St Paul’s Cathedral has chosen fabric as its exclusive partner for contemporary music for the next four years. A nightclub operator is being given a lasting association with one of Britain’s great churches. The Dean and Chapter should explain why they consider that a good choice.
We think it is a mistake. The Cartulary wants the partnership ended, including the opening concert. Our objection concerns the Cathedral’s judgement in making the agreement and the precedent it sets for the years ahead.
What has been agreed
The first announced performance is The Cinematic Orchestra on 29 October 2026. St Paul’s says the concerts will be seated and use minimal amplification. It describes a four-year partnership running through 2030, intended to bring new audiences into the Cathedral. Those are the terms in its announcement of 8 September.
Calling the opening concert a nightclub would give the Cathedral an easy answer to a question we have not asked. The advertised format is a concert. The question is why a church of this importance has granted a nightclub operator an exclusive contemporary-music partnership.
Music belongs in cathedrals. So do visitors who arrive without religious belief. Neither point explains the merits of this particular agreement. The Cathedral should be able to say how the relationship serves its Christian purpose, beyond the familiar promise of reaching a new audience.
Four years is a substantial commitment
St Paul’s describes worship and prayer as its principal purpose. That should be the starting point for its commercial decisions. A cathedral can welcome the public without treating every opportunity to attract a crowd as an opportunity it ought to take. The Cathedral’s account of its worship and music gives us a fair standard against which to judge the partnership.
Our concern is what becomes normal once an agreement like this is in place. A restrained opening night can establish a relationship that lasts far longer than the performance. Later programmes are then discussed within a commercial arrangement already accepted by the institution. We regard that as a poor position from which to defend the character of a place of worship.
We do not know the full programme through 2030. The public should be told what limits the agreement places on future programming, who enforces them and how the Cathedral can leave it.
The Cartulary will examine the relevant records and pursue lawful means of stopping the partnership. Any challenge must rest on the permissions and decisions that actually exist. We will report the steps we take without publishing our detailed approach in advance.
The Dean and Chapter can resolve the central issue themselves. We ask them to end the agreement and withdraw the opening concert from the programme. We will publish a substantive response to that request fairly.
