Projecting the words for songs at mass

[Elizabeth502]

I just want to assure everyone that when done right (as I have seen), these tools are anything but corporate in terms of the atmosphere produced. The atmosphere is thougthful and reverent. If you think that fumbling awkwardly with pages and struggling to match eighth-notes & sixteenth notes with individual syllables is “more religious,” I’ve got news for you.

When people are less distracted with “stuff,” the focus on the spirituality of the liturgy is magnified. There’s a welcome stillness and attentiveness that is so refreshing. But as with all innovations, it requires a perfect storm of ingredients: excellent cantor, appropriate choice of music for the readings, good instruction in the music, good technical system, adequate architecture, and cooperative congregations.

In places where this has occurred with good planning, it feels quite the opposite of ‘corporate,’ ‘secular,’ or cold.

 

[Sarabande]

As to your stated comfort with individual programs, , trust me: it works way better not to have people relying on individual pieces of music – both those who do know music & those who don’t. Think about it: the “pages” are turned for you; your eyes follow far more easily; your head is up, not buried. Nothing in your hands; no impediment to reading & following. The three added benefits are that people sing more in unison (timing and note-wise), the endings and beginnings are cleaner because eyes are turned toward the leader or cantor, and the congregation is oriented to the altar.
:

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I sing for a living and am also a musician (musician joke), so ideally, not having any music or words to look at is the best … meaning memorized… which is what I usually have to do since I’m an opera singer as well as a classical singer. Also since my eyesight can’t be totally corrected even with lenses, I need to have most things either memorized or close up to me with music in my hands or on a music stand that is situated a certain way so that I don’t have to look down. I always keep my music up like a chorister whenever I sing whether in congregation, in a choir or as a cantor. My head is always up, so that really isn’t a problem for me either. (For people who don’t have any experience singing in a choir… perhaps that’s a different story.)

The churches that I have attended with a projector was too much of a distraction for me and it wasn’t easy for me at all. Even if I didn’t need to, I just kept looking at it. Much like when I’m at an opera with those screens above or by the stage, or when there are subtitles on movies that are already in English. I can’t stand them because I’m always paying attention to that rather than the stage or the movie. And personally, I just hate having to follow along without music whether it’s on a sheet, in a hymnal that doesn’t provide the music or on a screen. It’s horrible for me. I feel like I’m without a limb if that makes any sense. I do it because it’s sometimes the only thing people have, especially when I’m working in another church, but it is one of the most uncomfortable things to do for myself. It feels like I’m shackled rather than freed up to be able to read the music. The only time I like it is when I’m singing a cadenza or certain fiorature for arias - which are all solo stuff and I sometimes like to create them as the mood fits me - especially for baroque arias. You don’t want a congregation singing their own candenzas with the hymns. haha! That would be total cacaphony.

 

[Corki]

I just want to assure everyone that when done right (as I have seen), these tools are anything but corporate in terms of the atmosphere produced. The atmosphere is thougthful and reverent. If you think that fumbling awkwardly with pages and struggling to match eighth-notes & sixteenth notes with individual syllables is “more religious,” I’ve got news for you.

When people are less distracted with “stuff,” the focus on the spirituality of the liturgy is magnified. There’s a welcome stillness and attentiveness that is so refreshing. But as with all innovations, it requires a perfect storm of ingredients: excellent cantor, appropriate choice of music for the readings, good instruction in the music, good technical system, adequate architecture, and cooperative congregations.

In places where this has occurred with good planning, it feels quite the opposite of ‘corporate,’ ‘secular,’ or cold.

And I think this is the concern. That “perfect storm” of conditions only exists in a few dozen parishes in the US (at most) even without the technolgy added. I fear that parishes will use any “permission” available and the result will be tacky and far from reverent.

 

[Sarabande]

I just want to assure everyone that when done right (as I have seen), these tools are anything but corporate in terms of the atmosphere produced. The atmosphere is thougthful and reverent. If you think that fumbling awkwardly with pages and struggling to match eighth-notes & sixteenth notes with individual syllables is “more religious,” I’ve got news for you.

Maybe it’s because I am a musician, but I don’t struggle with the 8th notes and 16th notes when reading music and the words (but my expertise is as a coloratura mezzo, so that might be the reason as well. haha!). That said, I remember being a new musician as a kid and could see how those who have some music training might have difficulty. That’s where I believe hymns should be more straight-forward rhythmically…For another thread.

Again, for me, having the music right in front of me is not about being more religious. There is my eye-sight reason, and as I mentioned in my previous post, I just do things differently. It’s how I’m wired and how I have always been.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I sing for a living and am also a musician (musician joke), so ideally, not having any music or words to look at is the best … meaning memorized… which is what I usually have to do since I’m an opera singer as well as a classical singer. Also since my eyesight can’t be totally corrected even with lenses, I need to have most things either memorized or close up to me with music in my hands or on a music stand that is situated a certain way so that I don’t have to look down. I always keep my music up like a chorister whenever I sing whether in congregation, in a choir or as a cantor. My head is always up, so that really isn’t a problem for me either. (For people who don’t have any experience singing in a choir… perhaps that’s a different story.)

The churches that I have attended with a projector was too much of a distraction for me and it wasn’t easy for me at all. Even if I didn’t need to, I just kept looking at it. Much like when I’m at an opera with those screens above or by the stage, or when there are subtitles on movies that are already in English. I can’t stand them because I’m always paying attention to that rather than the stage or the movie. And personally, I just hate having to follow along without music whether it’s on a sheet, in a hymnal that doesn’t provide the music or on a screen. It’s horrible for me. I feel like I’m without a limb if that makes any sense. I do it because it’s sometimes the only thing people have, especially when I’m working in another church, but it is one of the most uncomfortable things to do for myself. It feels like I’m shackled rather than freed up to be able to read the music. The only time I like it is when I’m singing a cadenza or certain fiorature for arias - which are all solo stuff and I sometimes like to create them as the mood fits me - especially for baroque arias. You don’t want a congregation singing their own candenzas with the hymns. haha! That would be total cacaphony.

The congregation is going to memorize all the music? Seriously? And while you may prefer if the priest didn’t have a mic…there are older people who are hard of hearing that really appreciate it.

And no…our parish does not look corporate at all. If the projector is used for a homily…it’s only for pictures that add to the homily…none of the slide graphics or writing points of the homily up there…I fail to see how pictures are corporate?

 

[Sarabande]

And I think this is the concern. That “perfect storm” of conditions only exists in a few dozen parishes in the US (at most) even without the technolgy added. I fear that parishes will use any “permission” available and the result will be tacky and far from reverent.

That is a very good point. It’s rare when there are those perfect elements exist together. I’ll grant that it probably does work successfully with that “perfect storm”. It would be ridiculous of me to not think it couldn’t work at all when I haven’t yet experienced in a perfect setting. But just being and working in so many parishes myself for special masses like feast days, Christmas, Easter, weddings, etc. because they don’t have the abilities in their parish itself, it’s not often.

 

[Sarabande]

The congregation is going to memorize all the music? Seriously? And while you may prefer if the priest didn’t have a mic…there are older people who are hard of hearing that really appreciate it.

Calm down there. I said it was ideal. I didn’t say that it would actually happen or should happen. I would never expect the congregation to memorize the music. For myself, it truly is ideal because as a singer, it is much more freeing to be able to do everything without having to look at words or music. There is nothing holding me back. Whereas, if I’m stuck with just the music alone or the words alone, I feel shackled. I’m speaking in terms of what I do professionally, not congregationally. So, my apologies for not making that clear.

I also understand the reason for mics, that’s why I would never try to force my preference for it. I understand it more for speakers because most can’t get their voice to carry well just talking. A trained singer could, actually, and then you could avoid overly-loud singers too close to the mic if they continue to sing too close rather than from far away. I usually don’t use a microphone, actually and when I do, I stand far away or to the side so that it carries just enough to help a congregation out with a piece. I don’t ever want to drown a congregation out which I’ve seen happen many times with cantor. (Although I’ve known priests who purposely turned the down the mics very low or all the way for certain cantors to avoid that.)

And no…our parish does not look corporate at all. If the projector is used for a homily…it’s only for pictures that add to the homily…none of the slide graphics or writing points of the homily up there…I fail to see how pictures are corporate?

I’m glad it works for you and your parish. For me, it wouldn’t, but that’s just me.

 

[benedictgal]

Why is that so scary? I’ve seen it done…well not a whole power point presentation but pictures that show where Jesus was walking through at the time. Sometimes it helps put the context of the gospel together.

A good homilist does not need visuals. Pope Benedict XVI certainly does not need them, nor did good and holy preachers like Blessed John Henry Newman. While Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen used visuals for his TV shows, I think he would be scandalized to bring out the blackboard while he was preaching.

 

[graceandglory]

At my church they will be projecting the words to the songs at mass. It will be displayed on the wall behind the altar and below the cross and risen Christ. I have mixed feelings about this.

Does anyone go to a church where the songs are projected? What do you think of this practice?

I will be suggesting that they do not project the songs at communion time. If they do project the words at communion people will be focussing on the music and not on receiving the Eucharist. I feel that Catholics have so lost the sense of just what the Blessed Sacrament is and what we receive in the Eucharist that the time we spend going up to communion could be better spent in meditating on what we are about to receive. By not projecting the words at the time it would be a strong sign of the importance of the Eucharist. What do you think?

Your comments are appreciated.

God Bless.
Lauralee

You know, I’m all for tradition, but I don’t see any difference between using technology to amplify sound (with a microphone), and using technology to amplify the words on the page.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I sing for a living and am also a musician (musician joke), so ideally, not having any music or words to look at is the best … meaning memorized… which is what I usually have to do since I’m an opera singer as well as a classical singer. Also since my eyesight can’t be totally corrected even with lenses, I need to have most things either memorized or close up to me with music in my hands or on a music stand that is situated a certain way so that I don’t have to look down. I always keep my music up like a chorister whenever I sing whether in congregation, in a choir or as a cantor. My head is always up, so that really isn’t a problem for me either. (For people who don’t have any experience singing in a choir… perhaps that’s a different story.)

The churches that I have attended with a projector was too much of a distraction for me and it wasn’t easy for me at all. Even if I didn’t need to, I just kept looking at it. Much like when I’m at an opera with those screens above or by the stage, or when there are subtitles on movies that are already in English. I can’t stand them because I’m always paying attention to that rather than the stage or the movie. And personally, I just hate having to follow along without music whether it’s on a sheet, in a hymnal that doesn’t provide the music or on a screen. It’s horrible for me. I feel like I’m without a limb if that makes any sense. I do it because it’s sometimes the only thing people have, especially when I’m working in another church, but it is one of the most uncomfortable things to do for myself. It feels like I’m shackled rather than freed up to be able to read the music. The only time I like it is when I’m singing a cadenza or certain fiorature for arias - which are all solo stuff and I sometimes like to create them as the mood fits me - especially for baroque arias. You don’t want a congregation singing their own candenzas with the hymns. haha! That would be total cacaphony.

You’re looking at this from your own viewpoint, and especially as a performer, and what I am telling you is that that is not the typical experience of the person in the pews (including the musically inclined). The projector works, as long (as I said) as those other things are in place. And given that (in my ‘perfect storm’ elements) the music is really good and the cantor is good, the people in the pews do not feel some perfectionistic obsession about singing every note, or fixating anxiously on something when they don’t need to, etc. It frees the average person, not paralyzes them. People are happy to join in where they can, and appreciate the sound of others when they cannot.

When this was being discussed at the one parish I am thinking of, a decision was made for the sake of the most rather than the sake of the few. (They knew that not 100% of the congregation would be perfectly satisfied. However, the truth was that it has come to be almost 100% embraced since inception.) Nevertheless, I’m sure that any individual who felt the need to lean on something in their hands, could go to the trouble to contact the cantor or music minister & obtain an individual copy of the body of work typically used. The decision for the screen as opposed to filling the pews with books was for the orientation of this congregation, which was toward a sense of freedom from struggle and self-absorption.

I don’t share Corki’s and others’ concerns about ‘slippery slope.’ It won’t be used where it doesn’t work, because those perfect storm elements are something of an accident, and too difficult to force. Typically I see one or two elements present, not the 5 or whatever I named. There are two churches I’m thinking of which fit the architectural profile, but one prefers a select choir with little congregation participation; another has not a choir nor a cantor nor distinctive music. I anticipate that for the moment, projected music will continue to be the rare exception.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A good homilist does not need visuals. Pope Benedict XVI certainly does not need them, nor did good and holy preachers like Blessed John Henry Newman. While Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen used visuals for his TV shows, I think he would be scandalized to bring out the blackboard while he was preaching.

Well…I think our priest is an EXCELLENT homilist…in my opinion…and plenty around me. I’d much rather have that then the one priest I saw who had to use note cards. Not everyone is the Pope…and if we are expecting all our priests to be like that…well…you’re expecting a lot.

 

[TheMc]

You know, I’m all for tradition, but I don’t see any difference between using technology to amplify sound (with a microphone), and using technology to amplify the words on the page.

With the audio amplification, it is only making it easier to hear what is being said already. Either people don’t hear, or the celebrant shouts.

Projection systems don’t do that.

 

[TheMc]

You know, I’m all for tradition, but I don’t see any difference between using technology to amplify sound (with a microphone), and using technology to amplify the words on the page.

Why do the words in the book need to be amplified? They are already in front of you!

 

[TheMc]

Well…I think our priest is an EXCELLENT homilist…in my opinion…and plenty around me. I’d much rather have that then the one priest I saw who had to use note cards.

If a priest is going to need to use note cards, couldn’t he just stand at the ambo? Many priests write their homily down.

 

[ProVobis]

If a priest is going to need to use note cards, couldn’t he just stand at the ambo? Many priests write their homily down.

Mine writes it up in the following week’s bulletin and even puts it online. Good for followup purposes. You always miss a thing or two from the spoken word.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

If a priest is going to need to use note cards, couldn’t he just stand at the ambo? Many priests write their homily down.

This one didn’t…and it was the most boring homily…and not full of any substance what so ever, I’m afraid to say. We only went there once…nice enough priest but not a good homilist.

I much rather prefer our priest…where I know probably at least once you are going to hear about the need for reconciliation.

I was just reacting to Benedictgal trying to compare everyone to Pope Benedict or Fulton Sheen…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Mine writes it up in the following week’s bulletin and even puts it online. Good for followup purposes. You always miss a thing or two from the spoken word.

So does ours…of course I usually hear it Saturday night…and Sunday morning too…

 

[Cat]

A good homilist does not need visuals. Pope Benedict XVI certainly does not need them, nor did good and holy preachers like Blessed John Henry Newman. While Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen used visuals for his TV shows, I think he would be scandalized to bring out the blackboard while he was preaching.

Saint Francis of Assisi used visuals in his homilies.

 

[laszlo]

A good homilist does not need visuals. Pope Benedict XVI certainly does not need them, nor did good and holy preachers like Blessed John Henry Newman. While Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen used visuals for his TV shows, I think he would be scandalized to bring out the blackboard while he was preaching.

Yhe problem is that less than 10% of the priests are good homilist. The rest need whatever help he can get. God want us to conquer the world, and to let the world serve us, including the technology. The hermits, who run away from the world have their role in the salvation, but the majority of the priests must live in the world and bring God to the everyday life, to which the technology is organic part. We cannot reject it, just because it is new.

 

[ProVobis]

Yhe problem is that less than 10% of the priests are good homilist. The rest need whatever help he can get. God want us to conquer the world, and to let the world serve us, including the technology. The hermits, who run away from the world have their role in the salvation, but the majority of the priests must live in the world and bring God to the everyday life, to which the technology is organic part. We cannot reject it, just because it is new.

While I essentially agree with your premise, I don’t think you want to use the same tools you would ordinarily use in meetings, at home, or at the ball park. You do want to distinguish between what’s worship and what’s secular. Some people do require a lot of spirituality in their lives; if they don’t get it in church, mosque, or synagogue, they’ll seek elsewhere for it.