Vital Sparks: Auld Lang Syne

[Will Fitzgerald]

My latest Vital Sparks essay, on 162 PLENARY and Auld Lang Syne. 

https://vitalsparks.beehiiv.com/p/vital-sparks-auld-lang-syne

Let me know your thoughts.

Will

[Antonio James Higgins]

Thanks!

AJH

[Will Fitzgerald]

Of course, I immediately noticed an omission: I forgot to cite Warren Steel who helpfully pointed on the possible connection between Clark and Walker on this very discussions list. Sorry, Warren. It's been corrected on the Web version.

WF

On Sunday, December 28, 2025 at 8:22:34 PM UTC-5 Will Fitzgerald wrote:

[Robert Vaughn]

PLENARY is also in The Sacred Harp, Fourth Edition with Supplement. There it has only one stanza, and no alto part. 

Re the subtle difference between the punctuation of the 2025 Denson book and the 2012 Cooper book edition, I’ll assume you think the 2025 punctuation is closer. Since you were an editor on the 2025 punctuation, I think you would have gotten it fixed in a way you think was closer to Watts’s intent. I am sure I found it but will leave it unmentioned for now since others may still be looking. 

Besides the subtle difference in punctuation, there are some major differences in the two texts.

Sincerely,

Robert Vaughn 

Mount Enterprise, TX

http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com 

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

http://mtcarmelbaptist.blogspot.com 

For ask now of the days that are past...

http://oldredland.blogspot.com 

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

--
--
Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" Email List
FAQ: http://ej345.com/fasola/Fasola-Discussions-FAQ.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fasola-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/23b723a4-e271-4683-bea4-f59151b37909n%40googlegroups.com.

[Will Fitzgerald]

Thank you, Robert.

On Sunday, December 28, 2025 at 11:22:46 PM UTC-5 R. L. Vaughn wrote:

PLENARY is also in The Sacred Harp, Fourth Edition with Supplement. There it has only one stanza, and no alto part. 

Re the subtle difference between the punctuation of the 2025 Denson book and the 2012 Cooper book edition, I’ll assume you think the 2025 punctuation is closer. Since you were an editor on the 2025 punctuation, I think you would have gotten it fixed in a way you think was closer to Watts’s intent. I am sure I found it but will leave it unmentioned for now since others may still be looking. 

Besides the subtle difference in punctuation, there are some major differences in the two texts.

In fact, I was one of the editors for this particular text! I'd actually forgotten that. I think it is fair to say that the 2025 edition, as a general rule, was “originalist” in orientation. If I'd actually remembered that I'd worked on this lyric, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Certainly, I wasn't writing in criticism of the Cooper revision strain.

And I missed the word changes completely! I don't have any editions of the Cooper book older than 2006, so I don't know when the texts began to deviate.

Here are the texts I have ready access to. I imagine there are early Cooper editions scanned online, but Internet Archive is down, and I am not being successful in finding anything at Google Books or the Hathi Trust. I hope I copied them correctly! It's very likely there are a few errors in transcription.


Watts, 1709, Hymns and Spiritual Songs (note, there are not very significant differences among the 16 editions made during his lifetime, according to Selma L. Bishop's book)

Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound,
My ears attend the cry,
“Ye living men, come view the ground
“Where you must shortly lie.

“Princes, this clay must be your bed,
“In spite of all your towers;
“The tall, the wise, the reverend head
“Must lie as low as ours.”

Great God, is this our certain doom?
And are we still secure?
Still walking downward to our tomb,
And yet prepare no more?

Grant us the powers of quickening grace
To fit our souls to fly,
Then, when we drop this dying flesh,
We'll rise above the sky.

1844 (First edition) One verse only!

Hark! from the tomb a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry;
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

1870 (Fourth edition)

Hark! from the tomb a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry;
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

1911 (James book) 

Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry;
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

“Princes, this clay must be your bed,
In spite of all your tow’rs;
The tall, the wise, the reverend head
Must lie as low as ours.”

Great God! is this our certain doom?
And are we still secure?
Still walking downward to the tomb,
And yet prepared no more!

1991 Edition

Hark! from the tomb a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry,
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

“Princes, this clay must be your bed,
In spite of all your tow’rs;
The tall, the wise, the rev’rend head,
Must lie as low as ours.”

Great God! is this our certain doom?
And are we still secure?
Still walking downward to the tomb,
And yet prepared no more!


2006 (Cooper Book)

Hark! from the tomb a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry:
“Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

“Princes, this clay must be your bed
In spite of all your pow’r;
The tall, the wise, the rev’rend head
Must lie as low as ours.

“Great God! is this our certain doom?
And are we now prepared?
We’re marching onward to the tomb
Where pardon is no more.”

Note: The last phrase in the third chorus, which is corrected in the 2012 edition, is: Where mercy is no more.”

2012 (Cooper Book)

Hark! from the tomb a doleful sound,
Mine ears, attend the cry:
“Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

“Princes, this clay must be your bed
In spite of all your pow’r;
The tall, the wise, the rev’rend head
Must lie as low as ours.

“Great God! is this our certain doom?
And are we now prepared?
We’re marching onward to the tomb
Where pardon is no more.”

2025 Edition

Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound;
Mine ears, attend the cry,
“Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.”

“Princes, this clay must be your bed,
In spite of all your tow’rs;
The tall, the wise, the rev’rend head
Must lie as low as ours.”

Great God! is this our certain doom?
And are we still secure?
Still walking downward to the tomb,
And yet prepared no more!

 

[j frankel]

I haven't had a chance to sing the new 2025 Denson Plenary yet, but I can tell you the 2025 "Delight" has messed up the alto part by making it come in late on the fugue.

I haven't checked all the other parts, but at a singing I went to here in Somerville Mass, everybody sounded confused.

Why did a committee with no strong southern altos decide to mess with alto parts?

And 2025 Denson continues the mistake introduced in recent printings of 1991, where in "Consecration" the 2nd note in the 2nd half of the alto is a "la" instead of the "fa" that previously was there.

If the committee doesn't like alto parts, it would be better to just leave them out rather than weaken them.

I for one plan to continue singing what I learned on Lookout Mountain.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1312074845.4956567.1766981477756%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Antonio James Higgins]

Regarding punctuation and word choices, here is a play by play of the Watts (1707, 1st ed.), SH2025. SH1991, and SH2012. I hope this shows that all three editions of the Sacred Harp differ vastly in terms of punctuation than the Watts original. There should be no need for assumptions now :). I also did a bit of amateur analysis, and my own punctuation offering. I hope you don't mind.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iKH7dd0enAYFA5sxl9IOgL8sc8aFOy6jRxK1kHgdfmU/edit?usp=sharing

Blessings!
AJH

[Will Fitzgerald]

On Monday, December 29, 2025 at 1:08:44 AM UTC-5 ajhi...@gmail.com wrote:

Regarding punctuation and word choices, here is a play by play of the Watts (1707, 1st ed.), SH2025. SH1991, and SH2012. I hope this shows that all three editions of the Sacred Harp differ vastly in terms of punctuation than the Watts original. There should be no need for assumptions now :). I also did a bit of amateur analysis, and my own punctuation offering. I hope you don't mind.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iKH7dd0enAYFA5sxl9IOgL8sc8aFOy6jRxK1kHgdfmU/edit?usp=sharing

Blessings!
AJH

Wow, great work! I think Watts's quotation practice is not dissimilar to what this listserv does — place a quotation symbol at the start of each line. The quote continues into the second verse, so there is no "close quotation" at the end of the first verse in his typesetting practice — fairly standard practice then, as now. Of course, we have them as lyrics, so end quotes make more sense at the end of the first verse.  

[Antonio James Higgins]

Dear J. Frankel,

Hello. I hope you are well! Regarding the alto on Delight, I have checked the sheet music (on Sacred Harp Bremen), and I could be wrong, but the parts look exactly the same: https://sacredharpbremen.org/216-delight/ and  https://sh1991.sacredharpbremen.org/216-delight/

I can't verify the Consecration to see when that change was made. I will check the 1970 ed. when Archive comes back on.

Blessings!
AJH

[Wade Kotter]

Perhaps Joan's issue is with the music spacing of DELIGHT in the 2025 ed., not the music itself, which as you say is unchanged. In the 1991 ed., the alto starts on the final beat of the second system while in the 2025 ed. the alto starts on the final beat of the last measure of the first system. In both cases, the alto part comes in on the final beat of the third full measure in the fuging section. The alto part has not been changed.

In terms of CONSECRATION, it first appeared in the 1870 4th ed. where it was printed using the old alto clef. It has both 1-la and 3-fa at the location mentioned by Joan. In other words, altos were given the option of singing 1-la or 3-fa, an example of what is sometimes called "choosing notes." Both la and fa appear at this position in the 1971 ed., so the optional fa was removed in the 1991 ed. I guess it's possible that David Ivey and/or Terry Wooten might be able to tell us why this was done. The 2012 Cooper book retains the choosing notes.

Wad

Dr. Wade Kotter

Retired Librarian

Independent Hymnologist and Unrestrained Loud Treble

South Ogden, UT

"Make a Joyful Noise Unto the Lord" 

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/4bf96c2d-0f30-450a-b590-5df3ee30d7b2n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Wade Kotter]

Oops. For my first sentence, I meant to say: "In the 1991 ed., the alto starts on the final beat of the first measure of the second system while in the 2025 ed. the alto starts on the final beat of the last measure of the first system."

Wade

Dr. Wade Kotter

Retired Librarian

Independent Hymnologist and Unrestrained Loud Treble

South Ogden, UT

"Make a Joyful Noise Unto the Lord" 

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1824493914.5084597.1767025325931%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[j frankel]

My guess, without knowing the other parts in "Delight", is that they may have been juggled too.  *Everyone* seemed puzzled, not just the altos, which were mainly me at this particular singing.

In "Consecration", my original 1991 Denson has a "fa" for the note I spoke of.  It *is* a choosing note.  To my recall the Lookout Mountain Ladies chose it.  Its only the replacement 1991 that has only a "la".

Altos have so few outstanding parts on which we can really go to town.

Why mess with them.

And removal of "Federal Street" removes the whole song!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/840094303.5101710.1767027733984%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Wade Kotter]

No, none of the parts in DELIGHT have been "jiggled" in the 2025 edition. The only change is the music spacing as I said. No one "messed" with the alto part in DELIGHT. The removal of the fa in what you refer to as the "replacement 1991," but which I assume you are referring to later printings, was not done by the music committee for the 2025 edition. I agree it would have probably been better to return the choosing note found in earlier editions. Regardless, I have no problem with altos singing the fa here instead of the la.

Wade

Dr. Wade Kotter

Retired Librarian

Independent Hymnologist and Unrestrained Loud Treble

South Ogden, UT

"Make a Joyful Noise Unto the Lord" 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr8C75m1NrUda51cuM_cbt%3D32s2yJ219ndSMCtcKCou92w%40mail.gmail.com.

[j frankel]

Yup, later 1991 editions.  For me, it replaced a falling-apart book.  Then soda pop from my special bottle promptly bubbled all over my replacement book.  I can't blame that on the editors.

[Micah Walter]

Will writes:

In fact, I was one of the editors for this particular text! I'd actually forgotten that. I think it is fair to say that the 2025 edition, as a general rule, was “originalist” in orientation. If I'd actually remembered that I'd worked on this lyric, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Certainly, I wasn't writing in criticism of the Cooper revision strain.

I don't fully disagree, but I think it would be misleading to reduce the approach (or approaches) of the text editing committee to a single descriptor. The committee members approached the texts in a variety of ways, individually and collectively, and gave weight to multiple considerations, which were often in tension. It's true that early versions of text were given attention as part of the process. I also acknowledged a principle of non-disruption: an inclination to leave texts as they were in the 1991 edition if there would be no significant gain to clarity or integrity by changing it. In other words, it might be worth preserving the text as it reached the present day via the Sacred Harp stream, even if it was different from the original. (This explains minor word variations, such as "His sacred head" and "that sacred head" in 290 and 310.) Clarity, existing practice, and original intent are all important!

In the case of PLENARY, I might be inclined to punctuate the first two lines as follows, if I were editing it for a modern edition of Watts' poems:

Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound!

My ears attend the cry:

But in the context of our tunebook, using the 1991 edition as a starting point, I would likely edit the text differently:

• The change from "Mine" to "My" seems unnecessarily scrupulous, and a small but noticeable disruption to singers.
• The extra exclamation point gives only a small amount of clarity, in line with authorial intent, compared to how strong it would feel when singing. (The earliest printings of many texts have significantly more exclamation points than the song texts as found in The Sacred Harp, and it would likely have been too disruptive to restore each of them!)
• The Southern Harmony and all previous editions of the Sacred Harp in the Denson line treat "Mine ears" as a vocative, even if "Mine ears attend" was a simple statement (without a comma) in Watts' original text. The meaning as it's come down to us makes fine sense, so I'd hesitate to adjust it. This is the punctuation difference with the Cooper Book, and (contrary to expectation!) I believe the Cooper Book is in fact closer to Watts' probable intent. Whether that makes it better for the purposes of singers is a matter of individual judgment.
• The plural "tombs", to me, makes more sense than "tomb"; this is in line not only with the original text, but also earlier editions of the Sacred Harp such as the 1911 James Book. Reverting changes introduced in the 1991 book (which were plausibly mistakes) in order to bring the text in line with the earliest sources and/or the Sacred Harp stream makes a lot of sense, lest our book drift further and further away from its sources.

This is all hypothetical, as I did not edit the text for 162; I'm using this merely as an illustration of the tension between an originalist and non-disruptive approaches, both of which, in my estimation, were component parts of the text editing process.

Joan: this is speculation, but I wonder if avoiding disruption may have applied to the choosing note in 448t. Many singers love the song as it is, and I for one would prefer a revision that erred on the side of making slightly too few changes than too many. Others, like you, who sing alto and prefer the fa don't need the book's permission to do so, since the two notes are not discordant.

Micah

[Will Fitzgerald]

Micah writes:

| I don't fully disagree, but I think it would be misleading to reduce the approach (or approaches) of the text editing committee to a single descriptor.

Amen. Also, I love Micah's more filled out description here, which captures the tenor of the conversations we had while editing the texts. 

Will

[Robert Vaughn]

Micah writes: The plural "tombs", to me, makes more sense than "tomb"; this is in line not only with the original text, but also earlier editions of the Sacred Harp such as the 1911 James Book. Reverting changes introduced in the 1991 book (which were plausibly mistakes) in order to bring the text in line with the earliest sources and/or the Sacred Harp stream makes a lot of sense, lest our book drift further and further away from its sources.

My copy of the 1991 has "tombs" plural, so on this particular word I do not think the James-Denson stream has ever had the singular, as found in the Cooper stream. This would not be a case of reverting a change introduced in the 1991 book.

Sincerely,

Robert Vaughn 

Mount Enterprise, TX

http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com 

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

http://mtcarmelbaptist.blogspot.com 

For ask now of the days that are past...

http://oldredland.blogspot.com 

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

--

--
Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" Email List
FAQ: http://ej345.com/fasola/Fasola-Discussions-FAQ.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fasola-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAHUXprQBWxriBhii2%3Down5GJA%3DiLs3SLZpE9VKXaHQc9L4Vs5w%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Will Fitzgerald]

R. L. Vaughn writes:

| My copy of the 1991 has "tombs" plural, so on this particular word I do not think the James-Denson stream has ever had the singular, as found in the Cooper stream. This would not be a case of reverting a change introduced in the 1991 book.

Ok, here's an interesting thing: My very early printing of the 1991 edition has "tombs", but a later edition has "tomb".  The most recent digitized version of the 1991 edition, which we used as a baseline, also has "tomb".

I'm curious how that slipped in!

[Antonio James Higgins]

At least some copies have "tomb" singular in the 1991 book. The Bremen website has the singular https://sh1991.sacredharpbremen.org/162-plenary/ 

Blessings,
AJH

[j frankel]

I just checked the '71 Denson, the book I started with, & the "fa" as choosing note in 448T is there.

I do not care what the historically original note was.  I feel whoever removed it in the '91 later printings & kept it removed in the '25 wants altos not to stand out.

They would prefer us not to *exist*.

And wants me to get dirty looks.  Up here (New England) anyway.

I've attended numerous talks which take pains to demonstrate original alto parts.  Not a one is as good as "replacement altos".

Looks like what happened is people who wanted no alto sound removed alto parts.  Eventually they were added back by altos or people taking notes from altos.  Added back as much better parts.

Looks like the '25 committee is among the "remove altos" group, sadly.

A lot of times I've heard people complain about "those screechy altos" on historic southern recordings & it turns out what they were talking about was female trebles.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1837219477.5480999.1767114830530%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Robert Vaughn]

Will, that is very interesting and curious! I only checked the copy I use regularly, which would be one of the original/early printings. Somebody meddled with it in between times!

Sincerely,

Robert Vaughn 

Mount Enterprise, TX

http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com 

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

http://mtcarmelbaptist.blogspot.com 

For ask now of the days that are past...

http://oldredland.blogspot.com 

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

--

--
Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" Email List
FAQ: http://ej345.com/fasola/Fasola-Discussions-FAQ.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fasola-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/b0002dbb-6528-44bc-a0ea-564b36b968e9n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Gerben Vos]

j frankel schreef op 2025-12-30 18:52:

I just checked the '71 Denson, the book I started with, & the "fa" as choosing note in 448T is there.

 

I do not care what the historically original note was.  I feel whoever removed it in the '91 later printings & kept it removed in the '25 wants altos not to stand out.

 

They would prefer us not to *exist*.

 

And wants me to get dirty looks.  Up here (New England) anyway.

 

The question here is of course whether the 2025 revision editors were even aware that there used to be a la choosing note there. I think it's quite likely they weren't, which would mean there would be no reason to test the song with a southern alto either, because they weren't aware of any change. I think it's unlikely that the revision committee checked every note of every song against older editions. There was a long period in which people had the chance to make them aware of this kind of thing.

The curious bit is, of course, why the note was removed in later 1991 edition printings. It could also have been an oversight, although that is a lot less likely.

For what it's worth, I would be in favour of reinstating it.

Cheers (and hello everyone!),
                                        Gerben.

[j frankel]

Oh, David Ivey, chair of the committee, is certainly old enough & southern enough to have heard it.  Richard Ivey has heard it.  Terry Wootten is old & Southern enough to have heard it.

I once went to a singing Terry Wootten runs that only had 8 seats for altos.  I don't think this was an oversight.

But there were some great altos in those 8 seats.

I didn't get there early enough to sit with them.

[Matt Bell]

I don't see any reason to remove the choosing note, but since there are six other instances of that fa in the alto part, not wanting altos to exist doesn't seem the likeliest motive.

Matt Bell

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr9Dma9fZ3Nwpw_7gscQ-FLH37Rappt%3D_ehUA-hbDqqmpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[j frankel]

I appreciate that there are other "fa"s in the song.  I'm talking about the *important* one.

[Anne Evers]

Thank you for this information about the “choosing note” in Consecration. I have a first printing copy of the 1991 Denson book, and up until this past summer we were still finding errors in the book. It was part of the joy of singing from it. A few years ago we singing at the Western Mass Convention (first time there, haven’t gotten back yet), and when we sang Consecration, I sang the alternate alto note, and noticed no one else did. So I peeked at my neighbour’s book, and saw it wasn’t there. I figured it was just another typo. I’m glad to know the true history of this note, and maybe I’ll sneak it back in :)

Anne