CE Durham Cathedral Wed, 4th Nov 2020 [L]

[oddoneout]

No, not difficult to maintain, but broadcast-quality audio equipment doesn't come cheap, and setting a good system up from scratch will cost a fair bit of money.

Of more concern, to me at least, is that watching a single-camera feed for an hour or so when pretty much all you can see of the choir is the conductor's back is visually quite dull, and I can't help thinking that any novelty will wear off fairly quickly.

Going to a fancy, multi-camera setup will involve considerable expense, at least a four-figure sum, and then you've got to employ someone to change cameras, do the pretty zoom shots, and so on, and the whole thing suddenly starts to cost a lot of money, money that many places may not have at the moment.

I take your point about equipment and costs, and have seen those concerns voiced when I was looking at what was being done in this neck of the woods, and the advantages some places had in having 'good friends' (benefactors, those with the expertise/time, willingness to provide voluntary input etc) to enable them to do something a little more ambitious. However I'm not so sure about the fixed view/ visually dull aspect. As a member of the congregation I wouldn't expect to have anything other than a fixed view anyway, and although in some cases that might (on weekday services held in the choir for instance) give a view of the MD, it still might be limited. If, as is the case for me, the music is the important part then what I can see isn't as important as what I can hear, and for those whose watching is for participation in an act of worship, then again, camera work may not be the main consideration, at least as far as evensong is concerned?

[Miles Coverdale]

I take your point about equipment and costs, and have seen those concerns voiced when I was looking at what was being done in this neck of the woods, and the advantages some places had in having 'good friends' (benefactors, those with the expertise/time, willingness to provide voluntary input etc) to enable them to do something a little more ambitious. However I'm not so sure about the fixed view/ visually dull aspect. As a member of the congregation I wouldn't expect to have anything other than a fixed view anyway, and although in some cases that might (on weekday services held in the choir for instance) give a view of the MD, it still might be limited. If, as is the case for me, the music is the important part then what I can see isn't as important as what I can hear, and for those whose watching is for participation in an act of worship, then again, camera work may not be the main consideration, at least as far as evensong is concerned?

But surely the fundamental difference here is that if you're present in the building, then you're taking part in the proceedings in a way that you're not when you're listening/watching at home.

A moving picture demands your attention in a way that audio on its own does not (like doing the washing-up with the radio on), but if your interest in that moving picture is limited, then so will be your attention, or so it seems to me. Evensong is not a very visual experience at the best of times, so I'm not sure that accompanying it with a somewhat dull video representation will do it any favours.

I was watching the Duruflé Requiem broadcast from Trinity College, Cambridge on YouTube last night, and they seem to have turned the college chapel into a mini TV studio, with multiple microphones and cameras and someone visually directing the whole thing. It has had so far nearly 50,000 views. Compare that with a much less 'produced' broadcast and look at the numbers.

My point is that television/video is a fundamentally visual medium. I remember recording inserts for Songs of Praise, when they'd do one take of the audio (which they'd use, provided it didn't fall apart), and you'd then do four or five takes miming to playback while they got the shots they wanted. It has to be visually interesting to keep people's attention.

[mw963]

In my case I'd be more than happy with just the sound, as indeed has sufficed for so many of us listening to CE on Radio 3 for so many years. To be honest I'm really only after decent sound on the choir and organ, which in a lot of cases can indeed be achieved with a fairly simple fixed rig (ie stereo pair, possibly two, and a spaced pair). Possibly a mic on the lectern and for the priest. Not difficult, not actually that expensive.

[oddoneout]

But surely the fundamental difference here is that if you're present in the building, then you're taking part in the proceedings in a way that you're not when you're listening/watching at home.

A moving picture demands your attention in a way that audio on its own does not (like doing the washing-up with the radio on), but if your interest in that moving picture is limited, then so will be your attention, or so it seems to me. Evensong is not a very visual experience at the best of times, so I'm not sure that accompanying it with a somewhat dull video representation will do it any favours.

I was watching the Duruflé Requiem broadcast from Trinity College, Cambridge on YouTube last night, and they seem to have turned the college chapel into a mini TV studio, with multiple microphones and cameras and someone visually directing the whole thing. It has had so far nearly 50,000 views. Compare that with a much less 'produced' broadcast and look at the numbers.

My point is that television/video is a fundamentally visual medium. I remember recording inserts for Songs of Praise, when they'd do one take of the audio (which they'd use, provided it didn't fall apart), and you'd then do four or five takes miming to playback while they got the shots they wanted. It has to be visually interesting to keep people's attention.

For televisual purposes(Songs of Praise as entertainment) that is doubtless the case, but does that automatically apply(and should it, but that is another argument) to niche situations? The 'framework' seems to have been carried across without necessarily questioning how comparable the need is. There are some parallels with the ongoing debate about R3 audiences - new listeners/old listeners in relation to new initiatives. The increased 'congregations' that are being reported for some places are to be welcomed, and many of the viewers will indeed be existing congregation, but as in so many situations doing something(fancy visuals) just because it is possible isn't always the best path. There will be many reasons for that new audience having come into existence in the first place and it is likely that existing congregations will, if they have the means, have transferred as well, but it could be unfortunate if assumptions are made without establishing facts, if only so as to inform decisions about future directions/investment etc. I realise that I am something of an outlier, but not completely alone, in often finding the visuals a negative when watching something like a concert on TV, and not always wanting clever camerawork for general viewing. The rise of slow TV would suggest that there is space for both approaches.
It's all very much new territory isn't it? There could be some worthwhile positives to come out of all the forced changes; the challenge is to recognise and build on them, but not at the expense of core purposes.

[DracoM]

Excellent exploration of huge issues from all three most recent posters. Thx.

[Miles Coverdale]

For televisual purposes (Songs of Praise as entertainment) that is doubtless the case, but does that automatically apply (and should it, but that is another argument) to niche situations? The 'framework' seems to have been carried across without necessarily questioning how comparable the need is. There are some parallels with the ongoing debate about R3 audiences - new listeners/old listeners in relation to new initiatives. The increased 'congregations' that are being reported for some places are to be welcomed, and many of the viewers will indeed be existing congregation, but as in so many situations doing something(fancy visuals) just because it is possible isn't always the best path. There will be many reasons for that new audience having come into existence in the first place and it is likely that existing congregations will, if they have the means, have transferred as well, but it could be unfortunate if assumptions are made without establishing facts, if only so as to inform decisions about future directions/investment etc. I realise that I am something of an outlier, but not completely alone, in often finding the visuals a negative when watching something like a concert on TV, and not always wanting clever camerawork for general viewing. The rise of slow TV would suggest that there is space for both approaches.

It's all very much new territory isn't it? There could be some worthwhile positives to come out of all the forced changes; the challenge is to recognise and build on them, but not at the expense of core purposes.

If you're only interested in catering for your existing congregation, then perhaps the need is less pressing, but the current situation and sudden growth in services online has presented a huge opportunity for attracting new audiences, or 'outreach' as the young people say, and I don't think that visually uninteresting content is going to appeal that much to most people, particuarly those for whom the internet is not a novelty.

[oddoneout]

If you're only interested in catering for your existing congregation, then perhaps the need is less pressing, but the current situation and sudden growth in services online has presented a huge opportunity for attracting new audiences, or 'outreach' as the young people say, and I don't think that visually uninteresting content is going to appeal that much to most people, particuarly those for whom the internet is not a novelty.

I'm not saying it has to be one or the other, or that one is better than the other, but I do have some concerns about enthusiasm for new ways of doing things sidelining keeping in touch to ensure that new audiences aren't at the expense of existing congregations or good will. We have seen how decisions made by management without the involvement of those affected can result in some 'unfortunate' outcomes, which do nothing to further the cause and supposed aims of the church establishment.

[cat]

I was watching the Duruflé Requiem broadcast from Trinity College, Cambridge on YouTube last night, and they seem to have turned the college chapel into a mini TV studio, with multiple microphones and cameras and someone visually directing the whole thing. It has had so far nearly 50,000 views. Compare that with a much less 'produced' broadcast and look at the numbers.

Whilst I appreciate the benefits of livestreaming, I'm not sure that competition for YouTube views is a healthy thing, and that's apart from the fact that views depend on opaque YouTube algorithms boosting recommendations. It might start with a few different camera shots, but then it moves into brighter lighting, microphone stands in the choir stalls, less risky/novel repertoire etc. Then there's the whole thing about filming the congregation.

Drifting into a quiet mid-week evensong on the way home may no longer be quite so appealing if you can go home directly and watch it on TV after dinner, perhaps skipping the lengthy psalms, getting a better view of who exactly is singing the tenor solo in the nunc, and replaying that dodgy part of the Mundy to see who messed up first.

I don't know how this is going to end up, now that lots of places are investing in kit, but I'd prefer when the pandemic is over that livestreaming does not become routine and is reserved for special occasions, and even then is shot in such a way that one feels one is missing out on being there rather than being afforded a privileged view.

[mw963]

I don't know how this is going to end up, now that lots of places are investing in kit, but I'd prefer when the pandemic is over that livestreaming does not become routine and is reserved for special occasions, .

So from that I get the impression that you include my suggestion of sound-only relays as really only being deserving on special occasions, so that even though I live 30 miles (an hour's drive, not all that green, and the hassle of parking) from my nearest Cathedral, I am to be denied this new opportunity of more regular audio access, in case I compromise the "privilege" of going in person, and in case I start to analyse what went wrong too closely. At least I wouldn't ever be tempted to skip the psalms, as they are one of my favourite parts of the service.

Bully for those who live near a Cathedral eh.... They're all right Jack....

[oddoneout]

Whilst I appreciate the benefits of livestreaming, I'm not sure that competition for YouTube views is a healthy thing, and that's apart from the fact that views depend on opaque YouTube algorithms boosting recommendations. It might start with a few different camera shots, but then it moves into brighter lighting, microphone stands in the choir stalls, less risky/novel repertoire etc. Then there's the whole thing about filming the congregation.

Drifting into a quiet mid-week evensong on the way home may no longer be quite so appealing if you can go home directly and watch it on TV after dinner, perhaps skipping the lengthy psalms, getting a better view of who exactly is singing the tenor solo in the nunc, and replaying that dodgy part of the Mundy to see who messed up first.

I don't know how this is going to end up, now that lots of places are investing in kit, but I'd prefer when the pandemic is over that livestreaming does not become routine and is reserved for special occasions, and even then is shot in such a way that one feels one is missing out on being there rather than being afforded a privileged view.

It depends on the reason for participating(by whatever means) in the first place I think. There are those who, thanks to having been able to watch proceedings at home are now more likely to try the real life version as they know what happens during a service and can be more confident of not 'getting it wrong'(sitting and standing being commonly mentioned), and whose focus may not be primarily on the music. For them the whole package - place, atmosphere, common purpose, may prove to be something they wish to continue in 'real life'. The pandemic has made many people all too aware of the need for solace from quiet spaces, and activities outside the imperatives of everyday life, whether that be outside or in. The challenge for churches will be ensuring that those whose interest has been piqued online will be able to make the transition to the reality, if they so choose. One of the problems of a hands off experience is that the real version may be a disappointment. My mother had friends who didn't like going to live music because "it wasn't as good as their CDs".
Thinking on from the 'slow TV' movement, I wonder if there are those for whom a 'visually boring' service (such as Evening Prayer) might actually be welcome, allowing the focus to be on worship?
As I said, there isn't one version of the options available that will suit all situations, but that can be seen as a good thing.

[oddoneout]

Something else to throw in the mix

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/ireland-catholic-priests-online-mass-reviews-causing-performance-anxiety

[DracoM]

Might better occupied reading Vincent Nichols excuse for blatant and consistent refusals to uphold the Catholic Church's dignity, honour and sanctity?
Or indeed the sitting Pope's insistence that he does NOT resign?