Talk:Sacred Harp

Assigning material to Sacred Harp and Shape note

We've got two rival articles covering the Sacred Harp/shape note tradition, neither (until now) linked to the other.

One option to consider is to merge and have just one article. Another, toward which I have made a tentative first step, is to have an overall article Shape note covering the tradition as a whole, and refocus the Sacred Harp article into an article on the book originated by White and King and elaborated by others since then in various editions.

Opus33 23:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would recommend that the articles not be merged. The Shape note article needs work, because it seems to be operating on the mistaken premise that all shape note music is Sacred Harp. There are two strong traditions of shape note music currently operating in the United States - the four shape system combined with the old Elizabethan scale fa,sol,la,fa,sol,la,mi,fa and the seven shape system combined with the Italian scale do,re,mi,fa,so,la,ti,do. The Sacred Harp is the major "four-note" system, though the Southern Harmony has remained in continous use at one singing in Benton, Kentucky, and is now experiencing a small amount of growth. Also a "shape-note" revival has brought about the institution of new singings from defunct books, such as the Missouri Harmony, as well as new books by modern composers, such as the Northern Harmony. The "seven-note" has acappela singings of a similar type to the Sacred Harp, such as the Christian Harmony and the New Harp of Columbia, but is also used in numerous "gospel" or "southern gospel" singings where musical instruments are used (most often a piano). This would be old gospel songs like "Sweet By & By" and "Shall We Gather at the River", and like the Stamps-Baxter quartet type music; maybe some are familiar with those. Though "seven-shape" books are not as popular as in the past, there are still a great number of churches in the south that use hymnals that are printed in the "seven-note" system, both in church services and at singings. However the issue is resolved, at some point the Shape note article needs to recognize that Sacred Harp is shape note music, but Shape Note music is not necessarily Sacred Harp. Rlvaughn 22:08, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Rl. I think you have a good point, and a sensible way to go in light of it would be to put all the Sacred Harp material under Sacred Harp, with Shape note done as the more general article on all forms of shape note music.

Opus33 23:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opus, I think that would be a good solution. An article on Shape Note music should make reference to Sacred Harp, but not focus on it as the present article does. Rlvaughn 23:19, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are fuguing tunes canons?

Are fuguing tunes canons? I was surprised when this claim was made, and so finally I did a check on this point. Opening my copy of The Sacred Harp (Denson edition), I started in a random spot and examined the first 20 fuguing tunes I found. None could really be called a canon, because the identity (if any) between one particular part and the other parts almost always stops pretty much right after the next part comes in--surely you need a better match than that to say that the music is a canon. The closest thing I found was number 208, in which the tenor and treble lines (only) do a canon, but only for four measures.

On the strength of this check, as well as my general sense that Sacred Harp canons are rare at best, I deleted the canon wording. If anyone should find any really convincing canons in the Sacred Harp, I hope (s)he will re-revert, but citing the particular songs involved.

Opus33 05:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Opus, I will certainly be willing to defer to someone who knows more about this than I, but I think that you are correct - fuguing tunes are not really canons, though similar. - Rlvaughn 13:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my understanding fuging tunes are no canons, as they sometimes go parallel for a while, and then the different parts have a fuging parts, whereas they can even change their order quite often too --VeronikaMM 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Folk music?

Opus, I am interested in your recent comment on your edits: 'deemphasize "folk", a characterization that is rejected by traditional participants (cf. recent NPR broadcast)'. I am assuming you're referring to the interview with Coy, David, and Rodney Ivey. I didn't get to hear it because I was informed that my mother had fallen and been taken to the hospital. I am curious as to what they said in regard to folk music. Those raised in the tradition may or may not be offended by comments that it is "folk" music, sometimes depending on the intent of the one calling it "folk" music. Twenty years ago I would have found it offensive - but mostly because of "folks" whose grandparents had sang the music who thought we were back numbers to continue a tradition they had left behind. Now it doesn't bother me. And most times the term is used in an academic manner anyway (but sometimes in academic pretense that reveals a disdain for the music). For example, IMO, to say that the Sacred Harp is "a book of over 250 hymn and folk tunes" is probably more accurate than saying it is "a book of over 250 songs". Nevertheless, to those within the tradition, Sacred Harp is just music that we love, not folk music. Just my opinions, not worth much otherwise. - Rlvaughn 22:29, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Rl, thanks for your comments and I hope your mother is doing ok. You can hear the whole NPR story on the Web at http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1534280.html, where Shelbie Sheppard is quoted giving some firm views on the "folk music" question.

In general, I feel that newbie singers should try to respect the feelings of traditional singers (a point that definitely comes up later in the broadcast), and I would even extend this to the task of writing articles for the Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to see the appropriateness of the "folk" label for a tradition that is propagated in books through a community of music-reading singers. Folk music (in the original sense of the term) is usually a word-of mouth kind of thing.

On another note you brought up, I think if there is a shape note singer who knows the technology to make an image of shape notes and is willing to do it, that would be great.

Opus33 22:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Opus, thanks so much for the reply. I looked at the link, and will listen to what Shelbie has to say when I get my speakers hooked back up. Probably more accurate than calling Sacred Harp "folk music" is to just recognize that it (both the book & the "performance") has been a vehicle of preserving certain types of oral music tradition. Though the Sacred is propagated in books and by music-reading singers, the "performance" at times may reflect the way it was "passed down" rather than the way it is written (even though many singers know they're not singing it as written).

Traditional singers are very appreciative of the many "newbies" who have respected their feelings. But also realize that all traditional singers don't have the same feelings - we can't even agree on which book to use! :-0 Some Sacred Harpers will probably be offended to find their music in an R-rated movie.

I will put the word out and see if I can find a "taker" to put the note shapes in the Shape note article. Thanks once again for the work you've put in to these articles. - Rlvaughn 01:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moving things around a little

The discussion of "newbies" was placed right between the discussion of "singings" and "conventions". Since singings and conventions are closely related topics, I've moved "newbies" so it is now the last part of the History section.

Also, a couple small additions to "newbies": singing masters are still active today; link to Camp Fasola. I hope these are ok. Best wishes to all, Opus33 15:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More moving things around

Looking over the article, I felt that it wasn't properly giving the basics--when you go to a Sacred Harp singing, what exactly happens and why? This should be up front, I feel. The previous presentation also divided the history into two sections, which struck me as not really right.

So the order I have it in now is:

• basic description of what happens in Sacred Harp
• history of Sacred Harp
• where the songs come from
• other books named The Sacred Harp

The last topic struck me as a bit peripheral (after all, three of the four weren't really "Sacred Harp" books at all), so I put it last.

While rearranging I tried to correct some mistakes I had made in earlier editing. But I think the content of the article is pretty much the same as before, other than added material on the "basics".

I hope all this seems reasonable. Opus33 04:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the new layout looks good. I have made a few minor changes. I deleted the reference to the East Texas Musical Convention being started in Smith County. My research for the 150th anniversary of the convention so far just proves we don't really know in what location it was organized. If I discover where, I'll add it to the article. I took "soprano" out of this line - "treble (soprano), alto, tenor, and bass". I think that is probably confusing. The "tenor" of Sacred Harp, which carries the melody, is what is most likely thought of as the "soprano" line. Would be interested in comments on this.

This line of thinking - "B. F. White had died in 1879 before completing a fourth revision, and copies of his book gradually became hard to obtain. Without a book to sing from, the Sacred Harp tradition clearly would have died out" - also needs to be reconsidered. I didn't know until about a month or two ago (but some people have known for quite awhile), that White's grandson, C. P. Byrd, reprinted The Sacred Harp in 1897. From a book I inspected, it appears there may have been another printing by Byrd and J. L. White. Also, last week, I found in a 1909 Athens (Henderson Co., Texas) Review newspaper, an advertisement by a man offering the "old original" White and King Sacred Harp. I'm not sure what to make of that yet, but the idea that much of the impetus for revision was a lack of availability of The Sacred Harp is now lacking in support. Of course, I don't think there's any information available at this time as to how many copies of the book were issued by Byrd.

I also changed this part - "The 1869 revision was more extensive, removing some of the less popular songs and adding new ones in their places. From the original 262 pages, the book was expanded by 1869 to 429." 429 was the last page of songs in the 1859 edition. The 1879 edition ended its last song on page 477. - Rlvaughn 03:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, RLV, these changes are great. I'm especially grateful for the one you didn't mention, correcting my howler about "William" Cooper. (Funny, the Cooper book doesn't give his full name anywhere...)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are at least two printed sources that give his name as "William M." - Joe Dan Boyd's article "Judge Jackson: Black Giant of White Spirituals" and Buell Cobb in quoting from Boyd, and also listing him in his index as "Cooper, William M." In Boyd's new book on Judge Jackson, he simplifies it back to the standard "W. M." (which Cooper himself seems to have favored). I don't know if the mistake originated with Boyd, or if it predates him. Letting my imagination run, I can see someone transposing "W. M." to "Wm." and then "Wm." to "William". S. Smith of Ozark (AL) and K. Willard of Washington state discovered the name through researching county histories and censuses (I am relying on them to be correct!). - Rlvaughn 23:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Balm to my injured scholarly vanity! I thought I had made up "William" out of my head, but surely I got it from Cobb. Nice new article on Cooper, btw. Opus33 16:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also agree completely that "soprano" shouldn't be there--it make no sense given that men often sing treble; they certainly aren't sopranos.

The business about an 1897 reprinting is very interesting. I'll rewrite this section in light of it (if no one else does so first), but should do some reading before I give it a try. Opus33 03:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "Origin of the modern editions" section

I did a rewrite, whose main purpose was to explain the Cooper/Denson split without the dubious assumption (see above) that there was a book shortage at the time.

The theme I adopted, which I think comes closer to the truth, is that this was the time that Sacred Harp became traditionalist--the songs came to be treated as heirloom material to be treasured, and participants ceased to care that their singings no longer followed current fashion. The text gives as the reason for the split that people couldn't agree on which particular style of Sacred Harp singing ought to become the basis for the fixed tradition.

Corrections, adjustments, whatever... all welcome. Opus33 17:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Along these lines ("traditionalist" vs. "modernist" controversy), I've recently read an article by Gavin James Campbell which investigates the internal debate among shape note singers. If you haven't read it, I know you would enjoy it; see Old Can Be Used Instead of New, Shape-Note Singing and the Crisis of Modernity in the New South 1880-1910 in the Journal of American Folklore, Volume 110, Number 436 (Spring 1997), pages 169-188. - Rlvaughn 21:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, RLV, I'll check this out. Opus33 21:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of tune "Africa"

I removed the tune name "Africa" from this section - He retitled many old songs. These songs were formerly named by their tune, using arbitrarily chosen place names ("New Britain", "Northfield", "Africa"). The new names were based on the text; thus "New Britain" became "Amazing Grace", "Northfield" become "How Long, Dear Savior", and so on. Though "Africa" is an old William Billings tune, it was only recently added to the Sacred Harp, and not a part of the book when Cooper revised it in 1902. I replaced it with "Charlestown" - no particular reason other than this was one I could quickly think of that sounded like a place name, and was one that Cooper changed in his book. - Rlvaughn 02:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"ironic parallels"?

This simplified "power chord" arrangement of harmonies draws ironic parallels to arrangements in heavy metal, an opposed form of music at best, but with similar focus on simplifying the harmony to heighten the intensity of the remaining tones and playing the melody with the highest pitch in the chord.

I really don't understand what point is being made here, or what kind of ironiy we're talking about. Can anyone simplify this sentence and make it sound more English? Flapdragon 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Flapdragon,

I can make a stab at what this anonymous editor, in his troubled prose, was trying to say. It's probably something like:

"In using many open fifths in its harmony, Sacred Harp music resembles heavy metal music, which likewise uses open fifths in its power chords. Such harmony increases the intensity of the few tones that the chord contains and also helps bring out the melody, which forms the highest pitch of a chord. This parallel between Sacred Harp music and heavy metal is ironic, because heavy metal is cool and Sacred Harp isn't."

Having clarified (or so I hope), I've also deleted the passage, for the following reasons.

1. Many musical traditions (particularly in folk music) emphasize open fifths. It's hardly noteworthy to point out just one of them.

2. As our article already says, Sacred Harp music does not "bring out the melody", and the melody does not generally appear as the "highest pitch in the chord"; so in this respect the parallel being pointed out is not a good one.

3. The passage has nothing to do with the section that it interrupts, which is about the participatory character of Sacred Harp music.

Opus33 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

misnomer

The first section to this article, "The music and its notation" is basically a repetition of information on shape note singing, already contained in another article. In fact, much of this article seems to be more generally about shape note singing and other related topics than anything specific to the Sacred Harp.

It is using the expression "Sacred Harp" as a shorthand for the practice of congregational singing from shapenote songbooks, a misnomer for what should properly be related to "shape note," etc. In doing this the article perpetuates a misconception that traditions like hollow square, shape notes, congregational singing, singing schools, dispersed harmony, etc., are specifically associated with the Sacred Harp and no other songbook, and obscures the larger historical context they came out of.

Shouldn't this article be limited to discussion of the songbook specifically? I would suggest keeping and elaborating most of sections 3 (but not the intro to this section, which applies to shape note music generally), 4, and 5, and the rest should pretty much go somewhere else, since it is much broader in applicability than just "The Sacred Harp." There is so much overlap between many of these related articles that perhaps we need to rethink, or else we are just codifying and perpetuating a an inaccurate idiom.

We could split this big amorphous subject into articles on:

• shape note musical notation (covering the development and use of shape notes)
• shape note singing (covering practice, including conventions, church use, etc.)
• Sacred Harp (covering history, content, etc. of that specific songbook)
• Southern Harmony, Missouri Harmony, etc., other songbooks (individual articles, of course)

Other articles need to be developed to put all this in some context: congregational singing
American folk hymns
dispersed harmony maybe ??
what else?

excellent article on singing schools already exists.

Explaining revert

Hello,

1) If the article says:

"Many Sacred Harp songs are fuging tunes (spelt so, or sometimes fuguing)"

then if you change the "fuging" to "fuguing", the passage becomes incoherent.

2) The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

"Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."

Sacred Harp singing is an overwhelmingly American activity and thus falls under the Manual's prescription.

3) Saying "prerequisite" for "perquisite" is a malapropism. Look them up in the dictionary if you're not clear on this.

Thank you in advance for exercising greater care in future editing.

Sincerely, Opus33 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"recycling" lyrics

The statement that "The twentieth-century composers often have recycled their lyrics" misrepresents the way that text and melody have interacted over 3000 of sacred music tradition beginning with the Psalms -- namely, that text and melody are independent of each other, and new melodies are always being composed for established texts. One ought to say, "Unlike the greedy singer-songwriters who want to hog all the royalties for themselves, Sacred Harp continues the tradition of music being composed for established texts such as metrical psalm translations of Isaac Watts first published in 1719." The singer-songwriter-who-also-writes-children's books only became the norm beginning about 1965.

One reason the lyrics were recylced is, that many lyrics were directly used psalms, wheras others were rephrased psalms that would work with the meter of songs...--VeronikaMM (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

list of names

I started pages on a number of Sacred Harp hymnwriters, so added a list here. Many of these pages are just stubs, so please help flesh them out. Categories seem to be important. The category "English hymnwriters" believe it or not only had one entry until I added all our faves! So now they will get some additional publicity, as will the Sacred Harp.Amity150 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you think this should be a sub-page, then do so, I suppose.Amity150 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Amity150, I think starting this list was a great idea. As you (sort of) sugggested, I did make it a subpage, and added a bit of background, hoping to expand eventually into complete coverage of the origins of Sacred Harp music--which will take a lot of room. Opus33 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Opus. I am going to add a link under "see also." Do you think there might be some advantage in starting a Category:Sacred Harp composers and hymnwriters ?Amity150 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I think it would be standard Wikipedia practice. Opus33 04:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

When did the Rudiments first give advice on how to run a singing?

I have a copy of an older edition than the 1991 edition, and the rudiments were already in the old versions too. Those were always an important part of the book as it was meant to enforce music literacy on people with no music reading experience. --VeronikaMM (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the text doesn't say (or even imply) that the Rudiments first appeared in 1991. It says that the 1991 Rudiments tells you how to run a singing. Does your older edition include this material? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

my older edition holds exactly the same kind of information. as far as I know the rudiments were and are still used primarily for singing school. At the Sacred Harp museum in Carollton, GA I held one of the very first editions in my hands, and even they had that section.--VeronikaMM (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. For encyclopedia writing we need exact details--can you please tell me the edition and year? Opus33 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At the museum I had the chance to look at copies of basically every edition, but I can't tell you the years ect. anymore, because that was a couple of years ago. If there is someone editing this article living near Atlanta,GA maybe that person could have get in touch with the Sacred Harp Publishing Company and get a look into the Museum and its library...

sorry I can't help more than this for now but I think the copy I have is the edition of 1971, not absolutely sure, but I will take a look and let you know--VeronikaMM (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The spread of Sacred Harp singing--which particular locations?

Hello, I propose that we not give any examples of what areas outside the South are most prominent in the modern spread of Sacred Harp singing. This information seems only marginally useful to the reader. It's better, I think, just to say that Sacred Harp singing has spread throughout America and overseas, and cite the standard web sources that will tell you where all those new conventions are. Opus33 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Opus33. I think you have done a great job on this article, but I disagree with your edit to remove all of the examples of strong conventions and singing communities outside the South and the specific reference to the UK, etc. At least mentioning a few would be useful to both old and new singers and to the public at large. I would even suggest beefing up the paragraph altogether rather than paring it down. Given the recent article on SH which appeared in Time magazine (specifically discussing the fact that SH is now being sung other places, like Manhattan), and the fact that "Awake My Soul" has now been aired throughout the US on PBS (generating a lot of interest outside the circles of Sacred Harp singing), I personally think that all that background was actually very useful and informative. That is one of the reasons I had added some of it. In my opinion, your deletion of all of that information, and the :reference merely to the user to consult fasola.org, reduce the utility and the content of the paragraph to practically zero. How is your typical scholar or interested outsider going to make sense of that enormous list of singings just from looking at it? The fasola singings list is not all that user friendly even for those of us who are "insiders". It doesn't tell me that Western Mass attracted 390 singers in March of this year, for example. That is important information.

In sum, I think you have done a great job editing and consolidating all sorts of information in this article, but this is an example where I am persuaded that you have pruned a branch too far. That information needs to go back in and ideally to cite to the Time Magazine article as well as to further newspaper articles along the same lines that have appeared over the course of the last 12 months (e.g. the Boston Globe). By the way: There was a special on BBC4 here in the UK on Good Friday ("White Gospel") that featured Sacred Harp singing, as well as gospel singing from the South, and showed footage from the United Convention in September 2007. The fact that SH singing is generating such intense interest right now far outside its original territory is useful information and worthy of inclusion in its Wikipedia entry.

I am not adding the information back in because it would frustrate me just to have it all chopped again, so I am asking you, respectfully, to consider adding it back in yourself. If you do so, please specifically mention the UK community, because we want people in the UK to know that we are here. Our web site is www.ukshapenote.org.uk Many thanks and best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischaw (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mischaw, I see your point of mentioning places at the same time it would not fit to well into an encyclopedic article I am afraid, since, althought the meetings in the places are facts, they are also due to change. As far as I know the singings in the UK are also listed on [www.fasola.org], which should help people who are interested to find out about them. --VeronikaMM (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)