Talk:Sacred Harp/Archives/2006

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)

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amity150 (talk • contribs) (22 May 2006)

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)

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)