About three years ago, we began to incorporate the use of a video projector for our congregational singing (which is the only kind we have). In the last twenty years, projection began to be popularized by some churches that were viewed as compromised and weak. As a result, many fundamentalists decried the use of projection as a compromise. Thankfully, in recent years, it seems that we are beginning to think more critically about issues. The fact that “they do it” no longer rules it out.
So let me offer publicly my reasons for using projection.
1. It increases the number of songs that we can sing.
Using only one hymnbook is tremendously limiting. There are many excellent, theologically sound hymns, songs, and choruses that are not found in the hymnal that is in our pew. In fact, many of the songs in our hymnal are songs that are not fit for corporate worship. The use of projection has enable us to teach our people sound theology through a wide range of music.
2. It raises people eyes, and therefore their voices.
For many people, singing is a fearsome task if they are not in the shower or alone in their car. In public, if they sing at all, they sing very quietly. If they have a hymnbook in their hands, they sing straight into the fold of the hymnbook and essentially mutes their voice so very few others can hear.
By projecting the words on a screen, people are automatically looking up and singing up. Their voices, previously buried in the hymnbook, are now more projected to those around them. The ironic thing is that most don’t recognize it. They sing the same as they did before; they are simply better able to be heard.
As an added benefit, this has a snowball affect. If you are not comfortable singing (like most people) you think you are the only one singing (because you cannot hear anyone else), you will sing softer so you do not stick out. If you hear the voices of those around you, you will begin to sing out more with more energy and more engagement. In turn, those around will hear and begin to sing out more. Obviously this is affected by many things, such as familiarity, newness to church, etc. But I think the general rule stands.
3. It improves the flow of the service.
When you use hymnbooks, the only way to transition is to announce a new page number, wait for the flutter of turning pages, the leaning over to look on someone else’s book because one person did not catch the page number, etc. It becomes a great distraction to the point of worship.
With projection, you can move seamlessly without ever losing the train of thought of worship. You can incorporate the public reading of Scripture in between songs to tie two songs together.
4. It enables corporate reading of Scripture between songs.
Most churches today have very little corporate reading of Scripture. Occasionally they have public reading where one person reads. For several years, we have had public reading of Scripture, usually the text of the morning message.
Recently, we have begun to incorporate weekly corporate readings from various passages of Scripture. We sometimes begin the service this way, sometimes we do it in between songs, and sometimes we do it both. We have varied the format and length. For instance, if we have a selection of ten verses, we have had an individual read the first part, and the body read the second part aloud. We have had just an individual do it while projecting the verses. We have had the congregation do the whole reading. It has provided a great benefit for us to set the stage for the songs we are singing.
Other benefits could be offered, but I will stop with these today. I encourage you to give it some thought. Personally, I would hate to go back to “the old way.” I love looking up when I sing, and looking out from the platform and seeing the faces of people who are singing. I love the increased volume of singing. I love the added repertoire. I love the corporate reading of Scripture. I love the flow of the service.
There are some people who would rather use the hymnbooks because of eyesight (we need a new projector and screen), or because of personal preference. I have no problem with that. If the song is in our hymnbook, the page number is clearly seen both in the bulletin and on the screen so they can find it and sing to their heart’s delight.
We don’t have as many people singing parts, but that is fine with me. Hopefully one day we will have a worship team of singers that can sing the parts to be heard and help others to sing. But until then, I have found the benefits well worth the drawbacks. And the early church did not use hymnbooks anyway, so I am just trying to be like them. (Hey, it's a joke, people ...)
Give me your perspectives. Have you tried it? Why or why not? What do you like or dislike about hymnals or projection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Larry, I've never been one to criticize projectors as a "compromise." In fact, we have two large screens in our auditorium! However, we do use hymnals for our congregational singing for two primary reasons:
(1) I've heard testimony after testimony of people who learned to read, or at least compitently follow, music as they grew up in the church. This possibility is eliminated with projectors, and the lack of music literacy in our day is an evidence. Furthermore, part singing is easier (though I'll admit this is not necessary), and I believes adds to the affect of the congregational singing. You mentioned in the other post that some people can just pick out the parts, which may be somewhat true. But hymns especially are notorious for having multiple harmonizations depending on the hymnal, and this causes quite a problem for someone trying to pick out parts. But this is really minor for me. Sometimes unison singing can be the most powerful.
(2) Having a hymnal helps prevent "faddish" singing. If we have spent time and money choosing a particular hymnal, we will be careful that it has what our congregation needs, and we will be less likely to be swept up with every new song that comes across our paths. Our hymnal has over 800 hymns, most of which are excellent. We have more than enough hymns to use, and that's with singing 10 hymns per Lord's Day.
With that said, I will concede some of the benefits of using screens. Allow me to offers some comments here.
"1. It increases the number of songs that we can sing."
Again, I have more than enough hymns in our hymnal to keep us busy, while only singing a given hymn four times a year.
"2. It raises people eyes, and therefore their voices."
This is often claimed, but not valid, I don't think. We've had a half dozen or so occasions to put hymns on our screens for a particular occasion, and it does not change the sound. I'll admit that I (as the song leader) enjoy seeing people's faces, but I'm the only one who does. The sound may even be a bit better for me since they're facing me, but not for anyone else. The problem with sound in congregational singing has more to do with the terrible acoustics in most of our buildings than whether or not we are looking up. If we would get rid of some of the carpet and padding in our auditoriums, that would enhance the singing a great deal. Thankfully our auditorium is acoustically wonderful, and it provides for some great singing. And we use hymnals!
"3. It improves the flow of the service."
This is perhaps the biggest benefit to screens. I wish somehow I could accomplish this while still using hymnals. We use our screens (perhaps you were wondering why we even have them) to display the order of service along with page numbers and Scripture readings (like you), so some of this is solved. If they don't hear the hymn number, then can just look up and see it.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
I don't sing in church. I pretend - I imagine singing the songs as I remember them or the parts as I remember them. I don't sing because I can't hear pitches very well.
I hate singing songs on a projector. I'm totally lost, especially if it is a song I'm unfamiliar with. In my experience, those songs most commonly put on the projector screen are at their worst when you don't have the catchy tune, and you have nothing but the crust of the words to feed your imagination on.
Not only is the noise that I'm hearing sound awful and crunchy and disjointed and gloomy, but the poetry usually fits pretty well to what I hear at those times.
I know this isn't very applicaple to a large number of people, but I agree with what Scott says - the normal person is quite helped by having the music in front of them. To take that away is take away most of the musical training that many people ever get.
I read music well -- in multiple clefs. I can even read and transpose at the same time. I notice harmonization, intervals, and chords. On verse one, I sing the melody. On verse two I sing the alto (an octave lower), on verse 3 I sing the tenor, and on verse four I sing the bass. The bass, I often find to my great displeasure is boring. The tenor unimaginative, and the alto is usually most interesting. I often wonder why the editors did not arrange the song in a different key. I notice harmonization that is irritatingly different in this hymnbook compared to the hymnal we used when I was a kid. Words? I just sang four verses and missed the words!
I say that only to say this: I think that the need to use hymnals in order to encourage people to read music is over-rated. That's not why people go to church. Musical training is not our objective during the worship service.
Scott's assessment of music on screen is almost unique and really more of an evidence that they don't do it much. Naturally, when people aren't used to something, they will be a little more reticent. Once they get used to it, however, there is an unmistakable imrovement. I knows scores of churches that testify to the noticeable difference of tone and participation when they use projected songs. And ours is no different.
Good stuff, Larry.
Honest disclosure--I'm a musician who struggles with the idea of replacing hymnals with a projector that places the lyrics on a screen (although I readily acknowledge some of the advantages that others have raised).
You have already somewhat addressed the difficulty of singing SATB harmony without the aid of music. I am still left with one question, though. How do you teach new hymns if only the words are projected for the audience? My experience in churches that have periodically introduced new hymns to the congregation has been that this is greatly facilitated by having the music available so that those who can read music can sing out and thus lead those non-music readers around them in learning the new hymn tune. Without the music, how do you teach new hymns? (I have come from churches where a large proportion of the congregation is musically literate. I realize that my question may not have the same ramifications for a church where few in the congregation can read music.)
Hey guys,
FWIW, the last time I visited my alma mater for chapel (Faith BBC), they were projecting the lyrics and music (4 parts, if I recall) on the screen (for at least some of the songs we sang).
As for teaching new music, I think a strong lead voice that the congregation can hear is the greatest tool. Even among those who read music, a great many cannot "sight read" with great ability. They cannot see the interval between a D and a G and sing it by hear. Most people, even those who read music, learn by hearing.
If the lead voice is well amplified over the sound of the congregation and if the instruments are well amplified just below the lead voice and under the sound of the congregation, it will work fine in my experience. Most people follow voices. The last "traditional fundamental" church I was in was singing great songs, but the lead voice and the piano was so quiet that it was hard to sing unless you already knew the song. I knew it, but I stopped singing for a bit of it just to listen to what was going on around. It was interesting.
Brian's idea of singing a song several weeks in a row is helpful. I think Bob Bixby's church does a "song of the month" or somethhing like that where you sing a new song for four straight weeks. That helps as well. We are doing that here with a new song right now.
Lastly, on CCLI and notation, my reading of the CCLI agreement is that you can reproduce the notations. Perhaps Brian understands it more than I do, but hte ability to make hymnbooks and the like seems to indicate that you can reproduce the notation.
Of course, I don't know how you could do that on a screen to make it legible, but perhaps you rich guys make the whole front of your worship center ... err ... auditorium the screen.
Great comments so far. Thanks
I do see good arguments for projection, some of which Larry mentioned (particularly the interruption of worship with page-turning and the ability to introduce songs not in the hymnal), but I see more good arguments for hymnals, so I guess that puts me on the “pro-hymnal” side of the debate. In addition to the benefits of a musical score (which to me is a huge argument for hymnals), I have a few observations that haven’t yet been made:
(1) One of the main reasons I like the hymnal is that it allows me to follow the argument of the hymn. Many of the best hymns make doctrinal arguments that span multiple verses, and I regularly refer back to previous verses in the hymn or spend a few seconds after we finish singing to “put it all together.” Projection of single verses (or half of each verse) seems to chop up the message of the hymn and prevent this. (Of course, many gospel songs and praise choruses lack the depth to render this a meaningful argument, but that’s another topic.)
BTW, this also extends to projected Scripture texts. I like to see the complete text of Scripture in front of me, and not one or two verses at a time (which is usually the case with projected Scriptures), because I like to mull the context and argument of the author as I think along with what is being read/preached.
(2) The fact that we live in a visual culture, Brian, seems to argue more forcibly for the hymnal. Projection is visual, of course, but so is the hymnal. And as you have reminded us, CCLI, by disallowing a visual score, consistently renders the projector LESS visual than the hymnal.
(3) As a semi-trained vocalist, I don’t quite get the head-in-the-hymnal argument. I like to hold my head the same way no matter what (as though suspended by a rope in the back of the top of my head). I move my eyes to the text and hold the hymnal up to where my eyes can see it. To be honest, most churches project the text so high on the wall that you can’t see it without tipping your head back and pinching the throat, resulting in a strained voice and thin sound. To be fair, many people DO bury their heads in the hymnal and a pinched voice carries better than a muffled voice (I guess), but vocally speaking, neither is ideal. The ideal place for the text is immediately below the director in the singer’s line of sight, which argues for a hand-held text and score.
(4) As to introducing new hymns, I will frankly admit that the arguments go both ways. With a hymnal, you are restricted to introducing only hymns in the hymnal. Try as you might, you will never find a hymnal that includes EVERYTHING you want unless you compile it yourself; further, once you have this dream hymnal, it is out-of-date as soon as a substantive new hymn is written (which may contribute, ironically, to the dearth of good hymn-writing). At the same time I have to side with those who argue that new hymns are more easily introduced when there is a score available for the musically literate. Perhaps this is why the projector is less often used to introduce new HYMNS, and more often to introduce (both textually and musically) simpler songs and choruses.
Mark Snoeberger
Mark said:
One of the main reasons I like the hymnal is that it allows me to follow the argument of the hymn. Many of the best hymns make doctrinal arguments that span multiple verses, and I regularly refer back to previous verses in the hymn or spend a few seconds after we finish singing to “put it all together.” Projection of single verses (or half of each verse) seems to chop up the message of the hymn and prevent this. (Of course, many gospel songs and praise choruses lack the depth to render this a meaningful argument, but that’s another topic.)
That is a very good point and one argument I will pocket away for usage when we are asked why we still have hymnals in our pews even though we project most of our songs.
Others of Mark's arguments resonate with me. It enforces my persuasion that the "blended" approach is probably the best way.
Good thoughts, all. Thanks
Post a Comment