things. Again, we probably need to show willing to help formulate it.

[Miles Coverdale]

My point was not that weddings and the like shouldn't attract special service fees, but that the surcharges made in the past for the videoing of them are now essentially unenforceable, because so many people do it 'unofficially'. With regard to a cathedral choir, webcasting/livestreaming will soon be seen (if it isn't already) as a basic part of a choir's role, not an add-on worthy of extra payment.

[Quilisma]

My point was not that weddings and the like shouldn't attract special service fees, but that the surcharges made in the past for the videoing of them are now essentially unenforceable, because so many people do it 'unofficially'. With regard to a cathedral choir, webcasting/livestreaming will soon be seen (if it isn't already) as a basic part of a choir's role, not an add-on worthy of extra payment.

Yes, absolutely, I knew that was what you meant, and I agree with you!

[Roger Judd]

I do think that there is one aspect of web-casting services especially that needs to be taken note of. It has been seen that a vastly bigger 'congregation' than any single building/institution could possible host are now tuning into these services. The people tuning in may not be overtly 'Christian', but clearly these streamed services are meeting a need that physically 'going to church' either did not, or could not. As such the web-casts are providing a very vital and important service to many more than normally attend their local church. In essence a whole new and vast congregation has suddenly appeared, almost out of thin air ... I think it is rather wonderful.
RJ

[Lizzie]

If anyone has time, please consider joining us at Winchester Cathedral for Evensong at 1730, sung by our Layclerks, and/or Law Sunday Mattins at 1000 tomorrow, sung by our Girls. We'd love to welcome you, and hear your thoughts.

[Lizzie]

I do think that there is one aspect of web-casting services especially that needs to be taken note of. It has been seen that a vastly bigger 'congregation' than any single building/institution could possible host are now tuning into these services. The people tuning in may not be overtly 'Christian', but clearly these streamed services are meeting a need that physically 'going to church' either did not, or could not. As such the web-casts are providing a very vital and important service to many more than normally attend their local church. In essence a whole new and vast congregation has suddenly appeared, almost out of thin air ... I think it is rather wonderful.
RJ

Spot on, Roger! Most days for Winchester, we also now welcome people from Australia, USA, Germany, France, Ireland, Thailand, as well as from the whole UK. What a wonderful addition to what we already offer!

[Simon Biazeck]

I certainly have been watching live-streamed services online - Canterbury, Lincoln, Winchester (fond memories of a week spent deputising in David Hill's time at the latter - a thrilling sound in those days!) - when not involved in solo quartets at the London (Brompton) Oratory, which, in any case, have so far been Sundays only. Hard work, but hugely rewarding. Providing new editions of ultra-short settings of the Ordinary (including little-known 17th c. French and Italian repertoire) has been a labour of love. Alongside this, I have produced bespoke editions of the Propers in quadratic notation (abbreviated Gradual & Alleluia) typeset in Gregorio's GABC code with added semiology from the Solesmes Graduale Triplex, the Vatican's official critical edition.

I began a set of ATTB Responses in late March, and tuning into live Evensongs has certainly provided inspiration to get them finished!

Keep singing, everyone!!

SBz

[Lizzie]

I certainly have been watching live-streamed services online - Canterbury, Lincoln, Winchester (fond memories of a week spent deputising in David Hill's time at the latter - a thrilling sound in those days!) - when not involved in solo quartets at the London (Brompton) Oratory, which, in any case, have so far been Sundays only. Hard work, but hugely rewarding. Providing new editions of ultra-short settings of the Ordinary (including little-known 17th c. French and Italian repertoire) has been a labour of love. Alongside this, I have produced bespoke editions of the Propers in quadratic notation (abbreviated Gradual & Alleluia) typeset in Gregorio's GABC code with added semiology from the Solesmes Graduale Triplex, the Vatican's official critical edition.

I began a set of ATTB Responses in late March, and tuning into live Evensongs has certainly provided inspiration to get them finished!

Keep singing, everyone!!

SBz

[Lizzie]

Spot on, Roger! Most days for Winchester, we also now welcome people from Australia, USA, Germany, France, Ireland, Thailand, as well as from the whole UK. What a wonderful addition to what we already offer!

As well as the places above, we had new joiners from Italy and Germany tonight. All splendid!

[Andrew Butler]

Quite right. Forgive me if I seem like a cantankerous broken record, but it seems to me that many of us in the profession are devoting huge amounts of attention to trying to ensure that we can at least be permitted to do SOME of what we would normally be doing (rather than nothing at all), that our choirs should be maintained and nurtured as much as possible through these terrible times, and that there is sustained behind-the-scenes lobbying to try to prevent the environment for liturgy and liturgical music from becoming even more hostile than it currently is; while on the other hand various people are very quick to criticise all of us for being willing to be flexible and temporarily adapt in preference to doing nothing at all, on the grounds that this puts our commitment to "the old normal" and to its devotees in question. I know that the internet can be a depressing place, but still...

The collective "argument" of our critics seems to be roughly as follows: (a) being positive and constructive about trying to find practical solutions in the current situation is deliberately insensitive towards people who find the current restrictions profoundly depressing and abhorrent; (b) there must be no "new normal", even temporarily, because this is an insulting betrayal of the "old normal"; (c) providing online options, even if it is explicitly aimed at catering for those who cannot attend in person by giving them at least SOME access, is "just not the same", but endorsing it by actually doing it constitutes an assertion that it is just as good as, if not better than, attending in person; (d) we are therefore making the situation worse and ensuring that more churches will stay closed for a lot longer and may never reopen because they have been judged to be superfluous on the grounds that very few people actually attend them, and we would actually prefer those churches to be made permanently redundant on the grounds that we have no respect for those who regard virtual alternative options as unacceptably inferior to attendance in person; (e) the biggest tragedy of all is that there will be no option this year for members of the public to attend world-famous "flagship" Christmas services at places like King's College, Cambridge, and that those of us who ARE doing everything we can to provide opportunities for attendance in person as well as virtually are clearly in denial about the extent to which others find the lack of an option to attend "flagship" Christmas services at places like King's an appalling travesty, and that, once again, "it's just not the same"; (f) this situation is so dire, and support for people who care about it is so lacking, that the only honest reaction is to feel inclined to abandon church music altogether after decades of dedication, on the grounds that those of us who think we are trying to keep church music alive in the most difficult of circumstances are in fact disingenuous opportunist iconoclasts; and (g) by endorsing a "new normal", albeit temporarily, we are putting ourselves in opposition to the "old normal", which is the only correct way.

I have to admit that my reaction to this kind of thing is very much along the lines of "oh dear"... I hope this collective "argument" does not reflect the views of anybody on here!

I tend to agree that the concept of "new normal" is horrid. I hope people can understand that we are emphatically NOT attacking or undermining church music or in-person church attendance by doing what we have to do under the circumstances in order to be able to function at all. We are doing something, which is remarkably close to what we would normally be doing, and it is infinitely preferable to doing nothing and giving up, or to defying the regulations and getting shut down.

Anyway, my initial thought was that our boys deserve a good rest after their extremely hard work in last night's concert and earlier in the week, but they actually have three further services to sing this weekend, all on their own, and I'm certain they will do so without the slightest hint of moaning. Far from letting down those who feel that virtual options are "just not the same", here we are warmly welcoming members of the public to attend Choral Evensong seven days a week, and Choral Eucharist every Sunday morning. The (temporary) "new normal" may well be "just not the same", and it is indeed a great shame, but we have no choice but to do all we can to ensure that the musico-liturgical Opus Dei continues undiminished. That is our duty and our mandate and it would be the height of arrogance and irresponsibility to shirk it.

Guilty as charged - perfect assessment of how I feel, but I'm afraid I can't be shaken in my feelings. I have been asked to play (not at my own church) next Sunday with just a choir singing the hymns and I am going to H A TE it!

However, I concede that, had I been given the chance to "keep things going" at my main church, and not furloughed "until singing is allowed or the furlough scheme ends, in which case it will be redundancy" I might feel differently

[oddoneout]

Guilty as charged - perfect assessment of how I feel, but I'm afraid I can't be shaken in my feelings. I have been asked to play (not at my own church) next Sunday with just a choir singing the hymns and I am going to H A TE it!

However, I concede that, had I been given the chance to "keep things going" at my main church, and not furloughed "until singing is allowed or the furlough scheme ends, in which case it will be redundancy" I might feel differently

Try not to hate it too much Andrew - it's not good for you! Also perhaps bear in mind that what you may hate doing is of great benefit to others for whom crumbs may be better than nothing.

[cat]

Can I just say how much I appreciate the livestreaming of services. I have been watching services weekly from Canterbury, Winchester and Ely whereas normally I might attend these place only once or twice a year. Also from Chichester to where I've never been (but will now make a point of doing so when things return to normal).

There is no substitute for being there in person, but as someone in my household is shielding and I'm also being very careful on my own account, I don't currently feel comfortable making non-essential visits. The livestreams are therefore a great comfort.

[Lizzie]

Try not to hate it too much Andrew - it's not good for you! Also perhaps bear in mind that what you may hate doing is of great benefit to others for whom crumbs may be better than nothing.