Thread: Use of screens in liturgy 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=025888
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
I know these are commonplace in charismatic churches or those with especially large congregations. A church near me has begun using them for their Sunday morning sung eucharist. I hate them with a passion as I feel they make it impossible to know the shape of the liturgy unfolding, but even more for the fact that they draw the assembly's attention away from the action. Any views or comments based on your experience of them?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
<snip> they draw the assembly's attention away from the action <snip>
At least their heads are not down in their books when the action is happening.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yikes! (based on practically no experience of them)
But having thought for a moment: if worship is basically a big singalong, then screens are probably quite a good thing and an improvement on books and leaflets. If worship is participating in the shared action of the liturgy, they are quite wrong, for the reasons you have given. But books and leaflets can be as bad, keeping the worshippers focussed on words and details rather than the action (see the thread on 'who says the Collect')
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
You probably wouldn't think so from my posting history here, but I actually prefer screens to books. The reason is that a screen makes you look up and adopt an outward-looking posture of attentiveness, while a book tends to make you look down and adopt a more inward-looking posture. Screens are better than books for helping you be aware of the people around you and (as any exasperated choirmaster will tell you) an upright outward-facing posture helps you sing better.
However, there are problems with screens. Aside from considerations of copyright, visibility can be a problem if there's someone tall in front of you. If the technology breaks down, so does the liturgy - a missing page from a book affects one person, but a missing page from Powerpoint affects everybody. And oddly enough, the commonest problem with screens is the easiest to solve - a discrepancy between what most people are following on the screen, and what the clergy or musicians are following in their books. A simple run-through would help.
At the hospital where I work, our big Christmas carol service is always on screens.
[Cross-posted with BroJames and Angloid.]
[ 08. August 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
We use screens in our (mainly trad) Methodist/URC. They improve teh singing, and mean that you can use material from several different books. It also means you can use appropriate illustrations.
Last Sunday I had the first comment on their use in the Liturgy. I put the sentence leading up to any response section. The complaint was that they concentrated too much on the 'lead up' sentence, and didn't hear the rest of the prayer.
Fair point. Do we use books? Or do I put the whole of the great prayer of thanksgiving on the screen? Or just carry on?
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Sorry - but I immediately thought - rood screens and parclose screens...
Adeodatus makes a good point, though. Still I am happy to have never seen one used in Christian worship.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
A former church I was part of used a screen
when it went experimental in how worship was done . However it was a non liturgical church.
I have seen it in an Anglican church but the way the screen was mounted, from the ceiling made in non obtrusive and yes they put the entire service up there .
In my current parish we print the liturgical
texdt in the bulletin. Should anyone suggest a screen I would be uncomfortable with it. The use of book oe bulletin is less distracting
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Sorry - but I immediately thought - rood screens and parclose screens...
Adeodatus makes a good point, though. Still I am happy to have never seen one used in Christian worship.
Whilst I'm sure screens (and the type of service/denomination they are normally used in) make the Baby Jesus Cry, we occasionally make use of one in particular services, the mention of rood screens has given me a great idea for a future PCC ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 08. August 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I immediately thought of iconostasis when I saw the thread title. I am slightly disadvantaged by screens on account of slowly failing eyesight-- if the church or the screens are not brightly lit and if I am a bit too far away, I cannot read the text. As long as the priest sticks to an approved rite, my memory supports me but, the moment they deviate (and about half of them do), I am totally lost.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I have been to two Lutheran churches that use screens. Can't say they helped or hurt the liturgy. But I am thinking you will see more of this, not less.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Drat.
Comper's Child beat me to it.
Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on
:
Here in middle of nowhere UMC, we've used a screen and powerpoint for about 10 years. In that time I have never, not even once experienced the liturgy of communion that actually worked. The preachers do their ad lib stuff, and the congregation is staring at the screen, and i'm looking at the book at the organ. None of these things is the same. So the preacher is blathering on as the people come in wrong and then pause in a weird spot cause the powerpoint stopped all the while I keep right on reading out of the hymnal,thus making me look like an ass when I keep going and the people have stopped.
So,, no,, i'd rather we use the book. and don't even get me started about the M-C-F that was our last baptism service ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
mcf = mass cluster****
Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on
:
Works well when I have experienced it, it makes sure everyone is on the same page (literally). Also reduces confusion of when to stand/sit etc. if it is on the screen...
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
We use them quite a lot and I quite like it to be honest. In my ideal world, all the congregation would know the liturgy by heart so no one would need any kind of aide-memoire. However, in the churches I serve that's not going to happen so we need something and the screen frees you from endless page number announcements, heads in books and complaints that people didn't know where you were. I use a tablet to lead from so I am looking at the same thing as the congregation thus avoiding problems of what the congregation are seeing not matching up to what I am doing (mostly... I'm still human). Some thought does need to be given to those who can't see it and providing printed versions or other alternatives can be helpful.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
If the screen fits naturally into the space without looking stupid, then I can deal with it. (Similar to my feelings about changing wallbound altars into freestanding: do it only if it won't look horrendous. Some spaces are made for this, and some not so much.)
Also, having screens is a bit like having a contemporary worship ensemble: you have to put lots of money, effort, and time into it to get it right, not to mention the talent required.
The best screens, IMHO, can be hidden when need be. I think I've shared before on earlier threads that a local funeral parlor has flatscreens hidden in the side walls which can easily be covered by framed artworks when desired.
[ 09. August 2013, 02:12: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
They make me feel like I'm stupid and I'm not sure why - same as powerpoint in pretty much any context. I don't know why it makes me feel this way, when it's essentially just a bigger version of a book.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
In a world where most of us stare at screens for hours and hours and hours, church is often the respite, where we can unplug, relax, and just be. The fact that some people want to put yet another aspect of consumer work culture into church is wrong-headed at my most generous and it's down-right evil if I were being honest.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
In a world where most of us stare at screens for hours and hours and hours, church is often the respite, where we can unplug, relax, and just be.
That's a good point, I think. One I hadn't considered, as I'm thoroughly at home with projectors and screens being used in church services.
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
The fact that some people want to put yet another aspect of consumer work culture into church is wrong-headed at my most generous and it's down-right evil if I were being honest.
However, I don't get this at all! Aren't digital projectors just an update on film projectors, which were an update on books, which were an update on papyrus...? Yes, we'd do well to think about how best to use each item of new technology that's developed (and maybe not use it at all), but what is so 'consumer work culture' and 'down-right evil' about digital projectors?
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
I really disagree with your premise that all digital projection is an update of papyrus. For one thing, I think that's a little akin to comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, I think a digital screen is something more like a roadside billboard than a papyrus scroll or a book. It overwhelms everything and becomes the center of focus.
I do see a time when actual printed-on-paper words aren't needed in church. (We managed to get along quite a while without them.) But to put up an ugly, garish, mind-sucking billboard in a church is silly and gimicky. People in my generation think it's dated and cheesy. People in my parents are just annoyed by it. I'm not quite sure who they're for.
Like everywhere, restaurants, bars, doctors' offices, stores, dinner tables, the screen can take center-stage at church to the exclusion of anything else.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
My congregations complaint about screens, they did not feel that pictures during worship were appropriate, after all if pictures were used for a prayer did you keep your eyes open or shut.
We use projection almost solely for pictures not words of hymns or prayers.
Mind you if you keep your eyes shut while praying then having the liturgy in a booklet ain't much use either!
Jengie
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
My take is that books and leaflets have worked for quite a few decades now and that if well done they can be helpful and welcoming. And those who wish can ignore them if they've memorized the responses and can follow the liturgy on their own. A screen tends to insist on itself and can less easily be ignored.
I think a better evolution from paper would be to inexpensive flexible handheld screens on which can be "screencast" the information needed for following the service. Or if we'll all have tablets with us anyway, those can be used instead.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
I will preface this by saying that as I've gotten older I've developed an antagonism towards the latest in technological innovation......Our Worship and Music Committee had debated the pros and cons of screens for over a year. I knew that the Pastor was very much pro screen and that they would appear eventually regardless of my protestations. The pro screen argument was that it would make it easier for visitors and those considering becoming new members to participate in the Liturgy, especially for those not familiar with a liturgical worship service. I am of a generation where one was expected to learn the Liturgy as a matter of course. I've been told those days are gone and are not returning any time soon. They alternative was to print a 12 page Bulletin and that was deemed to be both too expensive and wasteful. So....the dreaded screens arrived and were installed at the begining of Lent. I am convinced this was part of my personal Lenten penance.
We now have two approx. 4x6 screens, one on either side of the chancel. They are not as hideous as I had feared and are not too much of an insult to the late 19th cent. Neo-Gothic style of the nave. About 15 min. prior to the service they descend silently and the projectors start displaying the announcements that also appear in the Bulletin. They display the full text of the Liturgy and the verses to the hymns. They silently ascend during the homily and reappear for the eucharistic portion of the Liturgy.
I will grudgingly admit that the congregational singing has improved and I have noticed better participation in the Liturgy. No one has actually said to me that visitors and others feel more comfortable but I suspect that is the case.
I am reminded of a cartoon I recently saw in The New Yorker where Gutenberg is showing one of his new books to a person whose says, "Your books are nice, but people will always want scrolls."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I have recently noted worshippers following on their tablets, as opposed to books and leaflets. Breaking from my usual habit of sprinting out of the church to get some decent espresso, I asked one of them if they would mind showing me how it worked-- it had the BCP text with propers for the date, psalms in a little box, epistle & gospel in another little box, and tabs for alternate translations and even languages for the scriptures. The size of the font could be adjusted and, I was informed, I could easily flip to Facebook if the sermon got oppressive. I have since learned that some TEC parishes have their services available for tablet so one could even channel into the local liturgy version without more than the regular confusion.
I may be a convert to this, as it would help me avoid the screen-squint and, should I be treated to another 35-minute sermon against anal sex, I can easily check out my friends' FB updates.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
In a world where most of us stare at screens for hours and hours and hours, church is often the respite, where we can unplug, relax, and just be. The fact that some people want to put yet another aspect of consumer work culture into church is wrong-headed at my most generous and it's down-right evil if I were being honest.
Methinks thou dost over-reach there. Your post can be parsed as "I have enough of screens at work and would prefer not to have them at church therefore". It's a bit of a jump from there to "wrong headed" and a giant leap to "evil". By that logic librarians should consider service and hymn books as wrong headed at best and evil if they're honest.
Our screen doesn't detract from the "action" because when it's in use it's as much part of the action as anything else.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
I just don't think you can say, "a projector screen has words; therefore, it's on equivalence with all things containing written words." I think the librarian metaphor doesn't hold water.
I'm not some anti-technology Luddite. I'm one of those oft-written about twenty-something Millennials who can't tear himself away from technology. I love technology and live inside and outside of it all day. I couldn't live without my iPhone. I just think huge screens and Powerpoint presentations in church are a particularly poor and sterile use of technology.
On a positive note, however, I do think that over-sized screens are something of a passing fad, soon to be replaced with cheap tablets and the like.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
They're tools. When they're poor and sterile they're poor and sterile. When they're imaginatively used to augment the worship they're imaginatively used to augment the worship.
cf. organs.
And why would they be synonymous with bleedin' Powerpoint? I don't think we use that at all on ours.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
In a world where most of us stare at screens for hours and hours and hours, church is often the respite, where we can unplug, relax, and just be. The fact that some people want to put yet another aspect of consumer work culture into church is wrong-headed at my most generous and it's down-right evil if I were being honest.
Methinks thou dost over-reach there. Your post can be parsed as "I have enough of screens at work and would prefer not to have them at church therefore". It's a bit of a jump from there to "wrong headed" and a giant leap to "evil". By that logic librarians should consider service and hymn books as wrong headed at best and evil if they're honest.
Our screen doesn't detract from the "action" because when it's in use it's as much part of the action as anything else.
Maybe librarians would prefer to avoid books at church. Busman's holiday. I'm not a librarian, but I try my best to avoid having anything do to with computers, the sound system, or video projection at church. Even though I (certainly, probably, possibly in that order) know more about them than anyone else in the congregation. I do that stuff all the time, I don't want to carry on doing it in church.
I dislike screens at church and much prefer books. They don't break down. They don't display a different version of the song the to one the choir is trying to sing. They don't display 3/4 of a verse at a time. They don't flick over to the next line too late (*) They let you see what is coming next so you can be ready for it. They let you read the whole hymn or prayer or Bible reading so you know what you are saying or singing. They are easier on the eye. Partially sighted people can use big print versions. Bored kids can flick through them and read other pages (This is really important. A vital tool for surviving at church.)
Also computers and so on have so many more interesting failure modes than books do. When you are giving a talk or leading some meeting, even if you have all your stuff on a computer (whether at church or at work or anywhere else) you have to have a paper backup because sooner or later the bloody things just won't work.
And, my bugbear on this: Projectionists! All of you! Listen to me!
1) Many people take about half a second to read a line of verse to sing it, or liturgy to say it, so you need to display the next page half a second before the congregation get to it because if you don't slow readers who don't already know the words won't be able to read them or sing them.
2) Most people have a reaction time of about half a second. So they need to start doing something about half a second before they want it to happen. AND THIS MEANS YOU (assuming you aren't a fast jet pilot, a formula one driver, a Korean Video Games championship finalist, the all-time fastest buzzer in University Challenge, or an Olympic 100-metre sprint cheat) You. Have. To. Start. Moving. Early.
3) So because you need to start half a second before it needs to happen, and it needs to happen half a second before they start singing it you need to hit the button or click the mouse to display the next page while the singers are half way through the last line on the page before
WHY does NO ONE ever get that?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I dislike screens at church and much prefer books. They don't break down. They don't display a different version of the song the to one the choir is trying to sing.
Sorry! Yes they can, I have been in the congregation at least twice when this happened!
Jengie
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
People can take leaflets and booklets home with them at the end of the service and look at them during the week, if they so choose. You can't do that with a screen.
Mr. C. says screens (and particularly Powerpoint) remind him of work presentations, which is the last thing he wants at weekends.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
My objection to screens is actually the lack of choice they give.
First, I know the liturgy without needing the words in front of me. I know most of the hymns too. If I have a book, I can put it down. If there are screens, it's really hard not to look at them constantly. Yes, looking at a screen is better than a book, but looking at neither is arguably better still.
Second, give a church a screen and they will use it. Constantly. With corny, sentimental images whenever there are no words on the screen. And they will have animations. And then, when I'm on my knees praying before the service begins, I find my eyes being drawn not to the cross or the altar or something beautiful and conducive to prayer, but to a gaudy image of a butterfly or some such rubbish.
Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge that I'm not really the average churchgoer...
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Sorry - but I immediately thought - rood screens and parclose screens...
Same here, as well as confessional screens. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on
:
We use screens (when needed) to convey images of what's happening up at the business end to the far-flung corners of the (fairly large) building, but not for words (liturgy or hymns), although I've been in churches where they are used.
I dislike screens mostly because my sight isn't brilliant and I find them hard to read (if you must use them, use a large font and don't try to fit too much on one screen, folks), but (and I don't know whether this is standard or just a feature of the churches I've been to where they've been used) I also object to the use of images, which seem to be picked specifically in order to kill metaphor stone dead ('Christ, whose glory fills the skies' = picture of the sky; 'Rock of ages, cleft for me' = picture of a rock), with place-holders usually featuring lakes and mountains when there are no metaphors to be destroyed. I think I'd object less if the screens were used for words only; but once they're up there will always be the temptation to liven things up with some lakes and mountains, even though no-one (to the best of my knowledge) looks at a service booklet or hymn sheet and thinks: 'What this really needs is a picture of some mountains and a lake'.
Personally, I really dislike the idea that we need constant (and constantly-changing - I often have to switch channels on the TV because I can't bear programmes where each shot is only on-screen for 2 seconds before the camera flits to the next thing) visual stimulation. Church for me is more (not exclusively, of course) about the auditory than the visual.
Interestingly (or maybe not...) I had a conversation on these lines with my students early in the academic year just gone. They asked why I didn't use powerpoint in my lectures, as most other lecturers did. I said that if they could tell me what powerpoint would add to my lectures, then I would start to use it. But if it was just in order to avoid having to listen and/or look at my ugly mug for an hour, then I'd continue as before. I got not one reason why powerpoint would have been an advantage (and they got to continue looking at my ugly mug ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pia:
Church for me is more (not exclusively, of course) about the auditory than the visual.
That's an interesting post, but for me church is visual and tactile as much as auditory. But the visuals are what's going on around us.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I have only once seen screens projecting the liturgist and 'songs'. Gross. Nearly walked out. The priest was in sweater and jeans, disobeying canon law.
Bring back rood (rude) screens.
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Pia:
Church for me is more (not exclusively, of course) about the auditory than the visual.
That's an interesting post, but for me church is visual and tactile as much as auditory. But the visuals are what's going on around us.
Agreed, which is why I don't mind screens being used to show the 'action' of the service itself if there are people sitting where they would otherwise not be able to see it. (We've just come through some fairly extensive renovations, during which people had to sit in all kinds of dusty corners!) But personally I don't actually mind all that much if I can't see much of what's going on, as long as everything is audible.
[ 10. August 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: Pia ]
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
... comments based on your experience of them?
I've experienced the use of projection screens in church and other venues for worship. While such screens can be useful when used creatively on occasion. The problems come when they are used all the time. Then I say a pox on them! Put the screens away or get rid of them! Generally speaking, projection screens have no useful place at Mass. The use of screens is a distraction from the liturgy. That is to say for those who have and enjoy the use of liturgical forms and the Eucharist.
*
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
I think they're the current "Get rich quick...erm, Get members quick" scheme that appeals to bored church leaders.
Tried:
Folk music. Check.
Conversational sermons. Check.
Drama. Check.
Contemporary service. Check.
Christian rock. Check.
Facebook page. Check.
Ditching the vestments. Check.
Contemplative silence. Check.
Odd-night service. Check.
Simplified wording. Check.
Projector screen. Check.
I suppose a church has to find its niche, and if any of the above work, then more power to them. In many places, it just seems like another unnecessary gimmick.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I know these are commonplace in charismatic churches or those with especially large congregations. A church near me has begun using them for their Sunday morning sung eucharist. I hate them with a passion as I feel they make it impossible to know the shape of the liturgy unfolding, but even more for the fact that they draw the assembly's attention away from the action. Any views or comments based on your experience of them?
The Lutheran church I attend has screens. It has some positive aspects - it's easier for people to read their responses up on the screen to the left and right of the altar than to try to flip around in the ELW liturgy. There's also some good multimedia presentation during special liturgies (like stations of the cross).
On the other hand, no one at the church uses the hymnal for reading the notes any more, and it opens up the church to more modern worship music which I'm not fond of.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Forgive me if this is too Hellish, but I'm amazed at this negativity towards projectors and screens. Would you nay-sayers have been similarly negative about hymn and liturgy books when they first became available? After all, the people can remember the words so why do we need these expensive, cumbersome books?
I'm not saying all churches should introduce screens without thinking, but surely each church should consider whether the technology could be put to good use in its building(s)?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I think they're the current "Get rich quick...erm, Get members quick" scheme that appeals to bored church leaders.
Nonsense! They're pure practicality for us. I don't believe they will increase our membership but nor do I believe our membership would sky-rocket if we changed every service to a perfectly choreographed Tridentine mass. We seek to do something of quality which works in our context. Give us some credit.
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
Looking up at a screen hurts my neck.
Singing from a hymn book held at a suitable level (so I can sing out in a way that will warm the heart of the most critical music director) does not hurt my neck.
Therefore I really don't like screens.
Apart from rood screens, obviously...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Forgive me if this is too Hellish, but I'm amazed at this negativity towards projectors and screens. Would you nay-sayers have been similarly negative about hymn and liturgy books when they first became available? After all, the people can remember the words so why do we need these expensive, cumbersome books?
I'm not saying all churches should introduce screens without thinking, but surely each church should consider whether the technology could be put to good use in its building(s)?
Nay-sayers are an important part of achieving balance. We need to look at the practical reservations which are being expressed, and discern which are valid problems related to screens and which are really reactions to (yet another) imposed intrusion. Both need engagement from local leadership.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I think they're the current "Get rich quick...erm, Get members quick" scheme that appeals to bored church leaders.
Nonsense! They're pure practicality for us. I don't believe they will increase our membership but nor do I believe our membership would sky-rocket if we changed every service to a perfectly choreographed Tridentine mass. We seek to do something of quality which works in our context. Give us some credit.
I do, and I certainly allowed for it in my prior post. I say again, if it works for you, then more power to you. That said, I've been to way too many meetings lately where pastors all but felt obligated to get screens, just because others are doing so and they think it therefore must be the secret to everything. It's the fad du jour in the ELCA, along with our perennial deviating from the liturgical book...
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
That's the other great thing about it - the congregation all think you're being new and innovative when actually what you're doing is by the book liturgy ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
Thoughts to different points -
'books/leaflets allow to follow all liturgy'
I have been where the leaflet didn't give the presider's text just the cue lines for the full congregational responses. The idea there being to provoke us to look and to listen.
'neck ache from screen not from books'
I have had bad arm ache from some books, hymn or liturgy in the past.
Screens would save Mrs Jones from trying to find the page for herself and her neighbour in the pew who is always confused even when only one book but can read ok when knows what to look at.
Yes the can be ugly, yes the technology can go haywire, and too many do it badly.
But leaflets locally produced can be horrendous too, poorly done, bad font choices for clarity etc and the full books too many page hops and heavy, not to mention scary when handed out at the door en masse as some places.
So - horses for courses, each is a tool, each has its place, and each will be loved by some and hated by others.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Projecting lyrics and liturgy is less wasteful that printing them on leaflets. And books do breakdown; I've had books with broken spines and disintegrating/torn pages.
I'm a new Anglican and attended one service where the church used books, and had half of the row trying to help me find the right page. Not that I asked, but apparently my lack of speed in flipping to the correct place was distracting enough to my neighbors that they felt the need to jump in. At my home parish with screens I never felt so obviously like a newbie.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The more I read this thread, the more I find myself agreeing with something Adeodatus, I think, said on another thread lately: really, if you have a liturgy, the congregational parts should become so familiar that people really say them by heart.
In that case, books / screens are really prompt sheets and for newbies: and books, if properly managed, are less obtrusive. I am also a believer in the principle- emphasised by John Habgood when he was chairing the group that produced the CofE's Alternative Service Book 1980, but lost in CW- that the principal services should be gathered into one book which people can have at home, use to some extent, and become familiar with.
If you are not liturgical, of course, this doesn't apply.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Some theatres now, instead of programmes, sell the whole script of the play in book form. But I have never seen anybody try to follow it instead of watching and listening to the actors. It is very useful to take it home afterwards and read through the text to think about it.
That ISTM is, or should be, the function of printed liturgy books. Yes, the difference is that there are some words we are expected to join in with, unlike normally in the theatre. But they are quickly learned by heart and then the books become redundant.
I haven't attended a RC mass more than once since the new texts came in; I would be surprised if people are still referring to the missalettes/leaflets, because they never used to.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm a new Anglican and attended one service where the church used books, and had half of the row trying to help me find the right page. Not that I asked, but apparently my lack of speed in flipping to the correct place was distracting enough to my neighbors that they felt the need to jump in.
They were trying to be helpful and make you feel comfortable but in fact having the opposite effect
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
I know in one place where we used a screen, it was one of the elder ladies who was most grateful - as she had arthritis, thus couldn't turn the pages, and was long sighted and needed to hold the book so far away to see it - as she could freely worship.
However I've always tried a firm policy of choice, where both screen and book are available. And many use the screen but hold the book.
Also as to this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
3) So because you need to start half a second before it needs to happen, and it needs to happen half a second before they start singing it you need to hit the button or click the mouse to display the next page while the singers are half way through the last line on the page before
WHY does NO ONE ever get that?
As some of us are reading the line in question as we sing, and the change at this point means we lose half a line, however YMMV. Better I think to have a few bars between slides.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
In that case, books / screens are really prompt sheets and for newbies: and books, if properly managed, are less obtrusive. I am also a believer in the principle- emphasised by John Habgood when he was chairing the group that produced the CofE's Alternative Service Book 1980, but lost in CW- that the principal services should be gathered into one book which people can have at home, use to some extent, and become familiar with.
The main services of Common Worship are still gathered together in the main volume? At least, it contains the Office, the Mass and Holy Baptism, and a service of the Word, which probably covers most regular services where it isn't normal to produce a customised booklet.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I stand corrected.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm a new Anglican and attended one service where the church used books, and had half of the row trying to help me find the right page. Not that I asked, but apparently my lack of speed in flipping to the correct place was distracting enough to my neighbors that they felt the need to jump in.
They were trying to be helpful and make you feel comfortable but in fact having the opposite effect
I know they were trying to be helpful, but it just made me feel conspicuous and slightly embarrassed. I find screens more accessible to those from a non-liturgical background.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
But in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is a thoroughly liturgical tradition, there is no expectation that the congregation will have any printed texts whatever. And as angloid said, RCs don't bother much either.
(I find people trying to show me the way round the book very irritating and I have to exercise considerable charitable self discipline not to appear rude.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I dislike screens at church and much prefer books. They don't break down. They don't display a different version of the song the to one the choir is trying to sing.
Sorry! Yes they can, I have been in the congregation at least twice when this happened!
Your hymbooks broke? All at once? That must have been interesting...
Or do you mean someone gave the choir different versions from the rest of the congregation?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes, they all had the wrong words in them! Really annoying as in one case the screen also had the wrong words on it! I had only gone to the hymn book when I realised the words were not what was being displayed. The words in the hymn book were different to the screen but also not what was being sung.
No I am not making it up.
Jengie
[ 13. August 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I heard recently of a church which erected a very large screen right in front of the choir stalls. So the congregation could see it, but the choir were hidden behind it. Do you think someone was trying to tell them something??
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
For those of us who wish to use songs which aren't to be found in a single book (increasingly likely), there are two options: screens or printed Orders of Service.
Printed Orders of Service are inflexible and a waste of paper and ink. Multiple books are a burden on worshippers. Screens allow flexibility, provided that proper editorial control is exercised over the texts of hymns ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Printed Orders of Service are inflexible and a waste of paper and ink.
Olaf wants his musical notes! He will help provide singing 'oomph' from the congregation, especially with new songs, as long as he has them. But he needs to examine the song in advance, not line by line.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Printed Orders of Service are inflexible and a waste of paper and ink.
Olaf wants his musical notes! He will help provide singing 'oomph' from the congregation, especially with new songs, as long as he has them. But he needs to examine the song in advance, not line by line.
And in case it's not obvious, whilst you could fit the score for some of the more repetitive ditties visibly on a projection screen, it's a rare church which has sufficiently large and high-enough resolution screens to be able to display a double page from the hymnal that can be read from the back pew.
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
That's another point - if you want the music in front of you I will invite you to join the choir/music group/whatever...
Most musicians I know are quite capable of picking up the tune without the book in front of them, and with modern worship songs, the printed melody tends to reflect an early demo rather than how said songwriter plays the song in the present (and therefore how everyone learns it!)
Many disagree with me, but I also still maintain that I know many many more people who don't look at the music in the melody editions of hymn books and think they are wastes of space and paper than find them useful. ICH5 (2000) was our first hymn book where the congregational edition had melodies, and it was a waste of paper, and due to the paper used, an appalingly big book.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Many disagree with me, but I also still maintain that I know many many more people who don't look at the music in the melody editions of hymn books and think they are wastes of space and paper than find them useful. ICH5 (2000) was our first hymn book where the congregational edition had melodies, and it was a waste of paper, and due to the paper used, an appalingly big book.
No it was not. New Church Praise in 1975 had the melody in the most basic edition. Following the success of this, Rejoice and Sing had them in 1991 and even the Baptist Hymnal in the 1990s had them.
Jengie
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Many disagree with me, but I also still maintain that I know many many more people who don't look at the music in the melody editions of hymn books and think they are wastes of space and paper than find them useful. ICH5 (2000) was our first hymn book where the congregational edition had melodies, and it was a waste of paper, and due to the paper used, an appalingly big book.
No it was not. New Church Praise in 1975 had the melody in the most basic edition. Following the success of this, Rejoice and Sing had them in 1991 and even the Baptist Hymnal in the 1990s had them.
Jengie
Possible tangent, but the bit I've highlighted - ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There wasn't a "Baptist Hymnal" in the 1990s (assuming you're talking about the UK) - there was Baptist Praise and Worship, and the words edition of that didn't have the melody in it, in line at least with the previous Baptist Hymn Book.
Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on
:
We use a projector for morning and "special" services.
It will have all the words of the hymns and also any responses that the congregation would be expected to say, including the Lord's Prayer and the Grace. To assume that everyone who comes though our doors will know these by heart seems a bit arrogant to me, as does the expectation that they should know all the sacramental liturgy.
We also give out books to those that want them.
If someone came and wanted the music - we would give them a music copy.
Screen projection should never be an either/or, but in addition to (IMO).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
... with modern worship songs, the printed melody tends to reflect an early demo rather than how said songwriter plays the song in the present (and therefore how everyone learns it!)
True. This causes endless difficulties with musicians who learn music "from the dots" and then insist that theirs is the "correct" version to be used even though everyone sings it slightly differently!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes, they all had the wrong words in them! Really annoying as in one case the screen also had the wrong words on it! I had only gone to the hymn book when I realised the words were not what was being displayed. The words in the hymn book were different to the screen but also not what was being sung.
No I am not making it up.
Jengie
This has happened to me, too.
IME, it's less likely to happen with modern copyrighted songs than old ones which can vary between books at the whim of editors ... but one must always check as there are traps for the unwary!
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
It seems generally from what people have said that the risks for things to go wrong are far greater with use of screens than more conventional methods. Surely, providing choir and congregation with the same hymn book, having a card for those who want or need it for the liturgy and responses, just means that the only other thing that is needed is the readings for the day which can be put on the notice sheet.
I agree with an earlier poster that those clergy who seem keen to promulgate screens think that in doing so they are "with it", or perhaps part of an ever-growing trend when actually there seem to be very few churches that use them routinely for their main services.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I agree with an earlier poster that those clergy who seem keen to promulgate screens think that in doing so they are "with it", or perhaps part of an ever-growing trend when actually there seem to be very few churches that use them routinely for their main services.
I'm not sure about this. My church has been using a screen for many years at the main service.
When I first went there I was very new to church and as the only other church I'd been to used books the screen thing seemed quite strange to me, but I'm so used to it now it seems perfectly normal. And as I have become more longsighted as I've got older I find it much easier to look at a screen than to use a book or paper whcih entails taking my glasses off and putting them on again throughout the service ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Many disagree with me, but I also still maintain that I know many many more people who don't look at the music in the melody editions of hymn books and think they are wastes of space and paper than find them useful. ICH5 (2000) was our first hymn book where the congregational edition had melodies, and it was a waste of paper, and due to the paper used, an appalingly big book.
No it was not. New Church Praise in 1975 had the melody in the most basic edition. Following the success of this, Rejoice and Sing had them in 1991 and even the Baptist Hymnal in the 1990s had them.
Jengie
It was our first hymn book... the first CoI book with a melody edition, first one in the church I was attending with a melody edition...
I was aware that melody editions had been available for many hymn books, and indeed, years earlier in another church we had copies of the united Hymns for Today for the choir to use as a supplement to the then CoI hymn book - melody for the Sops, full music for everyone else. The congregation were given a sheet with selected hymns.
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
(with apologies for the double post)
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
It seems generally from what people have said that the risks for things to go wrong are far greater with use of screens than more conventional methods. Surely, providing choir and congregation with the same hymn book, having a card for those who want or need it for the liturgy and responses, just means that the only other thing that is needed is the readings for the day which can be put on the notice sheet.
That only works if the hymn book contains all hymns you wish to use. There does not exist a book which would serve that purpose for me, or for many many others.
The risk of mismatched words is of course real, but it is completely avoidable if those in charge of the music and those putting words on screens (or printed bulletins) talk to each other.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Many disagree with me, but I also still maintain that I know many many more people who don't look at the music in the melody editions of hymn books and think they are wastes of space and paper than find them useful. ICH5 (2000) was our first hymn book where the congregational edition had melodies, and it was a waste of paper, and due to the paper used, an appalingly big book.
No it was not. New Church Praise in 1975 had the melody in the most basic edition. Following the success of this, Rejoice and Sing had them in 1991 and even the Baptist Hymnal in the 1990s had them.
Jengie
My mother, who is Welsh, grew up in the 1930s and 40s singing from tonic sol-fa which was printed in all the hymn books.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
That only works if the hymn book contains all hymns you wish to use. There does not exist a book which would serve that purpose for me, or for many many others.
I find that most surprising. Most churches stick with one hymn book, some use two to allow a greater breadth, admittedly supplementing these with a print-out on the rare ocassion that they need to. Many modern hymnbooks contain 1000 hymns, and 10 different mass settings, and liturgical music.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
An advantage of hymnbooks over words projected on a screen was pointed out to me last Sunday, and is that with a book a worshipper can look at the words afterwards and pray or meditate on them, and in a worship tradition that allows or encourages extempore prayer, that can be done based on the words of the hymn. Or the worship leader can keep the hymnbook open at the words of the hymn for leading a prayer from the front. But if a screen is used, the words are gone as soon as the hymn or song is over.
Angus
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
An advantage of hymnbooks over words projected on a screen was pointed out to me last Sunday, and is that with a book a worshipper can look at the words afterwards and pray or meditate on them, and in a worship tradition that allows or encourages extempore prayer, that can be done based on the words of the hymn. Or the worship leader can keep the hymnbook open at the words of the hymn for leading a prayer from the front. But if a screen is used, the words are gone as soon as the hymn or song is over.
Angus
I agree with this and think that this helps explain what I previously thought was my irrational hatred for the screens. They make the liturgy completely unpredictable, and each section disposable as the words are wiped away continuously.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's exactly the same frustration I feel with online train timetables. You only get a keyhole-view of part of the whole, and you can't easily see what other possible routes there might be.
I used to be an enthusiast for bespoke service sheets for each Sunday, but I'm beginning to feel they sell worshippers short. Screens do the same, only more so.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's exactly the same frustration I feel with online train timetables. You only get a keyhole-view of part of the whole, and you can't easily see what other possible routes there might be.
I agree! But I have just discovered - to my delight - that the full old-fashioned national UK timetable (complete with the old table numbers and format) is freely available on the Network Rail website.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0