accompaniment track

I don't know Diane. I know some loud mouth preachers with or without a mic.

 

What has been said here to lead you to believe someone objects to using a microphone?

Overstatement is always a bad argumentative technique.

 

Diane,

But dont you see the difference? If a speaker is using a microphone...its still him giving the talk or message. Its still his words.

With a track, its the music of a bunch of unnamed studio musicians in Nashville somewhere 2 years earlier, not the music of anyone there in the service that day.

I think what GregLinscott posted is worth repeating...

(the bolding is mine, not Gregs)

God bless all,

Mike

 

TaterTot,

Its gotten to the point now where we are pretty much discussing this issue *philosophically*, and we are not necesarrily speaking to any one situation, such as yours. We are just adressing the pros and cons use of using tracks "in general".

There are unique situations where its perfectly OK to use them, and yours might very well be one of those times...but thats for another discussion I guess.

I wish I could be there to see your cantata...it'll probably be just wonderful.

In His Grace,

Mike

 

Voice projection is certainly appropriate. Voice manipulation is not. That has nothing to do with tracks.

What is silly about it? Having a big orchestra sound is deceptive if the orchestra is not there. But that is not my biggest problem with it. My biggest problem is that God didn't gift the church with mechanical means. He gifted the chruch with people to worship. The act of playing the piano is an act of worship. The background tape is not. When I was a music director, I had people who refused to sing because they couldn't use tapes. They would not use live accompaniment. Some wouldn't sing because they couldn't hand hold the microphone. What happened to plain old worship of God rather than showmanship? The fact that you are untroubled by this is not silly to me; it is troubling.

 

One is mechanical and one is not. Mechanical means should be avoided in favor of life musicians.

Are we really interested in being "professional" in church? Why not just be real? If you don't have the manpower, then don't do it. Why raise a standard and set an appetite for something?

I like mic's, hearing aids, projection screens, all of which help the live worship that is going on, or that is supposed to be going on.

 

Tater,
Can't "simple" be real? Why, if we don't have the resources, should we create the illusion of an orchestra (or concert pianist, for that matter- fill in your instrumentalist here)? A track creates an artificial standard, and unreasonable expectations for those who would use and develop their talents on instruments.

Not that this is all about you, but since you used yourself as an example: with all your training and experience, shouldn't you be striving to develop the Body in your church, and encouraging the instrumentalists to use their meager abilities by allowing them to accompany you as you sing? If the only thing good enough for you are studio-quality musicians, what is that saying to the people in the pew about their adequacy to speak to themselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?

BTW- I'm not trying to accuse you- just challenge you to see a different perspective.

 

y'all are still at it....goodness

Tater is right, now just move on

 

I personally don't see pre-recorded music or "Canned" music, as my dad calls it, as being deceptive. If I EVER find that the members of my church do not know the difference between a tape being played and a live musician or musicians, then I am going to move my membership to church with a smarter congregation!

 

Definitely</font>[/QUOTE]We shouldn't be. We should be interested in doing things excellently, but the great bane of modern church ministry is professionalism. It is distressing to a great degree.

I am being real.</font>[/QUOTE]If you are singing to an unreal accompaniment, how are you being real?

I have pursued music for more than 30 years myself, in both solo, small group, symphonic band, and orchestra (vocal and instrumental). I have led worship (both congregational and choir). So I am well familiar with music and its uses in the church. I am not asking you to take a step backwards. I am actually asking that we take a step forwards. I don't see the need for accompaniment tapes in most cases.

I didn't say that. But why not just play a CD for church? Why even have a live singer or choir? After all, the choir on the CD can sing better than yours. What is the point of doing anything live if we are after professionalism?

 

Or maybe just move to one with more discernment. It is not about "knowing the difference." It is about the need and use for it, and giving the impression of a much larger sound that God gifted that particular church to provide.

Why are we so willing to overlook the gifting of God to the local church?

It is interesting how this just boils down to the absurd. We have people claiming that this is a matter of smarts. Someone else claims that someone is right so just move on. WE have others claim that this is no different than using mics. We have another claiming we should be professional in church. Are we even giving this any thought?