Is America's "religion" the military? (Not what you think!)

Before you jump to any conclusions (and yes, the title was designed to do that), this isn't a directly political post.  It's a post about live music, and our society's perceived and actual value of it.

A little background info on those of you who may not know already: I grew up in a Lutheran church.  We used hymnals.  We clap on beat 1 and 3.  Raising hands in the air is allowed, but will get you strange looks, and you'll probably be the only one.   When I started studying music theory in college, I found the Bach chorales we studied to be comforting and familiar because a lot of those chorales are still used in traditional churches.  My high school boyfriend grew up Nazarene and we would argue about what "old-fashioned hymn" meant.  He defined it as tent-revival-1800's-early-1900's, and I would laugh at him.  "Really?  'Old' to you means 100 years? Try FIVE hundred."  In any case, as much as I appreciate a really rocking band with electric bass and drums, sometimes it's also really awesome to hear a much older piece done well, like an organ sonata, being performed in its original context.

But I am also a jazz musician, and a choir director, and probably a bit more open minded about contemporary music in church than your average classically-trained-singer.

As a music teacher, I really do understand why some churches shy away from "classical" style music.  Young people don't listen to it (or it's assumed that they don't), or pastors understand in order for it to be done well, they have to hire someone who is trained.  Some churches can only afford a piano player or organist, some are lucky enough to have a budget to hire actual music directors and choral section leaders.  Some churches rely on volunteers only.  My opinion on this is about the same as non-union symphonies, theaters that pay actors more than the pit musicians, and bar owners who pay the entire band a percentage of the cover (but expect them to bring their own fans and groupies).

Let me put it to you another way: Let's say your talent is working with tools.  You're a very talented carpenter.  Having me ask you to volunteer to do your job for free for the church (which took time, money, and training to hone that innate talent) is an insult.  But maybe you see that your church needs something fixed, and you're willing to donate your time to help out once or twice because you know they don't have the money to pay you.  That's different than the church approaching YOU and asking you to fix things week after week after week for no pay (or worse, expecting you to provide materials as well ALL YEAR LONG).    But for some reason, churches have no problem (or shame) in asking musicians to do this.  "It's your gift" they say. "You should WANT to do it."  Yeah, sure.  I was talented before I went to college, too.  But you want me to do it NOW because I have two degrees in it, and I can do it WELL.  Those degrees and that training wasn't free, people.  No one expects the pastor to work for free (although to be fair, many do it for very little money or work second jobs to support themselves which I also think is unjust).


So now, with all that said, let me get back to my original point....
Historically, if music was your profession, you were somebody's employee (if you wanted to eat, anyhow). You worked for a church, or were sponsored by royalty or the aristocracy.  To a large extent, if you want to be a live performer, that is still largely true today (I know we don't have royalty, but in terms of symphony or full time church gigs, those are often supported by those people with the means to give LOTS of money away, our modern aristocracy....)  However, most pros are freelancers, meaning they piecemeal different gigs together in the hopes that they will make enough to support themselves.  The real danger in being a "freelancer" in this country is really the lack of financial stability and health care (especially health care).  And as many Portland musicians know right now as Brian Tierney lays in the hospital of unprovoked gunshot wounds, those two things are inseparably related.  If you want to be a professional live performer in this country and have conventional health insurance as we know it you have only a few options: 1) Do music part time and hold a non-related day job that provides health insurance. 2) Work as a church music director in a semi-large church that also requires you to sing or play an instrument. Not as a piano player in a small church or as a choral ringer.   3) Teach music in the schools.  And let me tell you, these days there is no guarantee that there's any stability THERE, either.  In 10 years of teaching, I have taught everything K through Community College except orchestra just to STAY EMPLOYED. 4) Have a full-time symphony job.  Good luck with that, especially if you live in Louisville... 5) Be a musician in the military.  And before you argue that I left out pop musicians, most of them are not professional live performers.  Most of them make the bulk of their money in the recording studio and frankly, your chances of getting one of those gigs is like getting a symphony job, or being struck by lightning.

So #5 is the one I had an epiphany about today (while, not coincidentally, I was driving to my non-paid church gig...).  If the bulk of musicians were historically employed and provided for (in many cases, housing and meals plus a stipend) by the church, what does it say that the only stable, living wage, music performer gig in this country is in our military?  Are 3 and 4 star generals the only people who understand the value of live music? Because we have no state-mandated religion, as a society, we have no common ceremonies except those at sports events and military functions.  And no one complains that there isn't enough "crowd participation" at these ceremonies, because they understand that being part of the spectator group and actively appreciating things done by other people is also an important job.  But for some reason, in other parts of our lives, our expectations seem to be different.  Either we don't want to pay for it, or if we do pay for it, we expect the kind of performance that can only be done with the aid of computers and digital sound software.

I'm still not sure where I'm going with all this, maybe I'll continue in another post---it all still feels very nebulous, but I know I'm onto something that's been bugging me for a while, which is my perception of music being devalued as a profession....help me out.  Thoughts?