www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cantors

I am very curious about something. Do Eastern Christian parishes have paid cantors?, If so, what is the "going rate" for a cantor? It seems like a lost vocation. Where would you go to find one?

Almost all of the cantors I know in Byzantine Catholic parishes volunteer their services as cantor as part of their tithe to the Church. I'm sure others will comment on the practice in their Eastern Christian jurisdiction. I know lots of cantors but am aware of only a few who receive any stipend for their services. Occasionally some will receive a stipend for cantoring a special service, such as a wedding or funeral. It would be wonderful if our parishes had the financial resources to retain paid cantors but that is currently a very unrealistic idea, since most parishes are very small.

Where would you go to find a cantor? Good question! There are always people interested in cantoring and you can occasionally find a cantor in training standing next to an experienced cantor in order to learn the chants. I am always training a few via sharing liturgical music and answering questions via the telephone and e-mail. Sadly, there are not enough for a parish in need of a cantor to order one with FedEx delivery.

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Dear Teacher, the only time I generally have ever received any pay was from funerals, weddings, and an occasional baptism.

Every once in a while on major feasts such as Pascha someone will stick a bill in my pocket after the baskets are blessed, and for Theophany house blessings when I accompany the priest I will occasionally get a tip as well (and always a full stomach) .

Some of the Eparchial directories, etc. will occasionally have a cantor's list, but many very capable and experienced ones are "unofficial" and not included on those lists. You would do best to contact parishes in the area of interest to be pointed in the right direction.

My humble apologies in advance for my linguistic snootiness - but the putative verb "to cantor" does not exist in English, except perhaps as a mis-spelling for the verb "to canter", which means something rather different. The correct verb is, simply, "to chant".
That said, a good cantor (or chanter, to use my preferred term) deserves to be paid (if he prefers to donate his services, that is his decision) and to have an expense allowance to enable him to attend workshops on liturgical chant and purchase books and music.
Check with the local synagogue on what they pay the cantor(s). After recovering from that shock, read Thomas Day's wonderful book *Why Catholics Can't Sing*. Then start paying the cantor(s) - and discover the delightful truth that good music in a church is like bread cast on the waters - it really does come back a hundredfold.
[On the other hand, an essential element in the definition of a good chanter is that he can be depended upon to show up as needed.]
Incognitus

And that's what's great about American English. It's a living, growing, constantly-change organism.

"To cantor" means to lead the congregation in chant. It provides a very specific description and is perfectly fine.

Unlike some European languages, it's popular usage that determines our language, not academies full of linguistic snoots.

--Tim

Any good linguist worth his salt would not be a prescriptionist. Therefore it is wrong to call linguistics "snoots." The people who write the grammars are the prescriptionists.

For a good dictionary, try the American HeritageDictionary, 4th Edition, or the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Both are quite unsnooty and show a variety of pronunciations and definitions.

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth Maria, the linguist :p

BTW: Did you know it used to be good King's English to say, "He ain't got nothing."?

Relax. I was merely referring to Mr. Incognitus' self-proclaimed "linguistic snootiness."

--Tim

Teacher,

I know of only a few regularly paid cantors. As the administrator has pointed out, most of us are on a purely voluntary basis. Stipends for baptisms, weddings, funerals are not set at any given amount and are usually only small amounts anyway.
In the days of full time paid cantors, the pay was not very high compared to other professions, again because most parishes had a hard time keeping up with other expenses.
As a vocation, the order of Cantor is definitely lost in the Ruthenian Church. I don't know what the situation really is in the other Eastern Churches (Catholic or Orthodox).
As to finding one, most parishes will have someone who fills the role of 'cantor', whether they be proficient or not will be in the eye of the beholder.

Steve Petach,
volunteer cantor

Pot Kettle Black

Anybody who cares to snicker at linguistic snootiness at my expense is welcome to do so! And there is no need to call me "Mr.". In return, however, I shall ask if it is possible that American English is so totally chaotic that one may appeal neither to a dictionary nor to a grammar (we won't even discuss syntax for the moment)? Incognitus

You can appeal all you want, but the final arbiter is the streets. We live in a linguistic democracy.

But, for the record, we can doctor, and lawyer and soldier on; we can police, and cook and clown around. So there's no good reason why we can't cantor. Nouns become verbs all the time.

--Tim

....Sigh.....

another thread hijacked by the grammer police.

Thank God there are grammar police. How does it hurt a thread to get sidetracked with a discussion of bad grammar? We all make occasional mistakes and it helps to have them pointed out. We can always return to discussing the topic at hand.

anastasios

Anastsios,

It just seems that there is no forgiveness when so many threads have some snipe about spelling or grammar. The topic rarely gets steered back to it's original focus because it seems to be so much more fun to police (the verb) everyone's grammer than to keep to the subject at hand.

Is it any wonder why some first-time posters don't want to reply to their original inquiry?

Steve

Well, my original post included an apology to those who find a concern for linguistic accuracy offensive, so I see no reason to repeat that apology. A good use of language is a worth-while skill for a chanter/cantor to cultivate - one who speaks the relevant language well stands a better chance of being able to read and chant that language well. Most of us have probably experienced the opposite phenomenon.
It is true that American English is determined by usage. But when that usage is confined to a small group, and would not be recognized by the overwhelming majority of those who speak American English then such a usage can most kindly be described, at best, as a colloquialism. If we wish our Faith to be accessible to the general (American English-speaking) public, we would be well advised not to throw up a linguistic barrier but rather to speak and write standard American English ourselves. The willful rejection of perfectly good English words in favor of colloquialisms is (suprise!) also a form of snootiness.
But the criticism that we should stick to the basic thrust of a given thread is well taken. I notice that my comment on paying the chanter/cantor has been completely overlooked. I suspect that in this instance silence does not give consent! To use colloquial English myself: if you want good singing in your Church, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Incognitus