> Warren, is it the MOUNT PLEASANT Youtube video, Mike and > Syd leading, > to which you referred?
> As I see it, the two leaders are mostly together, but they > are a > little ragged here and there, and my eyes and ears indicate > to me > that the singers take the beat as beginning at the bottom > of the > downstroke. I don't know what Mike and Syd intended.
> My mind's eye tells me that some leaders mark the first > beat of a > duple measure by moving the hand away from the body, mostly
> horizontally and toward the singers he/she is facing, > perhaps with an > unflexing of the elbow - the hand then falls during that > beat. Is > this the traditional style that has been referred to > here? If so, > then the beat is unmistakable in that style - the leader > punches out > on the first beat.
I'm a little late joining in here, but I think the video you need to watch to see the difference in these 2 leaders is Peggy Brayfield's recording of Homeward Bound for Amanda Denson, from the same Missouri Convention.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wade Kotter" <wadekot...@yahoo.com> To: <fasola-discussions@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:02 PM Subject: [fasola-discussions] Re: leading slowly in 2
Here's a link to the Mount Pleasant Youtube video:
Thanks, Janet. The difference does seem to be clearer int his video. Perhaps Warren can let us know which video he was referring to. Anyway, here's a link to the video of Homeward Bound:
> I'm a little late joining in here, but I think the video > you need to watch > to see the difference in these 2 leaders is Peggy > Brayfield's recording of > Homeward Bound for Amanda Denson, from the same Missouri > Convention.
WARNING : This is a long email. Please skip it if you are not interested!
Thanks!
If you* are* interested please go slowly, I packed a lot of stuff in here.
Whoo-wee!!!!
: P
Hello all... Tom Malone here.
I was born and raised in Vermont, and learned to sing Sacred Harp both there
and in Massachusetts, so I can represent, for the sake of this discussion, a
typical "Northern Singer".
I think we can all agree that because of where I first learned to sing and
beat time, my initial learning could hardly be considered traditional.
Then, four years ago, I went to Camp.
This was the first year that Hugh McGraw taught rudiments classes for both
youth and adults.
Here I heard him say a phrase that he uses in all of his singing schools,
"We have seven modes of time, three of common, two of triple, and two of
compound."
In that moment, I quickly realized that I needed to set aside my previous
training and "become a beginner" because I, and many other "northern
singers" who had not sat in singing school before--- didn't even know what a
"mode of time" was!
We, "in the North," tend to think of songs as being "in two", "in three", or
even "in four" -- but none of these labels are correct, without fully
understanding the seven modes of time.
The 'modes of time' govern speed, rhythm, length of notes, and the placement
of accent in every song. They are as follows.
* Common Triple
Compound*
First mode: *'four over four' * 'three over two' 'six
over four'*
Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
over eight'*
Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
- - - -
(*The use of the word 'over' can be traced back to the 1844
rudiments.)
They are not the same as "meters" as taught in University schools of music
or music education. (see the chapter in my dissertation 'Modes of Time are
not Meters'.**)
This realization was the beginning of my dissertation project, with the
hypothesis that many differences between so-called Northern and Southern
practice could be attributed to difference in awareness of the rudiments as
'teaching and learning' rather than as variations due to aural tradition or
folk-practice.
** For example we think that "four four" is a meter, but in Sacred Harp *
meter* is an aspect of poetry! e.g. Long meter, short meter, 7's and 6's
etc.... these are meters.
In the North, we have no trouble describing four four time as being "in
two", but it is not in two. It can't be.
Only the first mode, (two-two) and the third mode (two-four) of common time
can be "in two" because the top number tells you 'how many', and the bottom
number 'what kind" of notes 'or their equivalent' will fill a measure of
time. So, no matter how you beat it 'four over four" will continue to have
four beats time in it.
Because -- "Four over four" is not a meter at all -- it is actually
the*second mode of common time
*.
A measure of which, contains four beats of musical *time*, indicated with
two strokes of the hand. The musical beats of one and two are both found on
the downward stroke, and the musical beats of three and four are on the
upward stroke, with the hand rising to four in order to complete the
measure. I believe Henry and Warren made this point in different ways
earlier. (see the graphic below, or attached illustration)
*one two three four*
down - down up - up
This manner of beating four four time differs from what University music and
music education programs call 'cut-time', in which the half note 'gets the
beat' -- and is this "in two" -- which might be understood like this:
*one* (and) *two* (and)
bottom rise top fall
The wording of the 1991 rudiments place the beat at "the bottom of the
stroke" which may appear to describe the latter of these two methods. But
this widespread practice of beating in 'cut-time' is probably more due to
the influence of other forms of choral training among newer SH singers over
the last 20 years than any technical discrepancy in the printed rudiments.
This reality has gradually given rise to the widespread idea that the second
mode of common time can and should be beat "in two".
If you are already exhausted by this email, you can stop here and come back
later.... : )
Believe me as a "Northern singer" I had to re-learn all of this over the
past four years, especially the beating of 'four four time' --- and the
fundamental question "where is the one?" (primary accent).
But in close study with the many of finest teachers of the 1991 book, who
were mentored and taught by J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw etc.,
I have come to see that the "down down up up" approach is able to provide
better accent in the second mode of common time, a fact which the recent
recordings from Camp can attest to.
Consider: These three teachers taught and learned from the 1936 Paine Denson
rudiments, which instruct that the "primary accent comes and is placed on
the first part of the measure when the hand *starts down* in marking time to
the right of the measure bar." (emphasis in bold added)
Each of these thre teachers (Mr. Cagle, H.N. McGraw, Elder Kitchens) had the
same primary mentor in teaching, and that was Thomas J. Denson. He
inititally learned from the B.F. White Rudiments and taught largely from the
James 1911 rudiments, which describe the placement of the primary accent (or
one) in nearly the same language retained by Paine Denson.
I have worked closely with Hugh McGraw on this exact question, and he has
demonstrated to me numerous times that in four four time, the muscial counts
of one and two are on the downward stroke, and three and four are on the
upward stroke. therefore "down-down, up-up" completes a measure of four four
time. (again see attached graphic)
This is not to say that everyone does it this way -- : )
But then again, if you sing every song extremely fast, then it doesn't
really matter, because you have essentially shifted permanently into the
third mode of common time (2/4). This is one of the main reasons why Mr.
Jeff Sheppard as been encouraging us to "slow down and feel the accent".
When he was quoted in an interview saying that the Northern singers are
faster than the Southern, some thought he was kidding, but the failure to
observe the secondary accent because we race through songs in four four time
is a large part of what he was referring to. And this is because "in the
North" we have tended to view all three modes of common time as being, "in
two".
BUT - our understanding of modes of time is improving and therefore we in
the 'cold and frosty North' are learning to accent better in four four time!
And for learners of all ages to improve gradually by being repeatedly
exposed to and taken through the rudiments, is traditional!
J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw were more than just "traditional
singers," they were teachers of the rudiments. Sacred Harp is just as much
a tradition of teaching as it is a tradition of singing. These three men
were also the teachers and mentors of the elder generation who teaches at
Camp Fasola today.
They have something else in common as well -- each of them were taught how
"to teach the rudiments" by Mr. Tom Denson.
Consider that Jeff Sheppard learned to sing mostly from his father, who
successfully invited Tom Denson to stay at his house and teach -- and he
stayed and taught for two whole years!
So, unless you think all of these teachers were beating four four time
differently than most of us due to a lack of awareness of a better way, and
that, if they knew better-- they would do it "in two" like us, we should
consider their practice as more than simply traditional.
The cognitive dissonance we feel when presented with this 'down-down, up-up'
approach and the new location of "one" near the middle rather than at the
bottom of the stroke is simply an improvement of our understanding of the
second mode of common time. Or at least the awareness of new possibilities.
Which is helpful, because it is the most 'common' of all the modes of time,
and the one we use the most often.
As noted earlier, the 1936 rudiments tell us "leaders assume a good deal of
discretion, and vary somewhat in the manner of beating or marking
time." and *nobody* wants to be told they are doing it wrong, so it is also
traditional to let each leader decide on their own way to give their lesson,
without the class unnecessarily correcting or overriding them. In the
Sacred Harp we are all teachers, singers, and learners and no one person can
'know it all' but we can all make an effort.
I personally find the illustration in the attachment offers new
possibilities for personal and regional diversity in accent -- and four
years into practicing it, I known I still have a long way to go.... but know
I want to make the effort to improve.
There is so much more we can learn.... in time, in tune, and in accent.
Now let's sing!
Tom Malone
P.S. I would be glad to dialogue more 'off-list' with anyone on these 'deep
water' questions, or by telephone. My number is in the minutes book.
P.S.S. Yes, I just finished a dissertation on exactly this question. So
plese orgive the length and throughness of my
reponse, as well as any typoes or inconsistencies with quotes or
spacing, I have learned that I am better at content than formatting.
> Thanks, Janet. The difference does seem to be clearer int > his video. Perhaps Warren can let us know which video he > was referring to. Anyway, here's a link to the video of > Homeward Bound: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ckxBb222Tc
I agree that the difference is clearer in the Homeward Bound video than in Mount Pleasant.
The table of the seven modes of time was a little compressed in my
earlier post, with one glaring keystroke error, (thanks Chris N.)
Here it is more clearly laid out.
** Seven Modes of Time in the Sacred Harp Rudiments: 1844 to present
Common
Triple Compound
first mode: 'two over two' 'three over two' 'six over
four'
second mode: 'four over four' 'three over four' 'six over
eight'
third mode: 'two over four' - - - -
- - - -
Tom M
On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WARNING : This is a long email. Please skip it if you are not interested!
> Thanks!
> If you* are* interested please go slowly, I packed a lot of stuff in here.
> Whoo-wee!!!!
> : P
> Hello all... Tom Malone here.
> I was born and raised in Vermont, and learned to sing Sacred Harp both there
> and in Massachusetts, so I can represent, for the sake of this discussion, a
> typical "Northern Singer".
> I think we can all agree that because of where I first learned to sing and
> beat time, my initial learning could hardly be considered traditional.
> Then, four years ago, I went to Camp.
> This was the first year that Hugh McGraw taught rudiments classes for both
> youth and adults.
> Here I heard him say a phrase that he uses in all of his singing schools,
> "We have seven modes of time, three of common, two of triple, and two of
> compound."
> In that moment, I quickly realized that I needed to set aside my previous
> training and "become a beginner" because I, and many other "northern
> singers" who had not sat in singing school before--- didn't even know what a
> "mode of time" was!
> We, "in the North," tend to think of songs as being "in two", "in three", or
> even "in four" -- but none of these labels are correct, without fully
> understanding the seven modes of time.
> The 'modes of time' govern speed, rhythm, length of notes, and the placement
> of accent in every song. They are as follows.
> * Common Triple
> Compound*
> First mode: *'four over four' * 'three over two' 'six
> over four'*
> Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
> over eight'*
> Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
> - - - -
> (*The use of the word 'over' can be traced back to the 1844
> rudiments.)
> They are not the same as "meters" as taught in University schools of music
> or music education. (see the chapter in my dissertation 'Modes of Time are
> not Meters'.**)
> This realization was the beginning of my dissertation project, with the
> hypothesis that many differences between so-called Northern and Southern
> practice could be attributed to difference in awareness of the rudiments as
> 'teaching and learning' rather than as variations due to aural tradition or
> folk-practice.
> ** For example we think that "four four" is a meter, but in Sacred Harp *
> meter* is an aspect of poetry! e.g. Long meter, short meter, 7's and 6's
> etc.... these are meters.
> In the North, we have no trouble describing four four time as being "in
> two", but it is not in two. It can't be.
> Only the first mode, (two-two) and the third mode (two-four) of common time
> can be "in two" because the top number tells you 'how many', and the bottom
> number 'what kind" of notes 'or their equivalent' will fill a measure of
> time. So, no matter how you beat it 'four over four" will continue to have
> four beats time in it.
> Because -- "Four over four" is not a meter at all -- it is actually
> the*second mode of common time
> *.
> A measure of which, contains four beats of musical *time*, indicated with
> two strokes of the hand. The musical beats of one and two are both found on
> the downward stroke, and the musical beats of three and four are on the
> upward stroke, with the hand rising to four in order to complete the
> measure. I believe Henry and Warren made this point in different ways
> earlier. (see the graphic below, or attached illustration)
> *one two three four*
> down - down up - up
> This manner of beating four four time differs from what University music and
> music education programs call 'cut-time', in which the half note 'gets the
> beat' -- and is this "in two" -- which might be understood like this:
> *one* (and) *two* (and)
> bottom rise top fall
> The wording of the 1991 rudiments place the beat at "the bottom of the
> stroke" which may appear to describe the latter of these two methods. But
> this widespread practice of beating in 'cut-time' is probably more due to
> the influence of other forms of choral training among newer SH singers over
> the last 20 years than any technical discrepancy in the printed rudiments.
> This reality has gradually given rise to the widespread idea that the second
> mode of common time can and should be beat "in two".
> If you are already exhausted by this email, you can stop here and come back
> later.... : )
> Believe me as a "Northern singer" I had to re-learn all of this over the
> past four years, especially the beating of 'four four time' --- and the
> fundamental question "where is the one?" (primary accent).
> But in close study with the many of finest teachers of the 1991 book, who
> were mentored and taught by J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw etc.,
> I have come to see that the "down down up up" approach is able to provide
> better accent in the second mode of common time, a fact which the recent
> recordings from Camp can attest to.
> Consider: These three teachers taught and learned from the 1936 Paine Denson
> rudiments, which instruct that the "primary accent comes and is placed on
> the first part of the measure when the hand *starts down* in marking time to
> the right of the measure bar." (emphasis in bold added)
> Each of these thre teachers (Mr. Cagle, H.N. McGraw, Elder Kitchens) had the
> same primary mentor in teaching, and that was Thomas J. Denson. He
> inititally learned from the B.F. White Rudiments and taught largely from the
> James 1911 rudiments, which describe the placement of the primary accent (or
> one) in nearly the same language retained by Paine Denson.
> I have worked closely with Hugh McGraw on this exact question, and he has
> demonstrated to me numerous times that in four four time, the muscial counts
> of one and two are on the downward stroke, and three and four are on the
> upward stroke. therefore "down-down, up-up" completes a measure of four four
> time. (again see attached graphic)
> This is not to say that everyone does it this way -- : )
> But then again, if you sing every song extremely fast, then it doesn't
> really matter, because you have essentially shifted permanently into the
> third mode of common time (2/4). This is one of the main reasons why Mr.
> Jeff Sheppard as been encouraging us to "slow down and feel the accent".
> When he was quoted in an interview saying that the Northern singers are
> faster than the Southern, some thought he was kidding, but the failure to
> observe the secondary accent because we race through songs in four four time
> is a large part of what he was referring to. And this is because "in the
> North" we have tended to view all three modes of common time as being, "in
> two".
> BUT - our understanding of modes of time is improving and therefore we in
> the 'cold and frosty North' are learning to accent better in four four time!
> And for learners of all ages to improve gradually by being repeatedly
> exposed to and taken through the rudiments, is traditional!
> J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw were more than just "traditional
> singers," they were teachers of the rudiments. Sacred Harp is just as much
> a tradition of teaching as it is a tradition of singing. These three men
> were also the teachers and mentors of the elder generation who teaches at
> Camp Fasola today.
> They have something else in common as well -- each of them were taught how
> "to teach the rudiments" by Mr. Tom Denson.
> Consider that Jeff Sheppard learned to sing mostly from his father, who
> successfully invited Tom Denson to stay at his house and teach -- and he
> stayed and taught for two whole years!
> So, unless you think all of these teachers were beating four four time
> differently than most of us due to a lack of awareness of a better way, and
> that, if they knew better-- they would do it "in two" like us, we should
> consider their practice as more than simply traditional.
> The cognitive dissonance we feel when presented with this 'down-down, up-up'
> approach and the new location of "one" near the middle rather than at the
> bottom of the stroke is simply an improvement of our understanding of the
> second mode of common time. Or at least the awareness of new possibilities.
> Which is helpful, because it is the most 'common' of all the modes of time,
> and the one we use the most often.
> As noted earlier, the 1936 rudiments tell us "leaders assume a good deal of
> discretion, and vary somewhat in the manner of beating or marking
> time." and *nobody* wants to be told they are doing it wrong, so it is also
> traditional to let each leader decide on their own way to give their lesson,
> without the class unnecessarily correcting or overriding them. In the
> Sacred Harp we are all teachers, singers, and learners and no one person can
> 'know it all' but we can all make an effort.
> I personally find the illustration in the attachment offers new
--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They are not the same as "meters" as > taught in University schools of music or music education. > (see the chapter in my dissertation 'Modes of Time are > not Meters'.**)
I guess at times there's an advantage to not being cluttered up with too much knowledge! ;-D
> In the North, we have no trouble describing four four > time as being "in two", but it is not in two. It > can't be.
Thank you. I felt a little slow in trying to discern what was being described, but your e-mail made a light go off in my head. I couldn't figure out how the "one beat" could be at the bottom of the stroke in a 4/4 mode beat 'down-up'. I mean, you would have one-fourth of the measure on the down stroke and three-fourths on the up stroke (or something like that). But now I think I understand. The person beating this way is evidently not thinking 1-2-3-4, but simply 1-2.
> Only the first mode, (two-two) and the third > mode (two-four) of common time can be "in two" > because the top number tells you 'how many', and the > bottom number 'what kind" of notes 'or their > equivalent' will fill a measure of time. So, no matter > how you beat it 'four over four" will continue to > have four beats time in it.
I think those of us who beat down-left-right-up (I use both 'down-up' and 'down-left-right-up' as it suits my personal fancy) may be guilty of adding to this false impression by using the words "in four" (or something similar) as a warning/heads-up to the class that we will be beating 'down-left-right-up' instead of 'down-up'. But this is a misnomer. As you correctly point out, 4/4 is "in four" regardless of whether you use 'down-up' and 'down-left-right-up'. Perhaps we should find a new phrase for this pre-song "warning".
Ok, I still can't seem to get this table formatted to line up right.
And clearly, the first mode of common should have been 'two over two'. See
rudiments on pg. 15
As you can all see I am better at singing and teaching than I am with
computers.
Here it is in text, and if this doesn't work I'll try it again as an
separate attachment.
* Common Triple
Compound*
First mode: *'two over two' 'three over two' 'six
over four'*
Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
over eight'*
Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
- - - -
Nothing worth doing well is easy, I guess..... but those who have ears, will
hear,
even with my keystroke errors.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tom Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The table of the seven modes of time was a little compressed in my
> earlier post, with one glaring keystroke error, (thanks Chris N.)
> Here it is more clearly laid out.
> ** Seven Modes of Time in the Sacred Harp Rudiments: 1844 to present
> Common
> Triple Compound
> first mode: 'two over two' 'three over two' 'six over
> four'
> second mode: 'four over four' 'three over four' 'six over
> eight'
> third mode: 'two over four' - - - -
> - - - -
> Tom M
> On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > WARNING : This is a long email. Please skip it if you are not interested!
> > Thanks!
> > If you* are* interested please go slowly, I packed a lot of stuff in
> here.
> > Whoo-wee!!!!
> > : P
> > Hello all... Tom Malone here.
> > I was born and raised in Vermont, and learned to sing Sacred Harp both
> there
> > and in Massachusetts, so I can represent, for the sake of this
> discussion, a
> > typical "Northern Singer".
> > I think we can all agree that because of where I first learned to sing
> and
> > beat time, my initial learning could hardly be considered traditional.
> > Then, four years ago, I went to Camp.
> > This was the first year that Hugh McGraw taught rudiments classes for
> both
> > youth and adults.
> > Here I heard him say a phrase that he uses in all of his singing schools,
> > "We have seven modes of time, three of common, two of triple, and two of
> > compound."
> > In that moment, I quickly realized that I needed to set aside my previous
> > training and "become a beginner" because I, and many other "northern
> > singers" who had not sat in singing school before--- didn't even know
> what a
> > "mode of time" was!
> > We, "in the North," tend to think of songs as being "in two", "in three",
> or
> > even "in four" -- but none of these labels are correct, without fully
> > understanding the seven modes of time.
> > The 'modes of time' govern speed, rhythm, length of notes, and the
> placement
> > of accent in every song. They are as follows.
> > * Common Triple
> > Compound*
> > First mode: *'four over four' * 'three over two'
> 'six
> > over four'*
> > Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
> > over eight'*
> > Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
> > - - - -
> > (*The use of the word 'over' can be traced back to the 1844
> > rudiments.)
> > They are not the same as "meters" as taught in University schools of
> music
> > or music education. (see the chapter in my dissertation 'Modes of Time
> are
> > not Meters'.**)
> > This realization was the beginning of my dissertation project, with the
> > hypothesis that many differences between so-called Northern and Southern
> > practice could be attributed to difference in awareness of the rudiments
> as
> > 'teaching and learning' rather than as variations due to aural tradition
> or
> > folk-practice.
> > ** For example we think that "four four" is a meter, but in Sacred Harp *
> > meter* is an aspect of poetry! e.g. Long meter, short meter, 7's and 6's
> > etc.... these are meters.
> > In the North, we have no trouble describing four four time as being "in
> > two", but it is not in two. It can't be.
> > Only the first mode, (two-two) and the third mode (two-four) of common
> time
> > can be "in two" because the top number tells you 'how many', and the
> bottom
> > number 'what kind" of notes 'or their equivalent' will fill a measure of
> > time. So, no matter how you beat it 'four over four" will continue to
> have
> > four beats time in it.
> > Because -- "Four over four" is not a meter at all -- it is actually
> > the*second mode of common time
> > *.
> > A measure of which, contains four beats of musical *time*, indicated with
> > two strokes of the hand. The musical beats of one and two are both found
> on
> > the downward stroke, and the musical beats of three and four are on the
> > upward stroke, with the hand rising to four in order to complete the
> > measure. I believe Henry and Warren made this point in different ways
> > earlier. (see the graphic below, or attached illustration)
> > *one two three four*
> > down - down up - up
> > This manner of beating four four time differs from what University music
> and
> > music education programs call 'cut-time', in which the half note 'gets
> the
> > beat' -- and is this "in two" -- which might be understood like this:
> > *one* (and) *two* (and)
> > bottom rise top fall
> > The wording of the 1991 rudiments place the beat at "the bottom of the
> > stroke" which may appear to describe the latter of these two methods. But
> > this widespread practice of beating in 'cut-time' is probably more due to
> > the influence of other forms of choral training among newer SH singers
> over
> > the last 20 years than any technical discrepancy in the printed
> rudiments.
> > This reality has gradually given rise to the widespread idea that the
> second
> > mode of common time can and should be beat "in two".
> > If you are already exhausted by this email, you can stop here and come
> back
> > later.... : )
> > Believe me as a "Northern singer" I had to re-learn all of this over the
> > past four years, especially the beating of 'four four time' --- and the
> > fundamental question "where is the one?" (primary accent).
> > But in close study with the many of finest teachers of the 1991 book, who
> > were mentored and taught by J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw
> etc.,
> > I have come to see that the "down down up up" approach is able to provide
> > better accent in the second mode of common time, a fact which the recent
> > recordings from Camp can attest to.
> > Consider: These three teachers taught and learned from the 1936 Paine
> Denson
> > rudiments, which instruct that the "primary accent comes and is placed on
> > the first part of the measure when the hand *starts down* in marking time
> to
> > the right of the measure bar." (emphasis in bold added)
> > Each of these thre teachers (Mr. Cagle, H.N. McGraw, Elder Kitchens) had
> the
> > same primary mentor in teaching, and that was Thomas J. Denson. He
> > inititally learned from the B.F. White Rudiments and taught largely from
> the
> > James 1911 rudiments, which describe the placement of the primary accent
> (or
> > one) in nearly the same language retained by Paine Denson.
> > I have worked closely with Hugh McGraw on this exact question, and he has
> > demonstrated to me numerous times that in four four time, the muscial
> counts
> > of one and two are on the downward stroke, and three and four are on the
> > upward stroke. therefore "down-down, up-up" completes a measure of four
> four
> > time. (again see attached graphic)
> > This is not to say that everyone does it this way -- : )
> > But then again, if you sing every song extremely fast, then it doesn't
> > really matter, because you have essentially shifted permanently into the
> > third mode of common time (2/4). This is one of the main reasons why Mr.
> > Jeff Sheppard as been encouraging us to "slow down and feel the accent".
> > When he was quoted in an interview saying that the Northern singers are
> > faster than the Southern, some thought he was kidding, but the failure to
> > observe the secondary accent because we race through songs in four four
> time
> > is a large part of what he was referring to. And this is because "in the
> > North" we have tended to view all three modes of common time as being,
> "in
> > two".
> > BUT - our understanding of modes of time is improving and therefore we in
> > the 'cold and frosty North' are learning to accent better in four four
> time!
> > And for learners of all ages to improve gradually by being repeatedly
> > exposed to and taken through the rudiments, is traditional!
> > J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw were more than just
> "traditional
> > singers," they were teachers of the rudiments. Sacred Harp is just as
> much
> > a tradition of teaching as it is a tradition of singing. These three men
> > were also the teachers and mentors of the elder generation who teaches at
> > Camp Fasola today.
> > They have something else in common as well -- each of them were taught
> how
> > "to teach the rudiments" by Mr. Tom Denson.
> > Consider that Jeff Sheppard learned to sing mostly from his father, who
> > successfully invited Tom Denson to stay at his house and teach -- and he
> > stayed and taught for two whole years!
> > So, unless you think all of these teachers were
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I still can't seem to get this table formatted to line up right.
> And clearly, the first mode of common should have been 'two over two'. See
> rudiments on pg. 15
> As you can all see I am better at singing and teaching than I am with
> computers.
> Here it is in text, and if this doesn't work I'll try it again as an
> separate attachment.
> * Common Triple
> Compound*
> First mode: *'two over two' 'three over two' 'six
> over four'*
> Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
> over eight*
**
> Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
> - - - -
> Nothing worth doing well is easy, I guess..... but those who have ears,
> will hear,
> even with my keystroke errors.
> Thanks for your patience.
> Tom M
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tom Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The table of the seven modes of time was a little compressed in my
>> earlier post, with one glaring keystroke error, (thanks Chris N.)
>> Here it is more clearly laid out.
>> ** Seven Modes of Time in the Sacred Harp Rudiments: 1844 to present
>> Common
>> Triple Compound
>> first mode: 'two over two' 'three over two' 'six over
>> four'
>> second mode: 'four over four' 'three over four' 'six over
>> eight'
>> third mode: 'two over four' - - - -
>> - - - -
>> Tom M
>> On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > WARNING : This is a long email. Please skip it if you are not
>> interested!
>> > Thanks!
>> > If you* are* interested please go slowly, I packed a lot of stuff in
>> here.
>> > Whoo-wee!!!!
>> > : P
>> > Hello all... Tom Malone here.
>> > I was born and raised in Vermont, and learned to sing Sacred Harp both
>> there
>> > and in Massachusetts, so I can represent, for the sake of this
>> discussion, a
>> > typical "Northern Singer".
>> > I think we can all agree that because of where I first learned to sing
>> and
>> > beat time, my initial learning could hardly be considered traditional.
>> > Then, four years ago, I went to Camp.
>> > This was the first year that Hugh McGraw taught rudiments classes for
>> both
>> > youth and adults.
>> > Here I heard him say a phrase that he uses in all of his singing
>> schools,
>> > "We have seven modes of time, three of common, two of triple, and two of
>> > compound."
>> > In that moment, I quickly realized that I needed to set aside my
>> previous
>> > training and "become a beginner" because I, and many other "northern
>> > singers" who had not sat in singing school before--- didn't even know
>> what a
>> > "mode of time" was!
>> > We, "in the North," tend to think of songs as being "in two", "in
>> three", or
>> > even "in four" -- but none of these labels are correct, without fully
>> > understanding the seven modes of time.
>> > The 'modes of time' govern speed, rhythm, length of notes, and the
>> placement
>> > of accent in every song. They are as follows.
>> > * Common Triple
>> > Compound*
>> > First mode: *'four over four' * 'three over two'
>> 'six
>> > over four'*
>> > Second mode: '*four over four' 'three over four' 'six
>> > over eight'*
>> > Third mode: *'two over four' * - - - -
>> > - - - -
>> > (*The use of the word 'over' can be traced back to the 1844
>> > rudiments.)
>> > They are not the same as "meters" as taught in University schools of
>> music
>> > or music education. (see the chapter in my dissertation 'Modes of Time
>> are
>> > not Meters'.**)
>> > This realization was the beginning of my dissertation project, with the
>> > hypothesis that many differences between so-called Northern and Southern
>> > practice could be attributed to difference in awareness of the rudiments
>> as
>> > 'teaching and learning' rather than as variations due to aural tradition
>> or
>> > folk-practice.
>> > ** For example we think that "four four" is a meter, but in Sacred Harp
>> *
>> > meter* is an aspect of poetry! e.g. Long meter, short meter, 7's and
>> 6's
>> > etc.... these are meters.
>> > In the North, we have no trouble describing four four time as being "in
>> > two", but it is not in two. It can't be.
>> > Only the first mode, (two-two) and the third mode (two-four) of common
>> time
>> > can be "in two" because the top number tells you 'how many', and the
>> bottom
>> > number 'what kind" of notes 'or their equivalent' will fill a measure of
>> > time. So, no matter how you beat it 'four over four" will continue to
>> have
>> > four beats time in it.
>> > Because -- "Four over four" is not a meter at all -- it is actually
>> > the*second mode of common time
>> > *.
>> > A measure of which, contains four beats of musical *time*, indicated
>> with
>> > two strokes of the hand. The musical beats of one and two are both found
>> on
>> > the downward stroke, and the musical beats of three and four are on the
>> > upward stroke, with the hand rising to four in order to complete the
>> > measure. I believe Henry and Warren made this point in different ways
>> > earlier. (see the graphic below, or attached illustration)
>> > *one two three four*
>> > down - down up - up
>> > This manner of beating four four time differs from what University music
>> and
>> > music education programs call 'cut-time', in which the half note 'gets
>> the
>> > beat' -- and is this "in two" -- which might be understood like this:
>> > *one* (and) *two* (and)
>> > bottom rise top fall
>> > The wording of the 1991 rudiments place the beat at "the bottom of the
>> > stroke" which may appear to describe the latter of these two methods.
>> But
>> > this widespread practice of beating in 'cut-time' is probably more due
>> to
>> > the influence of other forms of choral training among newer SH singers
>> over
>> > the last 20 years than any technical discrepancy in the printed
>> rudiments.
>> > This reality has gradually given rise to the widespread idea that the
>> second
>> > mode of common time can and should be beat "in two".
>> > If you are already exhausted by this email, you can stop here and come
>> back
>> > later.... : )
>> > Believe me as a "Northern singer" I had to re-learn all of this over the
>> > past four years, especially the beating of 'four four time' --- and the
>> > fundamental question "where is the one?" (primary accent).
>> > But in close study with the many of finest teachers of the 1991 book,
>> who
>> > were mentored and taught by J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw
>> etc.,
>> > I have come to see that the "down down up up" approach is able to
>> provide
>> > better accent in the second mode of common time, a fact which the recent
>> > recordings from Camp can attest to.
>> > Consider: These three teachers taught and learned from the 1936 Paine
>> Denson
>> > rudiments, which instruct that the "primary accent comes and is placed
>> on
>> > the first part of the measure when the hand *starts down* in marking
>> time to
>> > the right of the measure bar." (emphasis in bold added)
>> > Each of these thre teachers (Mr. Cagle, H.N. McGraw, Elder Kitchens) had
>> the
>> > same primary mentor in teaching, and that was Thomas J. Denson. He
>> > inititally learned from the B.F. White Rudiments and taught largely from
>> the
>> > James 1911 rudiments, which describe the placement of the primary accent
>> (or
>> > one) in nearly the same language retained by Paine Denson.
>> > I have worked closely with Hugh McGraw on this exact question, and he
>> has
>> > demonstrated to me numerous times that in four four time, the muscial
>> counts
>> > of one and two are on the downward stroke, and three and four are on the
>> > upward stroke. therefore "down-down, up-up" completes a measure of four
>> four
>> > time. (again see attached graphic)
>> > This is not to say that everyone does it this way -- : )
>> > But then again, if you sing every song extremely fast, then it doesn't
>> > really matter, because you have essentially shifted permanently into the
>> > third mode of common time (2/4). This is one of the main reasons why
>> Mr.
>> > Jeff Sheppard as been encouraging us to "slow down and feel the accent".
>> > When he was quoted in an interview saying that the Northern singers are
>> > faster than the Southern, some thought he was kidding, but the failure
>> to
>> > observe the secondary accent because we race through songs in four four
>> time
>> > is a large part of what he was referring to. And this is because "in
>> the
>> > North" we have tended to view all three modes of common time as being,
>> "in
>> > two".
>> > BUT - our understanding of modes of time is improving and therefore we
>> in
>> > the 'cold and frosty North' are learning to accent better in four four
>> time!
>> > And for learners of all ages to improve gradually by being repeatedly
>> > exposed to and taken through the rudiments, is traditional!
>> > J.E. Kitchens, A.M Cagle, and H.N. McGraw were more than just
>> "traditional
>> > singers," they were teachers of the rudiments. Sacred Harp is just as
>> much
>> > a tradition of teaching
Moods/Modes of Common Time must have something in common or they woulnd't all be called "Common Time."
If we ask how many notes of equal duration can fill a measure, the answer is
1 2 4 8 16 32 etc.
for each of the modes of Common Time.
If we ask where the accents fall, the answer is that the major accent falls at the beginning of the first note of a "2" measure, that a minor accent falls at the beginning of the second note of a "2" measure, and that these accents persist in the same places in "4", "8", "16", "32", and related compound measures (measures in which not all notes are of equal duration), except when altered by syncopation.
Each of the above is true whether the time signature is 2/2, 4/4, or 2/4.
These are the things that characterize time as "Common."
2/2, 4/4, and 2/4 represent increasing tempos. In some of the older books there was at least one more mode of Common Time (yet another tempo).
Any mode of Common Time can be beat in two (or in one, or in four, or in eight, etc.)
It is debatable, I think, what the top numeral means. Some take it to mean the number of beats in a measure, and that's OK with me. A leader may or may not mark each of those beats.
I prefer to think that the numerator gives instead the number of notes of the denominator type that it takes to fill a measure. Thus, 2/4 means that two quarter notes will fill a measure, and 4/4 means that it takes four quarter notes. This deals with notation, not beats or leading.
Fundamentally, I see all the modes of Common Time as the same, differing only in tempo.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, Will. This was meant to go here. - John
> *****
> Moods/Modes of Common Time must have something in common or they
> woulnd't all be called "Common Time."
> If we ask how many notes of equal duration can fill a measure, the answer
> is
> 1 2 4 8 16 32 etc.
> for each of the modes of Common Time.
> If we ask where the accents fall, the answer is that the major accent
> falls at the beginning of the first note of a "2" measure, that a
> minor accent falls at the beginning of the second note of a "2"
> measure, and that these accents persist in the same places in "4",
> "8", "16", "32", and related compound measures (measures in which not
> all notes are of equal duration), except when altered by syncopation.
> Each of the above is true whether the time signature is 2/2, 4/4, or 2/4.
> These are the things that characterize time as "Common."
> 2/2, 4/4, and 2/4 represent increasing tempos. In some of the older
> books there was at least one more mode of Common Time (yet another
> tempo).
> Any mode of Common Time can be beat in two (or in one, or in four, or
> in eight, etc.)
> It is debatable, I think, what the top numeral means. Some take it
> to mean the number of beats in a measure, and that's OK with me. A
> leader may or may not mark each of those beats.
> I prefer to think that the numerator gives instead the number of
> notes of the denominator type that it takes to fill a measure. Thus,
> 2/4 means that two quarter notes will fill a measure, and 4/4 means
> that it takes four quarter notes. This deals with notation, not
> beats or leading.
> Fundamentally, I see all the modes of Common Time as the same,
> differing only in tempo.
>Forgot about this little tidbit from JS James >1909 (Union Harp) rudiments...p 45.
>If the song is in 4 shapes=common time is in 2=d (d) u (u)
>If the song is in 7 shapes or round notes..okay to beat d-l-r-u !!!!
>Also think it's interesting that he says triple >time should be d-l-u (how Raymond Hamrick leads >in triple time)
>John Plunkett
>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM, John Garst ><<mailto:ga...@chem.uga.edu>ga...@chem.uga.edu> >wrote:
>Sorry, Will. This was meant to go here. - John
>*****
>Moods/Modes of Common Time must have something in common or they
>woulnd't all be called "Common Time."
>If we ask how many notes of equal duration can fill a measure, the answer is
>1 2 4 8 16 32 etc.
>for each of the modes of Common Time.
>If we ask where the accents fall, the answer is that the major accent
>falls at the beginning of the first note of a "2" measure, that a
>minor accent falls at the beginning of the second note of a "2"
>measure, and that these accents persist in the same places in "4",
>"8", "16", "32", and related compound measures (measures in which not
>all notes are of equal duration), except when altered by syncopation.
>Each of the above is true whether the time signature is 2/2, 4/4, or 2/4.
>These are the things that characterize time as "Common."
>2/2, 4/4, and 2/4 represent increasing tempos. In some of the older
>books there was at least one more mode of Common Time (yet another
>tempo).
>Any mode of Common Time can be beat in two (or in one, or in four, or
>in eight, etc.)
>It is debatable, I think, what the top numeral means. Some take it
>to mean the number of beats in a measure, and that's OK with me. A
>leader may or may not mark each of those beats.
>I prefer to think that the numerator gives instead the number of
>notes of the denominator type that it takes to fill a measure. Thus,
>2/4 means that two quarter notes will fill a measure, and 4/4 means
>that it takes four quarter notes. This deals with notation, not
>beats or leading.
>Fundamentally, I see all the modes of Common Time as the same,
>differing only in tempo.
--- On Fri, 7/10/09, John Plunkett <jhplunke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgot about this little tidbit > from JS James 1909 (Union Harp) rudiments...p 45. > > If the song is in 4 shapes=common time is in 2=d (d) u > (u) > If the song is in 7 shapes or round notes..okay to > beat d-l-r-u !!!! >
John, substantially the same is in the 1911 James revision, though perhaps formatted a little differently.
> Also think it's interesting that he says triple > time should be d-l-u (how Raymond Hamrick leads in triple > time) >
My Dad also beat triple time in this manner. I have no idea where he learned it, but probably in singing school (whether 4 or 7 shape I have no idea).
> From: Robert Vaughn <rl_vau...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [fasola-discussions] Re: leading slowly in 2
> To: jhplunke...@gmail.com, "Fasola discussions" <fasola-discussions@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 4:02 PM
> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John Plunkett <jhplunke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Forgot about this little tidbit
> > from JS James 1909 (Union Harp) rudiments...p 45.
> >
> > If the song is in 4 shapes=common time is in 2=d (d)
> u
> > (u)
> > If the song is in 7 shapes or round notes..okay to
> > beat d-l-r-u !!!!
> >
> John, substantially the same is in the 1911 James revision,
> though perhaps formatted a little differently.
> > Also think it's interesting that he says triple
> > time should be d-l-u (how Raymond Hamrick leads in
> triple
> > time)
> >
> My Dad also beat triple time in this manner. I have no idea
> where he learned it, but probably in singing school (whether
> 4 or 7 shape I have no idea).
--- On Fri, 7/10/09, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote:
> Well, you have to use your imagination.
> Imagine a sudden pulse of a hand following by a relaxed, > non-rhythmic > return to it original position, then another sudden pulse, > etc.
> Feet do this all the time.
> J
Thanks.
I don't have a good imagination and tend to be overly literalistic, so your suggestion was causing pain on my brain! I recently told someone that I have a mind like a steel trap -- rusty and hard to open.
I have cruelly edited what you wrote to bring out two points.
First, I do know what Mr. McGraw teaches, but that is not what was taught at Camp Fasola last month -- at least in one class I attended. What was taught there (and buttressed, when I questioned it, by reference to the plain text of the 1991 rudiments) was that the beginning of the beat of one occurs at the bottom of the downstroke.
Two other people had earlier reported to this list the emphasis on the 1991 rudiments at Camp Fasola last month, and I was chiming in to give a specific instance of that emphasis.
Second, is it possible to get a copy of your dissertation?
--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Thomas Malone <shapen...@gmail.com> > Subject: [fasola-discussions] Re: leading slowly in 2 > To: wadekot...@yahoo.com, ga...@chem.uga.edu, "Warren Steel" <mu...@olemiss.edu>, "Will Fitzgerald" <will.fitzger...@gmail.com> > Cc: fasola-discussions@googlegroups.com > Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 12:40 PM > WARNING : This is a long email. > Please skip it if you are not interested! > Thanks! If you are interested please go > slowly, I packed a lot of stuff in here. Whoo-wee!!!! >
. . .
> I have worked closely with Hugh McGraw on this exact > question, and he has demonstrated to me numerous times that > in four four time, the muscial counts of one and two are on > the downward stroke, and three and four are on the upward > stroke. therefore "down-down, up-up" completes a > measure of four four time. (again see attached > graphic)
> This is not to say that everyone does it this > way -- : )
> P.S.S. Yes, I just finished a dissertation on exactly this > question. So plese orgive the length and throughness of my > reponse, as well as any typoes or inconsistencies with quotes or spacing, I have learned that I am better at content than formatting.
This has been a fascinating discussion. I had never stopped to think about where the accent/stress of the beat falls in the leading pattern, but now that I analyze it, I realize that this is what I do myself: - in slow pieces notated in common time, my arm does a relatively smooth down-down up-up motion, using up lots of space, so that the beginning of the downbeat lands towards the beginning of the down stroke motion (and the same with slow pieces in three beating a languid down-down-up) - however, in fast pieces with sharper rhythmic accents, I beat a brisk cut-time down-up pattern in a relatively small space with the emphasis of the downbeat landing at the bottom of the down stroke. So indeed, I make use of both of the different downbeat-emphasis leading styles that have been discussed in this thread, as appropriate to different songs. No one taught me this, and I'm not sure where I picked it up, as I wasn't even conscious that I was doing it until now. (I've been singing Sacred Harp for about 10 years, mostly on the West Coast.) I wonder if others find that they do this as well?
Juniper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Juniper Hill, PhD Department of Music University College Cork Cork, Ireland
PLEASE NOTE: This e-mail message was dictated using voice recognition software. Sometimes it "mishears" what I speak and enters incorrect words. If something is unclear, please reply with a query and I will clarify what I spoke.
I remember this issue coming up years ago, and not long after I had the chance to carefully observe the Lees leading at a Seattle convention. The instant of the downbeat occurred at the bottom of the downward stroke, not the top. I recall a slight extra hand motion to mark the exact beat, or possibly it was just an artifact of changing directions.
Regarding the two Youtube videos,
Warren Steel wrote: >Once the song begins, you can see that the two >leaders' hands are moving in opposite directions most of the >time.
In both cases the two leaders are not what you would call synchronized, but in neither case are they at all "moving in opposite directions most of the time." Am I watching the same videos that everyone else is?
For example in Mount Pleasant, for every recurrence of the tenor "Fly... fly..." both leaders have their hands down at the instant that the "fly" melisma begins. Also for the bass fugue entrance, both leaders have the hand down at the bottom of the stroke.
In Homeward Bound, during the second stanza after the break in the video, the bass entrance is not clearly up or down but both leaders clearly move to the tenors again at the bottom of the stroke.
This video documentation coupled with my own observations tells me that indeed in traditional _practice_ the pulse of the downbeat is at the bottom of the stroke, not the top, regardless of what anybody _says_ one way or the other.
John Garst wrote: >dlru and dlu are what they teach in school. - J
In my non-SH school I was taught that the first intermediate beat should be outward from the body, not across, to make it more clearly visible. So the right hand motion would be drlu or dru. When using both hands the motions are symmetric, down-out-in-up or down-out-up.
> In both cases the two leaders are not what you would call > synchronized, but in neither case are they at all "moving > in > opposite directions most of the time." Am I watching the > same > videos that everyone else is?
I have watched the videos you link above. I think "not-synchronized" is a better word choice than "moving opposite directions". At least when I think of moving opposite directions I would envision one going up while the other is going down and vice-versa throughout the song. That probably isn't what Warren meant, though.
> This video documentation coupled with my own observations > tells me > that indeed in traditional _practice_ the pulse of the > downbeat is > at the bottom of the stroke, not the top, regardless of > what anybody > _says_ one way or the other.
I'm not really sure this particular video documentation meets the original criteria of "leading slooowly in 2", but maybe I miss what Richard was getting at. Regardless, if a person is beating/thinking 1-2 (not 1-2-3-4) it seems for most the "1" is down. Whether it is traditional or not I'll leave someone else to worry over.
> So the right hand motion would be drlu or > dru. When using > both hands the motions are symmetric, down-out-in-up or > down-out-up.
This points out that we usually discuss beating time in terms of "left-right" with a right-handed bias.
