Thread: Gloves genteely off on data projection Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028707
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
In the rarefied context of our pure and holy ecclesiantical conversations Piglet has dared to pronounce (here) that there is no place for overhead projection (the phrase "data projection" may not have reached her fog-bound and frozen climes [Biased] ) ... I am less sure.

Do I like it? No. They are not things of classical beauty, and may not serve to ensure that the sacred action of liturgy is the sole visual focus of congregational attention.
Though nor, as Heavenly Anarchist has hinted, do prayer or hymn books necessarily ensure that eyes are cast to the eternal realms.

No, let's get over it. If we are to convey the words connected with the mysteries of God in a generation for whom books are a rapidly dissipating dinosaur, are screens so demonic? Or are we just engaging in a sort of nostalgic elitism?

In other words: electronic screens ... why not pray tell? And let's have better than "because they're new/modern/ugly ...". so were prayer books and missals, once.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Horrible, horrible. But then so is having your head buried in a book (the only people who should have them are those serving the liturgy). So get rid of those too. Free yourselves of these unnecessary things. Too much mind and not enough heart, man. Just soak up the liturgy instead. La la la la la la la!

I'm in a silly mood but really, they're just obsticles to really taking in the liturgy. projectors, sound systems, books and pews/chairs. Condemn them to hell where they belong.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
The order of service should download to one's ipad/iphone/etc as one enters the church, we could all stare at our own individual screens.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The order of service should download to one's ipad/iphone/etc as one enters the church, we could all stare at our own individual screens.
It's been done - or something very similar.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
In 1918 our church had some 'magic lantern services'. They weren't repeated in 1919. Some people are arguing it's time to see how technology has improved since then, but that seems a bit rushed since it's been under a century.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Another argument would be that the traditional Christian approach to new developments in IT is to jump in as fast as possible. Most notably we started using the codex as soon as it was invented and that has shaped our whole approach to scripture.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not to mention moveable type in printing!
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Well if you must use books do you give your congregation courses in book juggling?

Jengie
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
My church is obviously not representative of most here as it is NFI affiliated but here goes. We meet in a warehouse, as we are a new church only 20 years old with no historic building to meet in. We have no pews to store books but folding chairs which are put away after the second service so that our building can be put to other purposes in the week. The congregation size can be up to 400 so we would need to find storage for a large number of books. Our preachers, both from within our church and visiting, do not necessarily use the same translations to preach from either.
Our solution is data projection screens, of which we have four around our stage area so that they are easily viewed from all areas. These display the songs used, the readings and any illustrations the preacher requires. They are also used to show messages from our missionaries and display information about events. Our congregation is also younger than average and technologically aware, most people bring their own bibles and these are increasingly electronic; I use an ESV on a Kindle.
Obviously this is a great solution for our situation but I recognise that for some this will be thought quite unsuitable. Churches and their congregations have different approaches according to their needs. But I don't think projection screens should be universally dismissed. They are just functional objects that serve a purpose in some situations.

[ 27. October 2014, 09:57: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
For traditional church buildings - All Souls Langham Place and HTB are included in this, the screens for the projection hide the things I find helpful in worship; the painting over the altar at All Souls Langham Place, and at HTB the stage and screen completely obscure the east window, high altar and reredos. At HTB, there is a mezzanine floor across the west window which depicts stories from the Old Testament.

Last service I struggled through locally, I was there as a Guide leader for Harvest which was a Parade Sunday, the screen was positioned in front of the rood screen and obscured any view of the reredos and east window - both of which are covered in stories from the life of Jesus. We got the words up for two praise songs out of 5, pictures for the talk and nothing else, pretty much. Mostly the words were in a service booklet.

But - I have seen projectors used effectively - we had some Holy Week meditations with a cross draped with a shroud and images projected on to the shroud, and another time a low altar was set so that the front could be used as a projection screen.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
If people are going to say things or sing things together, then they either need to memorise them (limited range - especially in a literate (as opposed to oral) culture, inaccessibility to newcomers/visitors) or have the texts in front of them.

If they have the texts in front of them, they may be printed afresh every time (time consuming, environmentally unfriendly, costly), printed in books (heavy, costly, may need more than one book per person, difficult to accommodate new material), or projected (hard to deploy in some buildings, short people or those who can't stand with the rest of the gathering may be unable to see, prone to the occasional technological glitch*).

With most of these technologies, we have become familiar with the issues and the workarounds need to overcome or ameliorate the problems. I suspect in time words on screens will also find their place, and achieve some level of acceptance.

(*Even printed Bibles had this problem to start with.)
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I've only just noticed this thread, and feel I ought to explain myself ...

I'm sorry to have opened a can of Ecclesiantical worms, and I'll admit that my reasoning is partly aesthetic: I've spent all my adult life worshipping in cathedrals, whose architectural splendour would not be enhanced by the addition of ugly projection screens. I'm also, as many of you know, quite a traditionalist, and at our shack we find that for the most part the hymns in the book and the liturgy in the Prayer Book (of which we have a sufficient supply) suit our needs very well.

From a purely personal point of view, I'm short-sighted, and a projection screen may be of little use to me even if I sat near the front.*

In churches where the liturgy and music are of a more modern, relaxed nature, with a more prominent congregational participation, perhaps overhead screens are helpful: they're just not for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The order of service should download to one's ipad/iphone/etc ...
I haven't got one. Just as well I'm in the choir, as our music's written down. On paper. [Big Grin]

* and what true Anglican would do that? [Devil]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think the aversion to screens is partly aesthetic and partly "not what we're used to." Which are strong motivators, and get confused with other reasons such as "it's not what God wants." Hymnals have a very long and revered and fought-over history, and have become entrenched in the "we've always done it this way" groove.

That said we don't use either, but our service changes little from week to week. Those parts that do change, mostly won't come around for another year (short (~4-line) hymns about saints or feasts), and are printed in the bulletin.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There is also the point of accessibility. If you are a new person in the pews, the switch from hymnal (how does that numbering work?) to prayer book (which page?) to announcements/prayer insert (it fell down behind the kneeler!) is intimidating and not especially welcoming. You want to rig it so that they come in and stay; to repel them with something minor like how to read the hymns defeats the purpose entirely.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
It occurs to me that very soon data projectors may be consigned to the place where all the OHPs have gone.

The current trend (based on a limited and random sample of churches) seems to be lots of smaller LCD screens (i.e. normal living room sized flatscreen TVs). Typically there'll be several down each side of the church. I would have thought that these would cost more than a projector system, but I could be wrong there. They presumably have the advantage (from the pro-screen point of view) of being less susceptible to being washed out in bright light and having better colour reproduction. From the point of view of lovers of traditional architecture, they're less liable to block views of the chancel, but more likely to create a situation where wherever you look you see something electrical.

They're presumably better for people with mild short-sightedness but not nearly as good as a book.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Sorry - missed this before the edit time expired:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... Just soak up the liturgy instead ...
Absolutely. If I'm at Evensong where I'm not in the choir (at another cathedral or if I'm lucky, King's or St. John's in Cambridge) I only open the prayer-book to read the words of the Psalm, and the hymn-book to sing the office hymn, and let the service be offered on my behalf.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

In other words: electronic screens ... why not pray tell? And let's have better than "because they're new/modern/ugly ...". so were prayer books and missals, once.
The danger is Powerpoint. Not because it's modern, or anything, but because it causes the brain to shut down.

Powerpoint is just a tool, and can be used well, but it usually isn't. Give the average speaker a powerpoint presentation, and his brain shuts down, his mouth turns into a parrot, and the audience? Well, they're probably all checking their email anyway.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with looking at the score for the hymn projected on the wall instead of in a book, but there are issues:
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think the aversion to screens is partly aesthetic and partly "not what we're used to." Which are strong motivators, and get confused with other reasons such as "it's not what God wants." Hymnals have a very long and revered and fought-over history, and have become entrenched in the "we've always done it this way" groove.
This is all true. However I suspect there is another factor... Namely, that many will suspect that the sort of person willing to erect a projector screen will probably be intending to introduce other novelties at the same time. I'll wager that not many people who erect such screens intend to use them to display the plainchant notation or today's selection from A&M more clearly!
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


If there's enough clutter they vanish into the general visual noise!

Misa de Powerpoint

[Edit: UBB fix]

[ 27. October 2014, 16:48: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
While screens can be used productively in services, I rather dislike trying to sing an unfamiliar hymn if all I have are lyrics on a screen and not the music notation. We have hymnals; let's use them. (I might actually prefer a standard of singing in parts, but maybe that is elitism.)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Those parts that do change, mostly won't come around for another year (short (~4-line) hymns about saints or feasts), and are printed in the bulletin.
That's assuming you have a bulletin, and someone to put the music into it. Not every church does.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I rather dislike trying to sing an unfamiliar hymn if all I have are lyrics on a screen and not the music notation. We have hymnals; let's use them.
Perhaps this is a Pond thing - but most hymnbooks that are used in British congregations don't have the music in them, not even the melody line.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I rather dislike trying to sing an unfamiliar hymn if all I have are lyrics on a screen and not the music notation. We have hymnals; let's use them.
Perhaps this is a Pond thing - but most hymnbooks that are used in British congregations don't have the music in them, not even the melody line.
And the tactically-optimal time to suggest installing screens is when it's just been agreed that the hymn books need replacing (either because the bindings or the hymns are too old). That way, you can partially fund the screens from the hymn book budget.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point of accessibility. If you are a new person in the pews, the switch from hymnal (how does that numbering work?) to prayer book (which page?) to announcements/prayer insert (it fell down behind the kneeler!) is intimidating and not especially welcoming. You want to rig it so that they come in and stay; to repel them with something minor like how to read the hymns defeats the purpose entirely.

 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point of accessibility. If you are a new person in the pews, the switch from hymnal (how does that numbering work?) to prayer book (which page?) to announcements/prayer insert (it fell down behind the kneeler!) is intimidating and not especially welcoming. You want to rig it so that they come in and stay; to repel them with something minor like how to read the hymns defeats the purpose entirely.
Apologies for the double post! Let's not forget that it can be equally intimidating for someone new to church to have no idea what to expect. At least a liturgy booklet or card, or a hymn book allows the person to check what is forthcoming and coming next. Screens afford no such provision, and I know from our church where we have an informal evening service that uses screens, that many newcomers find this just as unwelcoming.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And oh! Dear God, can horrible sermons be achieved with the aid of PowerPoint! We have a clergyman in our church who should have his tablet snapped in half over his head, and the mouse cord wrapped around his neck and pulled tight. Luckily he is not the main preacher, and they only let him behind the pulpit once or twice a year.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Was in the cathedral of this diocese yesterday. There was enough stained glass with dedications (dead-ications) on them to keep me well-occupied during the lengthy sermon which I was then unable to discuss with my wife afterwards with any coherency. This recent experience leads me to ask: is overhead projection merely the modern equivalent of stained glass and other religious art and architecture? Except that it stands the possibility of keeping people involved in what is going on liturgically versus satisfying their distractedness (and maintaining my wife's happiness with her spouse)?

Or could overheads be dispensed with if we all had airline-like TV sets installed in the pew in front of us?
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Piglet: Glad to see you express more clearly that this is your personal preference, rather than your initial declaration of a universal principle.

Projection screens are tools, and as such definitely fall under the principle abusus non tollit usum. I have seen them used poorly, where they inhibited participation: use of too-contrasting tones, awkward placement of hymn lines, and insufficient attention to the timing and changing of slides. Used well, they enhanced participation: a silent slideshow of water over river rocks in Lent underlined the theme of baptismal preparation, provided visual space for meditation, and somehow avoided being cheesy.

Placement and use of screens can be challenging, for sure, but they can be useful for the primary purpose of worship: drawing people closer to God.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I'd hate to have a screen up in my Piskie church, but it feels fine in the non-denom I visit often. They use it to project the praise music which is simple enough stuff. And then the pastor uses it highlight the biblical passages he's preaching on. It works well for them. And the screens were planned into the format of this modern church, not just slapped willy-nilly into a traditional style church.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It works well for them. And the screens were planned into the format of this modern church, not just slapped willy-nilly into a traditional style church.
Bingo! It depends a lot on the style of the church. I have nothing against screens per se, but it would do violence to our building (also a traditional-looking Episcopal church). But in a more modern facility it might be fine. And for hymns I'd project the words and provide books so people could have the option.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Used well, they enhanced participation: a silent slideshow of water over river rocks in Lent underlined the theme of baptismal preparation, provided visual space for meditation, and somehow avoided being cheesy.
I suspect that this would drive me nutty (well, nuttier...) But then, I don't understand people who prefer movies over books either.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Those parts that do change, mostly won't come around for another year (short (~4-line) hymns about saints or feasts), and are printed in the bulletin.
That's assuming you have a bulletin, and someone to put the music into it. Not every church does.
I wasn't talking about every church. This was the part of the post in which I was talking about *MY* church. And the hymns don't have music; they are sung to stock tunes.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
I can't stand the way screens look, but I remember seeing a video of part of a Roman Catholic Mass from a parish in Germany where the hymn numbers were projected on a stone pillar (maybe several stone pillars throughout the church?) in such a way that it looked as though the numbers had always been on the stone: no bright white screen, and when the numbers stopped being projected there was no blank screen, just the stone. I wonder if there could be better technology that uses a part of the building in such a subtle way (yet very legible) and vanishes the instant the info isn't needed. Granted, this wasn't whole hymn texts, just the numbers, but it got me thinking. (That said, I prefer books.)
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
We're worshiping – and everything else – in the little old wooden Presbyterian church (NZ problem: churches everywhere condemned as earthquake risks). The church is unadorned but attractively redecorated in warm creamy colour (no, not magnolia It holds us all comfortably but the chairs have to be put away after the service, and we'd given up having hymn books because of the variety of hymns that we sing. Projecting on a screen was out as the windows are clear glass (and we love the sunlight and the view). So we're trying a 64" TV screen which will be raised on a bracket on the side opposite the pulpit – until then we sit to sing so that the screen isn't obstructed.
Even the oldest love it for the sharp definition and the brilliant colours of the lovely background scenes. I don't know whether the screen is connected to the operator's keyboard or whether it's a wireless signal; I assume the latter. It's going to be a great acquisition.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
... I remember seeing a video of part of a Roman Catholic Mass from a parish in Germany where the hymn numbers were projected on a stone pillar (maybe several stone pillars throughout the church?) in such a way that it looked as though the numbers had always been on the stone: no bright white screen, and when the numbers stopped being projected there was no blank screen, just the stone. I wonder if there could be better technology that uses a part of the building in such a subtle way (yet very legible) and vanishes the instant the info isn't needed. ...
Hey. Cool man.

Would any of those who object to screens be at all mollified if the screen was pointy-arched shape, framed in a gothic surround, and the words appeared in some sort of gothic script? For example, for Mac Users, there's Lucida Black Letter. Perhaps the first letter of each display could be illuminated with a picture of a saint, a dog eating some grapes or something relating to the content of the verse.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
They're ugly and usually do not go with the church architecture.

With vision problems, I can read much better from something I hold in my hand.

Most Americans have at least some music-reading ability. If it's words only, I can't sing it unless it's very familiar.

I like to be able to look ahead -- what are we singing and how many verses, who's preaching, anything special going on during the service, etc.

If there are a lot of slides changing, or worse, a video stream, it's apt to nauseate me.

I wouldn't walk out of a church if I saw the screens or monitors or whatever, but I would not be back.

JMHO...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Most Americans have at least some music-reading ability.
On what do you base this?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Most Americans have at least some music-reading ability.
On what do you base this?
Previous discussion on the Ship (as well as personal experience).
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
In my experience the ability to read music really depends upon the circles you move in. I cannot read music. None of my friends or relatives from my working class childhood could read music, I knew nobody who could play an instrument. Here in lovely middle class Cambridge, almost all my close friends read music, as do my children, my husband and his family. I've begun to take it as a measurement of social class (as I think I said on afore mentioned thread). I don't think shipmates are very representative of the general population, not least because many are churchgoers.

[ 29. October 2014, 13:39: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
In my experience the ability to read music really depends upon the circles you move in. I cannot read music. None of my friends or relatives from my working class childhood could read music, I knew nobody who could play an instrument. Here in lovely middle class Cambridge, almost all my close friends read music, as do my children, my husband and his family. I've begun to take it as a measurement of social class (as I think I said on afore mentioned thread). I don't think shipmates are very representative of the general population, not least because many are churchgoers.
Agreed. Now I have dyscalculia so attempts to learn music have failed anyway, but growing up my family simply could not afford music lessons for me (I wanted them). By the time I was at school in the late 90s and early 00s, there was no chance of being taught an instrument or how to properly read music at my (high-performing) comprehensive school or primary school in music lessons.

I would certainly put music lessons and the ability to read music as a marker of social class. I also agree that the Ship is not very representative of the general population.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Maybe it's a matter of age, not social class. When I was a child (early 60s), we had "music class" in school, which consisted of singing what we thought were really dumb songs from a song book. We didn't learn to sight read, but we were taught that when the notes go up or down, so should our voices, etc. Band lessons were offered free after school (but we had to buy or rent our instruments). Children didn't need to be "upper class" to participate.

In the 70s budget cuts ended music, art, etc., in the public schools, and those things came to an end. (I'm happy to say that I currently live near several schools, and I regularly see kids going to and from school carrying instruments. High School bands are very popular and apparently an essential part of football games.)

Pomona, you mention being at school in the late 90s and early 00s, so that was long after my time. And I believe both you and Heavenly Anarchist live in England -- in the past English Shipmates have indicated that most of them were never taught to read music.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
I was a child in the 70s.I cannot speak for the US but I do believe it is a class issue in the UK. As I said, I know plenty of school children, including my own, who read and play music but my lifestyle is very middle class now. Middle class children often have separate supplementary music lessons where they learn to read music.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
There's also a pond difference wrt class distinctions anyway - I'd class learning to play instruments as a middle-class thing, certainly not upper-class, given that to me upper-class is the aristocracy and gentry. Myself and Heavenly Anarchist have working-class backgrounds, not middle-class ones. Here it's working-class, middle-class, upper-class.

Band (in the US sense) is not a thing in UK schools - schools may have orchestras, but not brass/marching bands. We don't have the halftime show tradition (having very different attitudes to school sports!), and brass bands over here are the domain of the military, the Salvation Army and until relatively recently, collieries (cf the film Brassed Off). Learning, say, the violin has definite middle-class connotations which perhaps learning the trumpet for a marching band does not. Instruments are taught in private lessons in schools, at lunchtimes or after class, and the classes are expensive to say nothing of the instruments.

I remember having brief lessons on reading music in secondary school but not enough to learn properly. I'd say that most people of my class background in the UK can't read music, though they may be able to play instruments that use tabs.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Round here brass bands are traditionally working class and there are still plenty of them. Although with the steady destruction of big industry there has been a tendency for more middle class people to join in. However, they are not really marching bands. They are for competition and performance.


Jengie
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
…pews/chairs. Condemn them to hell where they belong.
Yes. Pews are an ungodly 14th century innovation. [Biased]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by
quote:
I do believe it is a class issue in the UK... Middle class children often have separate supplementary music lessons where they learn to read music.
This is a scandal, and is partly down to music not being seen as important by many involved in education, and that's before you get onto prejudice and ignorance: when in a previous existence I ran an arts organisation I had schools turning down free concert tickets on the grounds that Haydn's Nelson Mass "glorified war" (!) and "classical music isn't something our kids like".

Its one of the many reasons that I make sure that the church piano is never locked and encourage its use for practice by local children. We have our own curriculum for junior choristers which covers the basics of music theory to roughly Grade IV and music appreciation, including taking the juniors to at least one concert per term.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Yes! I forgot that I also sang in children's church choirs most of my childhood and also learned music there -- again, not an upper (or middle) class activity.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I had schools turning down free concert tickets on the grounds that Haydn's Nelson Mass "glorified war" (!) and "classical music isn't something our kids like".
Presumably this must mean that "Carmen" glorifies smoking, fortune-telling and bull-fighting, while "The Pirates of Penzance" glorifies illegal piracy and mocks the authority of the Police?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
My bog standard secondary comprehensive school had a brass section of the orchestra and could field a brass band. One of the leading lights still earns his money in music. We had lessons provided in lunchtimes by sixth formers (I learned piano that way and guitar) as part of their CV building.

My daughter's equally bog standard (actually regarded as below the pale by most) has an orchestra and a brass band and a jazz group. The brass band is good enough to join the local (competition standard) brass band at their annual Christmas concert. That school had a subsidised music school based there one evening a week, along with several of the other local schools. My daughter learnt clarinet - using an instrument hired from the service.

Sweeping discussion about the UK don't necessarily apply.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My bog standard secondary comprehensive school had a brass section of the orchestra and could field a brass band. One of the leading lights still earns his money in music. We had lessons provided in lunchtimes by sixth formers (I learned piano that way and guitar) as part of their CV building.

My daughter's equally bog standard (actually regarded as below the pale by most) has an orchestra and a brass band and a jazz group. The brass band is good enough to join the local (competition standard) brass band at their annual Christmas concert. That school had a subsidised music school based there one evening a week, along with several of the other local schools. My daughter learnt clarinet - using an instrument hired from the service.

Sweeping discussion about the UK don't necessarily apply.
That's very encouraging indeed.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In the US programs in the arts have essentially been eliminated in my lifetime. Everything involving music, theater, dance, or art is now an extracurricular activity, taking place after school (for extra money). The school day focuses solely upon getting kids to pass the tests. Sports is on the bubble, but real sports involvement takes so much time it has to be shoved into the after-school slot anyway.
I can read music. I don't think anyone else in my immediate family can.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... I have dyscalculia so attempts to learn music have failed anyway ...
Mathematical inability is no barrier to learning to read music. My Better Half would be the first to admit that he's utterly rubbish at maths (he failed his O level), but he's a very well-qualified and excellent professional musician.

In my experience, musicians tend to be either rubbish or really good at maths: the head of the maths department at my old school was also a very good amateur trombone player.

Of course, YMMV.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US programs in the arts have essentially been eliminated in my lifetime. Everything involving music, theater, dance, or art is now an extracurricular activity, taking place after school (for extra money). The school day focuses solely upon getting kids to pass the tests. Sports is on the bubble, but real sports involvement takes so much time it has to be shoved into the after-school slot anyway.
I can read music. I don't think anyone else in my immediate family can.
That's a rather over-reaching statement. My eldest is taking his second year of music in school. It depends, in part at least, upon how well funded is the school district.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
I think Oblatus is on to something. I've seen these hymn number displays in many churches in Germany. They are illuminated just as the hymn is beginning and disappear completely against the surrounding stonework well into the first verse.

I believe that we are in a time something like during the introduction of electrical lighting into churches. We are trying things out and advancing with the advances of the technology. As parishes, architects, and technology companies work their way into the problem, the range of available solutions will broaden.

I'm thinking about the supra-titles at the Santa Fe Opera.

My own late 19th-century church building has had about four different scheme of interior illumination. One was with bare incandescent bulbs burning brightly from the string course just beneath the clerestory. Quite a few American, inner-city, Roman Catholic churches are still illuminated in this way, though their number is dwindling. I'd like to think that we've finally reached the optimum solution, though given the span of time between church renovations, it may be 50 to 100 years before we are sure.

All that said, I detest projection of text during a church service. There is something theologically wrong with it, though I can't quite put my finger on what. It just seems part and parcel with the theological wrong-headedness of speech amplification. God didn't use a megaphone at the Creation.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That said we don't use either, but our service changes little from week to week. Those parts that do change, mostly won't come around for another year (short (~4-line) hymns about saints or feasts), and are printed in the bulletin.
This is certainly true for the divine liturgy, but much less so for the office, the daily vesper services, and the vigil for the resurrection, especially during Lent.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Count me baffled with Mousethief on the "Most americans can sight read" thing. Yes, prior the seventies, elementary schools would have an hour - weekly "music time" , and there was wonderful access to school music programs as an elective at all grade levels, but there is a big difference between staring at a book of folk songs once a week and learning to recite the notes on the treble clef and being anywhere near able to read music.
But back to projections:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I can't stand the way screens look, but I remember seeing a video of part of a Roman Catholic Mass from a parish in Germany where the hymn numbers were projected on a stone pillar (maybe several stone pillars throughout the church?) in such a way that it looked as though the numbers had always been on the stone: no bright white screen, and when the numbers stopped being projected there was no blank screen, just the stone. I wonder if there could be better technology that uses a part of the building in such a subtle way (yet very legible) and vanishes the instant the info isn't needed. Granted, this wasn't whole hymn texts, just the numbers, but it got me thinking. (That said, I prefer books.)
I went to a Methodist church once that had a lovely interior, attractive modern altar area with a sort of triptych of bare walls behind the mounted cross at the front. The bareness of the cream colored walls seemed simply to harmonize with the modern decor, but when the service began, it became clear that two of the walls were being used to project the hymns, full text included, and the audience response portion of the service. They used an attractive, clearly legible font, and they added marginal graphics that echoed the floral arrangements and wall art.
I liked it. Usually I am neutral to annoyed about the projection thing, but this time, I thought it worked. I think if you like the funtionality of projection and have a creative mind, you can definitely find a classy way to do it.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... I have dyscalculia so attempts to learn music have failed anyway ...
Mathematical inability is no barrier to learning to read music. My Better Half would be the first to admit that he's utterly rubbish at maths (he failed his O level), but he's a very well-qualified and excellent professional musician.

In my experience, musicians tend to be either rubbish or really good at maths: the head of the maths department at my old school was also a very good amateur trombone player.

Of course, YMMV.
Dyscalculia is not just being bad at maths but also 'internal maths' (sorry don't know how best to phrase it), for example struggling to read analogue clocks and telling left from right. Not being able to read music is actually a recognised symptom of dyscalculia.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Now you put it like that, I can see the logic: if things like analogue clocks and left/right are bothersome, then the idea of following the direction of notes up and down the stave and the (numerical) length of bars and notes probably would be too.

Sorry - I'm getting a bit tangential ... [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
To get more back on topic - I have found that noted psalms for chanting aren't a problem for me to read. So perhaps a revival of plainsong is in order?

Taizé chants are easy enough to learn without sheet music.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I have ascertained that our magnificent screen is in fact connected to its keyboard/laptop by a cable.
About reading music... can't speak about who learns instruments etc here but having learned piano from age 8 and later violin (not to any great level but enough to play second fiddle in the school orchestra for fun wherever I taught) I also sang in church choirs wherever there was one, and am totally at a loss when we have a new hymn unless the music is available. Some people can sight-read, others can pick up a tune by listening to it; I'm one of the former, and periodically beg clergy to make music available if they want to use an unfamiliar song/hymn.

GG
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0