Talk:Sacred Harp/Archives/2011

Renaming article and other issues (Spring 2011)

In the last few days Espoo, a high-volume copyeditor with wide WP experience, made a few rather drastic changes to a great many Sacred Harp articles, renaming and editing them to lower case, i.e. "Sacred harp music", "sacred harp singing", etc. Noticing this "ninja attack" from a previously unknown editor, Opus33 restored the previous article names, while I reverted changes in the Sacred Harp article to the version by Silversand. After some discussion at User talk:Espoo#Capitalization of Sacred_Harp, I hope we've cleared up much of the misunderstanding; you can visit the link and see for yourself. Espoo now suggests renaming the article to "Sacred Harp singing", denoting a tradition (the main focus of the article) as well as specifying the title of the book that forms its basis. He further suggests merging the article with "shape note" since some authors treat them as synonymous. This is an issue that has been raised and discussed already. I'd like to invite comment on Espoo's suggestion. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a rename? Do we wish to revisit the issue of merging? Finn Froding (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Finn. Re title: I don't think "Sacred Harp singing" is a bad title, but "Sacred Harp" is pithier. And by leaving out the word "singing" we acknowledge other functions of the tradition (socializing, eating, composing ..). As for merging Sacred Harp with Shape note, this seems ill-advised. It would produce a long, harder-to-read article that would be dominated by the lengthy Sacred Harp material. I've also noticed that editors covering non-Sacred Harp shape note traditions are (understandably) sensitive about overemphasis on Sacred Harp, a consequence perhaps of the greater number of WP editors who are Sacred Harp singers. From this perspective it is helpful to maintain a separate article in which all shape note traditions are described on an equal footing. Opus33 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Finn, for an attempt at an objective account of the previous discussion and the suggested changes. It's however sad that you denigrated as "ninja attacks" what were carefully considered and WP:BOLD edits based on MOS and a reliable and reputable source listed in the article (Texas State Historical Association), not some kind of idiosyncratic whim of mine. And this WP:BOLD editing was definitely called for because the old (and restored title) is simply nonsense.

In addition, your previous comments about my previously suggested title Sacred Harp music also seemed to imply i had simply invented that without any basis for my choice whereas that was specifically based on the Texas State Historical Association's article. I was especially saddened by the fact that my thoroughness in applying these changes was not seen as diligence and carefulness to avoid ending up either with dead links or links with names that contradicted the main article's new name - instead, all the large amount of time and effort spent in carrying out the change in a careful and systematic way in relevant articles has been portrayed as somehow aggravating the offense. It seems you don't understand the principle and benefits of WP:BOLD editing - in addition to grossly exaggerating the effort required to press the undo button!

Finn and Opus33, we can rename the article to anything used in reputable sources, but "Sacred Harp" alone is simply impossible because that is confusing and misleading. Since that is the name of the book(s), Sacred Harp should be an article on that book /those books, not the singing and other traditions it helped create. "Sacred Harp" alone is simply not used in carefully edited texts (only as a shorthand/slang expression by aficionados) to refer to the singing or other manifestations of this tradition. Instead, "Sacred Harp" is always used as an adjective (compound modifier), e.g. "Sacred Harp singing", "Sacred Harp tradition", etc. - if necessary even for the other cases mentioned by Opus33: "Sacred Harp socializing", "Sacred Harp eating", "Sacred Harp composing", etc. You also have to remember that this topic is linked to from other articles, and their readers would get a wrong idea and would be especially confused by reference to "Sacred Harp" (unless they clicked on the link and read the intro, which most will not do).

If you want the article to emphasise other aspects of the tradition besides singing, this would have to be mentioned in the lead paragraph and even its first sentence. Since this now only talks about singing, MOS requires that the article be moved to Sacred Harp singing. Only if the first sentence and the article's focus are changed, will Sacred Harp tradition and similar article titles become possible alternatives. --Espoo (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the "ninja" remark, but it's a common impression left by editors who try to be WP:BOLD without sufficient preparation or research, which I'll admit may be impractical for one with a large backlog. Yes, you were admirably thorough in making changes, relying on a single online resource in opposition to many other online and printed resources, as we've pointed out. This leaves us, for the present, in a WP:BRD situation, and there's nothing wrong with that. The "D" part of BRD might be more productive, however, if you were to abandon what can be perceived as arrogance in dismissing the work of other editors to whom the current title and content are *not* "simply nonsense" or "confusing and misleading", but may be regarded as acceptable (though less than elegant) manners of speaking and writing on the subject. I expect a few other authors and editors may contribute in the next few days. Thank you for calling attention to these issues. Finn Froding (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization. "Sacred Harp" is preferable over "Sacred harp" in the majority of scholarly articles and sources. I have worked with TSHA for a new East Texas Musical Convention article (not yet available), as well as offering some revisions to Dr. Abernethy's article on Sacred Harp Music (already incorporated). I mention this because those who know me might assume I would support the style in Handbook of Texas.

Renaming article. I prefer "Sacred Harp", but have no strong objection to "Sacred Harp singing". I believe a scan of scholarly books and articles will show that "Sacred Harp" not only references the book but also the tradition. By my calculations, it is used this way probably a half dozen times in the introduction of the new, authoritative and peer-reviewed "The Makers of the Sacred Harp" from the University of Illinois Press. "Sacred Harp singing" is also used to stand for the entire tradition. The songbook itself is "The Sacred Harp".

Merging articles. It would be a mistake to merge the "Sacred Harp" and "Shape note" articles. Some authors may treat them as synonymous, but when they do so they are wrong. "Sacred Harp" is a subset of shape note. Shape note itself encompasses much more than Sacred Harp -- including the rest of the books and singings using the four shape system and all the seven shape system as well.

Just a few quick thoughts off the cuff. - Rlvaughn (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This topic is linked to from other articles, and their readers would get a wrong idea and would be especially confused by reference to "Sacred Harp" (unless they clicked on the link and read the intro, which most will not do). Use of "Sacred Harp" alone may be a common and possible abbreviation / shorthand in specialist texts (as well as among aficionados) but would be confusing in more general WP articles on music. MOS clearly states that if a title such as "Sacred Harp singing" is widely used and less confusing than a title such as "Sacred Harp" the former should be used. --Espoo (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Sacred Harp" is misleading, but I'm happy with "Sacred Harp singing". I agree with Opus and RLV and the earlier consensus that it would be a mistake to merge the current article with "shape note". Technically, Sacred Harp singing can be considered a subset of musical traditions employing shape notes. While for some people they may be synonymous, for many others, especially in the southern U.S., they're decidedly different, and have different connotations and nicknames: fasola, four-note, Old Harp vs. doremi, seven-note, little-book. Finn Froding (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Espoo, would you mind explaining why you believe the title "Sacred Harp" is confusing and misleading? This would be helpful to me in understanding your position. For example, why will readers of other articles be confused by a reference to "Sacred Harp"? Thanks. - Rlvaughn (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Isn't it obvious that almost all readers who see "Sacred Harp" in other articles are confused because they think it means just that, a harp that's sacred? "Sacred Harp" is confusing enough as a compound modifier in terms such as "Sacred Harp singing", "Sacred Harp music", etc., and its use alone makes it even more confusing. In addition, it's been argued above that "Sacred Harp" can refer to very many other related terms and traditions such as "Sacred Harp socializing", "Sacred Harp eating", "Sacred Harp composing", etc., so there's even more reason to not use "Sacred Harp" alone.

I'm very surprised to hear that a university press would use "Sacred Harp" alone, but probably only in a book on this topic, not in referring to this topic in another book. In addition, i'm willing to stick my neck out and claim they probably didn't use it alone even in a book on this topic except after having used it as a compound modifier several times. In other words, such usage alone (which is apparently out of deference to the "shorthand" usage in the Sacred Harp community) is only possible once the reader has been to some degree initiated. --Espoo (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Espoo, thanks so much for your reply. Though you said you didn't understand the question, your answer did speak to what I was asking and was helpful. I feared I was too close to the forest to see the trees. I nevertheless think the confusing/misleading issue is only secondary and shall try to explain some reasons why I think so. Readers who see "Sacred Harp" in other articles may think it means a harp that's sacred. But we are just dealing with the nature of the beast. It is what it is. That some folks are confused by the term does not mean it is not the proper term. It is a "Grape Nuts" kind of name which does not incorporate what it is. But it is a/the name nevertheless. As you mentioned, even "Sacred Harp singing" and other terms do not really solve this problem. Maybe they'll think about singing, but singing with a harp that is sacred?

I think the article title comes down to this. Is "Sacred Harp" a name? Is "Sacred Harp" a name that is used in scholarly works on the subject? Is "Sacred Harp" the best name to use in this article on the subject? I am settled on the first two, but the third is really what we're discussing anyway. In my own writing on the history of the East Texas Musical Convention, I said that "Sacred Harp is a 'colloquial' expression..." But it is a colloquial expression has been adopted by the scholarly community, in my opinion. For another recent example, "Stormy Banks and Sweet Rivers" by James B. Wallace of Emory University appears in Southern Spaces, a peer-reviewed online journal. It starts out with "Sacred Harp" -- "This essay explores the history, geography, and contemporary practices of Sacred Harp -- one form of a cappella, shape-note music -- in the U.S. South. The roots of Sacred Harp extend back to an eighteenth-century New England singing-school movement that spread the rudiments of choral music south and west with songs that drew upon folk melodies as well as original compositions by the earliest American composers." The article also uses Sacred Harp in its headings.

I further think the title falls within the criteria on Wikipedia:Article_titles. It is "based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." It meets the recognizability criterion – "an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic." Recognizability here is concerning readers who are familiar with the topic, not those who might think it is a harp that is sacred. I also think it meets the naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency criteria – though there is certainly room for discussion on these.

There may be several possible alternatives, but "Sacred Harp" itself fits the criteria. One further item from "Article titles" is this: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." So, considering the criteria above and the possible titles' relationship to them, which title is best for the general audience? For the consensus I wish we could get feedback from numerous other editors who have contributed to this article. All that said, in reviewing the article itself it appears that, as written, it (the article) favors "Sacred Harp singing" over "Sacred Harp". It is used in the opening sentence. It is used in the headings. Is "Sacred Harp" the best name to use in this article on the subject? Maybe. I'm still in the thinking/studying stage. -- Rlvaughn (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the modern editions

There are some lines in this section I view as problematic.

The first move was made by W. M. Cooper, of Dothan, Alabama, a leading Sacred Harp teacher in his own region, but not part of the inner circle of B. F. White's old colleagues and descendants.

In the original core geographic area of Sacred Harp singing, northern Alabama and Georgia, the singers did not in general take to the Cooper book, as they felt it deviated too far from the original tradition.

First, they are tired old statements that are in line with older writings on the subject. Second, as more and more material comes to light, new research shows that it is much more complicated than the way it has been previously explained. Little of the new material has made it into journal articles or books (though some brief statements have), and most of it is still in the discussing stage. Because it is problematic, complicated and controversial, I am not recommending any changes right now. Perhaps we can just keep an eye on where scholarship goes with the thought of future clarifications to the article.

1. "W. M. Cooper. . .not part of the inner circle of B. F. White's old colleagues and descendants." Probably not, but neither was J.S. James a part of White's "inner circle". James doesn't even appear to be all that active in Sacred Harp until around 1900. We don't know who taught Cooper Sacred Harp, but there are a few historical statements of B.F. White himself teaching Sacred Harp in this region, as well as his son D.P. White and several other Sacred Harp teachers and composers living in the region.

2. The "original core geographic area" statement is also problematic (though in line with what has previously been written). Northern Alabama is no more the core than southern Alabama, other than partisan writers have made it so. If there is a "core" it is wherever B.F. White was. But the original singers and spreading conventions covered a wide range of places north, south and west (of where White was). The Southeastern Convention in Cooper territory is the oldest existing convention in Alabama. Though it is correct that the singers in the area mentioned "did not in general take to the Cooper book" it is a judgement call to say it was because it "deviated too far from the original tradition". Consider that in this "core geographic area" the J.L. White book and the J.S. James book battled each other for the hearts of the singing people. J.L. White's book in most ways was "further from the original tradition" than the Cooper book. Yet White's book appealed to singers in the same area where Cooper's did not. In fact, Duncan Vinson's "As Far From Secular, Operatic, Rag-time, and Jig Melodies As Is Possible": Religion and the Resurgence of Interest in The Sacred Harp, 1895-1911 (Journal of American Folklore - Volume 119, Number 474, Fall 2006) has shown that White's book was originally adopted by the United Convention in 1910 before James successfully got his book adopted. Surely it was something more than just "deviation from the original tradition" that caused these events. One of the simplest explanations is that the Cooper book had too much competition from two locals -- James and White.

Well I have written much more than I intended and am starting to ramble. Thoughts? -- Rlvaughn (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, RLV. I agree that changes should be made. Here's my take, for what it's worth.

• Since "little of the new material has made it into journal articles or books," the situation is tricky. We're obliged to follow WP:VER, but we also don't want the article to include inaccurate claims. I think a sensible strategy would be simply to say less; that is, take out things that look dubious at the present stage that look like they can't be supported.
• Also, as you suggest, it would also be sensible to move toward more recent research on this topic, such as Warren Steel's book. I'm busy in the real world right now but I can give this a try soon, if you or someone else doesn't do so first.

Opus33 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of article title and division with shape note don't seem right

Two topics above on this page ("Assigning material to Sacred Harp and Shape note" and "Tradition or mere book?") rightly express discomfort with what this article is about, and whether we're following proper subject naming principles.

For example, Finn Froding moved my list of public-domain shape-note tunebooks from here to shape note, under the premise that shape note is about the musical tradition, but that this page is about the White & King book The Sacred Harp (1844) and its descendants. But against this:

1. Opus33 above intervened to make sure the lead of this article says it's not about books with the title SH but about a "tradition";
2. The history/origins material on this page includes a lot that clearly pertains to a wider group of music than what is printed in SH.

I propose we need three articles: (A) The Sacred Harp (on the 1844 publications and its descendants e.g. 1991 Denson), (B) shape note (perhaps best recast as an article on the four- and seven-shape systems of musical notation, and the pedagogical and performance practices specifically connected to this notation), (C) an article on the kind of music both in the SH books and also in books with other titles, but whose musical qualities and performance traditions unite them as a single subject. (I don't know what this third article should be called.)

Some further preliminary questions: Are there American tunebooks published in round notes that are part of the "tradition" named here? Where at Wikipedia is their music discussed? Do some of the Shape_note#Public-domain_shape-note_tunebooks contain music that should be distinguished from the "tradition" named here? Etc. Wareh (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous user talk page discussion

For reference I include the following further discussion from my user talk page.

You've done excellent work with this list, but it really belongs under shape notes rather than Sacred Harp. Perhaps the links to historical editions of The Sacred Harp could be retained.Finn Froding (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The same thought did occur to me, but then I noticed that the article Sacred Harp may have once wanted to be about just the tunebooks with that title but has developed into an article on "a tradition of sacred choral music that took root in the Southern region." I determined that my links fit under that rubric. So the ideal fix to all this is to make the relationship between the articles clearer. If you think you can move the whole section to shape note in a way that works, it's all right with me, though I worry that people to whom "Sacred Harp" means what our article says it is ("a tradition...that took root in the South") might miss out on a bunch of nice tunebook examples of that tradition. The bottom line is that I recognize the difficulty, so I won't stand in the way of a good solution to it. Thanks again, Wareh (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Sacred Harp as a "tradition," but it's really a tradition of singing from some version of The Sacred Harp, as several recent contributions to the discussion page reveal. Certainly singers from the New Harp of Columbia or Christian Harmony don't call themselves "Sacred Harp singers." I would almost prefer "Sacred Harp singing" as an article title, meaning "a community musical and social event, where people sing songs from a tunebook called The Sacred Harp." But the present article is ok in focusing on both the book and its traditional use. And "shape-note" is really a notation, or group of notations, not a specific tradition or a style. In the southern U.S., it usually means convention gospel music, sung from small paperback books; that's why I liked it that your list specifies shape-note "tunebooks," those mainly big oblong things! Do you attend Sacred Harp singings? Finn Froding (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can claim no expertise in this, since I have just begun to become interested, though I love what I have heard so far and plan to attend a singing for the first time in a week. I think your overall idea sounds good, though I'm not sure exactly how you would divide the material and how many articles would result. I gather you'd have an article The Sacred Harp (with {{Italic title}}), on the 1844 tunebook and its direct descendants that kept the name (the current article is simply not on this topic, at least until the lead is rewritten). Shape note could be on the 4-shape and 7-shape notational schemes more narrowly. What's harder to see is where everything about the musical tradition (both as compositions and performance practices) belongs. It seems the books in my list reflect a common tradition of schools and singings with The Sacred Harp, and where to put it is awkward. Is there really an easy & natural dividing line between "the singing of people who only use books titled The Sacred Harp" and "the singing of people who made and used those other books"? My gut is telling me that separating the latter group and calling it "shape note" is not really correct. My current feeling is this: I'm happy with the way my own intervention got redisposed by you, but I regard the two articles as a bit of an unclear mess with respect to how they define their topics. Here's my best-guess idea: (1) shape note restricted to the notation, (2) The Sacred Harp restricted to the 1844 tunebooks and its descendants (not ones that accidentally shared the name), (3) Sacred Harp singing or some such, to which Sacred Harp might better redirect, which would describe in general the music, its performance, and its wider history, which clearly includes both the music in SH and the music in other books (this is where my list would belong). #3 would have to have a carefully written explanation at the beginning: This article is not limited to the SH book but treats the wider American musical tradition of which it is a part. Is something like this what you're proposing, or have I got you all wrong? Wareh (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. To boil this down more concretely, the material at Sacred_Harp#History_of_Sacred_Harp_singing is very important, but no one could honestly say that it tells the history of The Sacred Harp rather than the history of the whole tradition reflected in my list. At least, this is what I stumble over. Wareh (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)