OT: Praise Pay

[jcadmus]

Last night at church, the leader I was working with asked me to play next Sunday morning at another church where she leads worship.

 

Then she floored me -- she told me it pays $150 per player! That's for basically a couple hours' work, including rehearsal prior to the one service.

 

Unfortunately I already have a commitment for next Sunday, but told her to keep me in her Rolodex.

 

I play for free at my own church (and I'm overpaid).

 

So the question is: for those of you who play praise band duty for pay, what's the normal pay range.

[SuStudio]

There are several large churches near me and I get anywhere from $150 - $300 per gig depending on the venue. Yep, it's a good gig but that's the result of not having to pay taxes like other businesses and churches definitely are businesses. What's more is that nowadays churches are trying to have such pro music programs that they even hire non-Christian musicians to balance out the amateurs from the congregation. I play with Muslims, Jews, Deists and even Atheists from time to time on Christian church gigs....especially during Christmas season when the stage is mostly hired guns and not any pew players. It's good cash!

[kenfxj]

Geez! I always assumed it was service to your parish. I never realized people got payed for it.

[jeremy c]

A few years ago, we had a long discussion about this topic. Maybe one of the good searchers (Phil?) can find the thread.

 

Pay seems to range from zero to professional rates.

 

Some people are quite offended by the idea of taking money for playing praise music. Others have other opinions. I'm sure you'll hear many sides to this issue.

 

I play for services in Synagogues often. For the Jewish High Holidays which are coming up in a month or so, I will be at services (with my bass) for approximately 24 hours over the course of four days.

[Phil W]

There was a huge discussion about 4 years or so ago. I'll see if I can find it. I've not been paid for playing in church but I wouldn't be against it. We pay the organist at the church I attend. I think it's more common in the US as in the UK most congregations are too small to pay a band (or that's what I'd guess. Maybe the really big churches and other places of worship here pay.

[Phil W]

There's this one (featuring at least a couple of members who've since passed away).

 

https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/553071/Board/5/page/506/fpart/all/gonew/1#UNREAD

[Rocky McDougall]

I go to a fairly large non-denominational church and we have a pro orchestra, about 15 musicians. I think they make about $1,500 per month. Practice is Wednesday evenings and they play three services on Sunday. They invest probably 15 to 20 hours of their time weekly.

Rocky

[saxofunk]

I recently resigned after nine years playing a church gig. I was playing sax on a volunteer basis. This was at a large non-denominational church that runs 800+ per weekend.

 

Essential players (drums, bass, two guitards) get paid. There's a Tuesday rehearsal plus Wednesday service and three weekend services (one Saturday PM, two Sunday AM). I can't say for certain but the figure I heard years ago was $50 per service.

 

Paying makes it possible to keep good players on hand. The band is tight (with or without me) and the level of musicianship is far higher than it was before. It gives the music pastor some ammunition to actually hire and fire instead of accepting anybody with a pulse and a guitar. If a church can swing it, I highly recommend it.

[jeremy c]

o.t.

 

I just looked at the thread title again, and yes, I do indeed praise anyone who pays me!

[Phil W]

I don't think this thread is OT.

Well not yet, anyway.

[jeremy c]

No, just my last comment was slightly o.t., just an attempt at a bad joke.

 

This is a very worthwhile topic...it gets into the meaning of music, spirituality, both serving God and and paying the bills: all things which are (or could be) important to most of us.

[Tom Capasso]

I play for free at my church. If someone wanted to pay me to go to another church and play, I'd take it. It's not my community - I'm just helping out.

 

Piano/organists in my church are paid $100/service. I think that assumes that you know the material (no rehearsals before).

 

Tom

[Phil W]

I agree. No Jeremy I was referring to the thread title.

[Rocky McDougall]

I think it is obvious that great music programs have been essential in building the "Mega Churchs". I won't argue if that is good or bad, but it is much easier to to it with pro musicans.

 

Rocky

 

[-Will-]

Well, I play for free at my church, but the piano and organ players are paid, how much I have no clue. If I was offered money I probably wouldn't take it has it is part of my service to the church and if I did take it I would return it via tithing. Now if another church asked me to play on a regular basis then I may reconsider the money situation. However, I like the situation as it is now, I really have no obligation to play, so if I want/need to take a couple weeks off I can do so without even an explanation (although I always try to give plenty of notice so our director can find a replacement). It's more of a hassle for the paid musicians to take off.

[1111000]

This is my opinion. It is, for all intents and purposes, worthless to anyone who disagrees. If it offends you, ignore it.

 

The purpose of a worship band: to be a conduit of worship. Not to be stars, to generate an awesome performance, to hop around stage and collect fans. Their job is to be a conduit of worship. Ideally there would not even be a worship band--just people worshipping.

 

However, the trend in my country is for churches to get bigger, increasing the ratio of congregants to leaders, such as the musicians may be considered. It is probably one of the only ways for a church that big to function, to have a huge worship band and choir and this and that. I acknowledge that.

 

But in my mind--and it is only that, my mind, not an arbiter with authority--if people have genuine faith, they don't need someone's guitar solo to express it within themselves. And that guitar solo therefore is a distraction, not an enhancement. I have met lots of people who consider themselves very religious, who practically live at church, yet have almost no spiritual strength. I think they are symptom of this kind of church pattern, where you are one among many, being entertained. These new people won't be able to stand up for their cause the way the most faithful among their grandparents' generation did, when one of the only ways to really advance your faith (at least as a Protestant) was to get involved with Bible study.

 

Now, I am not even getting into stuff like "Is it wrong or right to be a martyr for your cause?", or, "Is Christianity itself absolutely moral or immoral?", etc. I am just saying that, if we accept the argument that worship is a congregation connecting to God(s), then the current trend of a bunch of rock stars jamming out on stage seems a bit skewed away from the original intention. Or, let me put it like this: for that setup to work and truly be worshipful, it would take some really, really talented, humble, transparent musicians, and they most certainly would HAVE to be paid or somehow subsist for doing so, because they have invested so much in that skill. But most church bands I see are semi-pro at best, because they start out as volunteers from the congregation.

 

I have personal experience with this in two ways: I am asked and volunteer to play bass for a local congregation on Sunday mornings; this ought to show you that even I question some of what I just proposed. Secondly, my guitarist goes to a Mega Church, and he's very into this new "rock star worship leader" thing, and sometimes I catch him and his friends drooling over YouTube (GodTube?) videos of Johnny Christian Rockstar, which I find completely obscene. One of the mantra's that got drilled into teenage cassius' Southern Baptist head: never take any glory for yourself, give it all to God. I have changed since then, but I still feel that mantra as deep as ever.

 

I just wrote War & Peace again, so let me summarize: I think worship teams as a whole are a necessary evil and should manifest themselves in as small a way as possible. Taking money for playing should only be done if you accept what it means, that you are subsisting off of people's faith. If you aren't comfortable with that, volunteer or don't play.

[kenfxj]

[SuStudio]

Taking money for playing should only be done if you accept what it means, that you are subsisting off of people's faith. If you aren't comfortable with that, volunteer or don't play.

 

Funny I used to think that way until I saw Rick Warren pass me on the 5 Freeway on the way home from a Saddleback gig. He was driving a Ferrari Testarossa. We're both just businessmen trying to fatten the bottom line. He peddles Jesus, I pedal an open E.

[saxofunk]

Think of this as an addendum to my previous post:

 

While at this church I was never offered pay, but I gladly would have accepted it. (Come to think of it, they gave me the transmitter and receiver of a 'surplus' wireless unit, that saved me a few hundred bones). If I play a church gig again the topic of pay will come up. Why? Business. Over nine years I invested close to $1000 in saxophone maintenance, reeds, a mouthpiece, and a mic to work with the wireless system. There are expenses involved in playing, simple as that.

[jeremy c]

There are no solos in the religious music I play at Jewish services. We play the melodies and the people sing and dance along. (We often play Hasidic music for which the congregants are encouraged to dance joyfully.) We do not put on a show. We're not even at the front of the room.

 

The rabbi or the minister (and his or her assistants) get a salary. There is rent or a mortgage payment paid for the building. The maintenance person or crew gets paid. The water bills and electric bills are paid to the utility companies. Money is invested in all kinds of things, including sound equipment.

 

We are not "subsisting of off people's faith". We are performing a very valuable service which enhances people's spiritual experience. They love singing along and people often come up to us afterward and tell us how much the service was enhanced by the excellent music.

 

I donate money to various causes some of which are religious organizations. It is much more meaningful for me to do this than to donate my time. I also find that I am treated much better when I do not donate my time.

[Chewbubba]

No one in our church band gets paid either (except the music leader, who is on staff at the church), but all of the guys are top notch. I'm not too bad either. We do take solos and such if the song warrants it.

 

I've been told by the pastors of my church that they'd love to pay the band if the money was ever there. However, I've been told that for many years now. It came up again a few weeks ago when we added another service, and the music leader wants us to throw in an extra song to loosen people up at the beginning. It was his idea, but again, I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

I'm not holding my breath for $$, though. I'm just happy to have a place to play every week.

[picker]

Sunday last, I played three electric lead guitar solos that took the roof off, or so I'm told. My congregation loves good music to worship to, and I am privileged to be part of the worship team that provides it for them. Some Sundays I play guitar, some I play bass, some I sing tenor.

 

I do not get a salary, and neither does anyone else on the team, except the worship pastor. We are fortunate in that we have a lot of musicians in the congregations who are dedicated Christians. We have three entire worship teams, of which I think I am the only one who is on the platform more than twice a month. I see it as my ministry to the people in my church, who have been incredibly good to me in more ways than I care to go into.

 

I saw a couple of snarky comments about the church and money in this thread. IF there weren't a ban on discussing religion, I might go into how much money I've received as alms from various churches over the years, and how it's not about how much money any organization has but how they spend it.

 

But that would be wrong...

[5 string Mike]

I agree a lot with what cassius speaks to, and SuSudio also makes a great point about Rick Warren.

 

Where most of this particular point, with praise-for-pay, I feel that it's right to pay musicians, just because they have a lot of expense in equipment, gear, training, plus time for practice/rehearsal/learning stuff, and all the other requirements that many churches include. Now small curches can't afford this, usually, and that's ok. That's why you have volunteers.

 

The issue has more to do with the fact that we used to go to church to be preached to, and concerts to be entertained. Now, it's the other way around. The line between praise bands leading worship and performing a show are getting more blurred every day. The band is now the end and not the means

 

From the Scripture side of things, the Worshp leaders throughout the Bible have been fellow worshippers. These positions were set aside for certain people, either a certain tribe, or people chosen by the King or other Religious leadership. That is why I have a problem with getting any old 'pros' on stage as worship- it doesn't follow what God wants.

 

Not to get all preachy, but there are a few passages that come to mind. One being Jesus telling the 'religious people' that 'you praise me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me'. So, genuine praise means something to Him. Also, in John where Jesus is talking about worshipping 'in Spirit and in Truth, for these are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.' In order for it to be Worship, it has to be truthful, not because 'the money's good'. This kind of thing reminds me of another of Jesus' warnings, where He talks about people saying to Him' But we drove out demons and performed miracles in Your name, and I will say to you, away from me you evildoers, for I never knew you!'

 

Again, not trying to get preachy, but Jesus warned against this kind of stuff. Having atheists and Muslims and other non Christians lead a worship service because they are 'pros' is like having Bill Clinton deliver a sermon because he's a great public speaker.

 

 

[jlrush]

The issue has more to do with the fact that we used to go to church to be preached to, and concerts to be entertained. Now, it's the other way around. The line between praise bands leading worship and performing a show are getting more blurred every day. The band is now the end and not the means

 

I agree with this thought in a way Mike, but also disagree in a way. Singing and some form of instrumentation has been a part of worship since man began praising God. King David himself was one who was faulted for the way he worshipped. He must have been too wild for someone.

Today's version of this scenario seems to be 'old school' hymn church VS modern 'band' church, whatever form that may take. The line between a praise band leading worship and performing a show IS a thin line and CAN get blurred in some instances. But I think that is mainly how folks percieve the worship. Some folks can only connect to hymns. I can't relate to them mostly.

The main point is whether or not the congregation is getting fed, and that not only has to do with the pastor and worship team, but also how much an individual wants to be fed. If someone wants only to drink milk, then that person will not grow spiritually.

I have played in my church twice a week, every week for the last 5 years or more, and many special services that come along during the year. My only pay has been a set of strings about once a year. If I were offered pay I would take it.

My $.02.

 

Uh, who's Bill Clinton???

[5 string Mike]

You are right, jlrush. David was out there and way to eccentric for his day. But, he was a man seeking the Lord's heart, and that is the key.

 

One good example that relates to this is Matt Redman's song, Heart of Worship. Matt's Praise Band at his church was going through a phase where it became all about the drums, and the guitars, and the show. The reason why they were doing it became lost. Finally, the head pastor of the church had enough of it put the praise band on hiatus for a year, and the church basically snag a capella or whatever. During this hiatus, Matt an epiphone or two and wrote this song. It's one I personally hold near to me, because I lived the experience. IMHO, when a Christian church starts hiring whatever non Christian musicians just because they are pros, the line between praise and show has been crossed. It's kind of like that song I heard on Bob and Tom once- I would rather hear a fat girl fart than a pretty boy sing, and I would rather hear a believer belting out a melody slightly off key than the best guitard in the region who is doing it for the money.

 

 

As far as hymns v. contemporary, the church I am at now just went through a bunch of grief just before I started going there where they tried doing things more contemporary, but some of the older folks started spark knocking real bad, and it got diluted to a couple contemporary songs and the rest the old hymns. It's too bad, because the worship leadership and the pastor want to move things in a new direction but were getting stonewalled by others.

 

Which all the fighting goes on because, like you say, it's about people being fed, and refusing something that isn't their favorite dish.

[jcadmus]

I tend to agree with Cassius' view -- playing in church is different than a secular performance.

 

When I'm out playing a gig with a band, it's about me. When I'm playing in church, it's not supposed to be.

 

That being said, many churches are trying to raise the standard of musical performance in their services, and feel they can get there by hiring professionals. I suppose that's no different than in years past when a church would hire an organist and a choir director.

 

As to the pay/no-pay thing, I don't think I'd accept pay to play at my own church -- it's part of my service to the community there. I might accept pay to play at someone else's, but I'm really not sure -- frankly it's never come up before.

 

In general, I don't play for money anymore anyway -- even secular gigs, which are few and far between for me now. Normally, if the leader offers me money, I turn it down or give it to someone who needs it more.

[1111000]

We are not "subsisting of off people's faith". We are performing a very valuable service which enhances people's spiritual experience. They love singing along and people often come up to us afterward and tell us how much the service was enhanced by the excellent music.

 

I know almost nothing of the Jewish faith, Jeremy, and how it operates. I know it only through the lens I had when I was raised Southern Baptist and what I have read in books. The truth is, not all religions emphasize the same thing, invalidating lots of my arguments as (if) they pertain to Protestant groups.

 

My religion, at the time, was incredibly cerebral. That's the only way I can describe it. Things that were flashy and meant to appeal to emotion disgusted me whenever they crept in. I wanted to just focus on what I thought mattered--which to me was the gripping questions I had dealing with theology, not whether or not Reliant K was coming to town.

 

I've since lightened up in a lot of ways and I don't consider myself a part of that particular brand of religion any more, though I can't help but keep talking to God and trying to worship. But I still am of the opinion that it should be more of a meditation than a wild outburst that keeps everyone satiated with entertainment. Obviously there are Hebrew and post-Hebrew scriptures that contradict that, but it is what I believe, and maybe it only applies to me.

 

If in the Jewish faith this revivifying outburst is considered spiritually positive, and I believe it is, then of course I do not question your performance as a part of it. But my cerebral upbringing in Christianity is against it, even if I don't even consider myself as much a part of that faith anymore.

 

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with a bunch of guys on stage with guitars leading worship IF they are leading worship. So why am I being such a whiner? Because I look around me and see a bunch of rock stars and fans, not a congregation of co-worshippers. And I am talking about Christians, here. I know nada of Jewish services and I have a feeling they are better rooted.

 

Oh, and if any of my comments are "snarky" about Christianity, I'm sorry. I was raised in it, am still trying to be a part of it, and I am just speaking from my experiences.

[jlrush]

+1 for Matt Redman. That's a great song.

 

We have these little cards that come in each bulletin that is passed out on Sunday. They are for prayer concerns and for new people to share information, but they end up being used mostly as 'gripe cards'; ....."the band is too loud", or "I don't like that kind of music".

We have three services each Sunday, so a few years ago we started a hymn service at the 8:15 hour. The gripe cards kept coming in for awhile anyway but soon subsided. You just can't please everyone all the time, and there will be complaints.

 

The current setup for our Sunday band has been together for 5 or 6 years now, and we have about 150 songs that we rotate. The core band IS made up of professionals and we volunteer our time. We have found that as we've grown as a band the congregation has opened up and become more involved in the worship. There are not many stonefaces in the crowd anymore. I attribute that to how well the band has progressed. No solos, a few segues.

We're not hired guns, but if the money were offered I would take it at this point in time. As for the notion of anyone being offered 'pay for play' in any church I would think that if it helps the worship experience then it is a good thing, if it doesn't then change it.

Whatever brings you closer to God.

 

 

 

[Rocky McDougall]

I mostly agree with all that has been said in this thread and it shows the diversity of our thoughts. As far as, "small neighborhood churchs VS. The giant Mega Church", is one better, more approiate or effective than the other? I think that depends on what they accomplish. Not much has been said about the billions of dollars spent on people in need in the community. Not much has been said about the billons spent to support world wide ministries. Jesus said "go out into the World and preach the Gospel." In todays World that takes money. If a great music program helps draw people into a chuch where they can hear the Word and respond to it,does that justify the music? As far a "church members" charging for their time and talent, that must remain an individual choice.

MY .02cents

Rocky

[jeremy c]

I have had an Epiphone but I've never had an epiphany.

 

I assume it was the other way around for Matt Redman.