Western Mass Convention

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

On Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 06:00:19 PM CDT, 'Peter Pate' via Fasola Discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/0DD86FDD-5029-46D2-8092-95814FF7131D%40yahoo.com.

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 2:53:05 AM (3 days ago) Mar 12

to Peter Pate, j frankel, cevaugh...@yahoo.com, Discussions Fasola

Thanks, Peter. I am unclear what you mean when you say that you sat in on the various conversations with composers. When did you sit in? When were they talking about it? While they were revising their submissions? Or reporting on it after the fact? Who was making gentle nudges and suggestions? Could you clarify? Thanks.

Sing on,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 2:53:05 AM (3 days ago) Mar 12

to Peter Pate, mat...@matthewmaclellan.com, Charity Vaughn, Discussions Fasola

They didn't say that in the talk David Ivey gave, & no other talks have been posted. I've read that some people's song were rewritten & others asked to rewrite their's.

Micah Walter

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 9:18:28 AM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to Fasola Discussions

Robert:

At the symposium, there were multiple panel sessions of composers where each had the opportunity to speak about what the composing and editing process was like for them. All composers included in the book who were present had the opportunity to share their perspective. These were all in the "second track" so they were not livestreamed, but I am given to understand that there will be recordings of all parts of the symposium available at some point.

Micah

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1467054101.52658.1773276308968%40mail.yahoo.com.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 9:59:51 AM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to micahj...@gmail.com, Fasola Discussions

I've been looking for that 2nd track to appear on-line since it was promised, the day of the convention.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/2DA96199-9A4D-4686-8D88-372876FD32D7%40gmail.com.

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:00:07 AM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to Fasola Discussions, Micah Walter

Thanks, Micah. I have also been given to understand that these recordings will eventually be available at some point. So, we are at about six months later and they still are not available. It would be nice if some questions could be answered in the meantime.

Sing on,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/2DA96199-9A4D-4686-8D88-372876FD32D7%40gmail.com.

Virus-free.www.avast.com

Charity Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 11:41:50 AM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to micahj...@gmail.com, Discussions Fasola

Micah,

From your recollection of events the rest of us do not have access to was there an explanation of why some composers were treated discrepantly?

- Charity

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2026, at 9:18 AM, Micah Walter <micahj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/2DA96199-9A4D-4686-8D88-372876FD32D7%40gmail.com.

Peter Pate

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 1:19:08 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to ghos...@gmail.com, micahj...@gmail.com, Discussions Fasola

Bob, as noted elsewhere in this thread, there were opportunities to sit and listen to composers. (Thank you Micah) The sessions were scheduled in the undercroft (?) with several big windows opening to the interior courtyard. Clearly that content, if collected, has not yet been shared.

My claim to accuracy is the same as any eyewitness to history. Several months on, my carbon-based hard drive is likely to have some bit drops. But I stand by the point that no composer spoke of “pressure” to edit or rewrite and no one spoke of the committee “forcibly” rewriting their song.

Peter

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2026, at 09:59, j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr_Z-Ma1bi57xoygk2EFZdssh_nWwH_XVH6nLiCz7LoUog%40mail.gmail.com.

rl_v...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 2:38:39 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to ghos...@gmail.com, ppa...@yahoo.com, micahj...@gmail.com, Discussions Fasola

Thanks, Peter, for clarifying that you are speaking of discussions at the symposium. I was not sure if that was how to take all of what you wrote. I don’t question the point that you heard no one say those things that way. However, I am saying that I have heard people say they had collaboration, had opportunities to edit, while others have said they received a rewrite with no collaboration and no chance to edit.

No to you particularly, Peter, but for anyone who might want to weigh in: What about all the songs that were submitted in 'SHified style' originally? Why might they have been overlooked for others not in the style that had to be rewritten?

Thanks.

Singing,

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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/BB743695-EADD-4E8D-BD85-A875DB54FBE5%40yahoo.com.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 4:33:39 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to Fasola Discussions

The songs I heard at trial singings were not really in SH style. They had a *lotta*notes, usually no discernable tune, & often way more fugues than a song should have to bear. And I'm talking about the *tenor* part.

I don't think those songs could be fixed up, or were.

Sorta answers why a few select individuals got 4 & 5 songs each in the new book. They're the only ones that could write 'em.

Charity Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:40:30 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to Micah Walter, Discussions Fasola

Micah,

The discrepant treatment referenced is not that edits were made or not, but rather how those edits were handled. One singer stated he was told his song had potential and he was permitted to edit it until it passed muster. Other singers were not given the option to edit their own songs or to be involved, but were handed the edited version without input of their own. Whether it’s malicious or otherwise I couldn’t say, I can only say for certain that it doesn’t make sense. There is evidence to suggest bias in the selection process, but that is a matter beyond editing.

As to your comments about the reasons for the edits - how could a song be deemed to be “excellent” or a contributor of greatness if it had to be entirely rewritten…? How is the book made more great by songs that are effectively not written by the person they are attributed to? That was actually a problem in the 91 book that was, it seems, remedied, and yet we have repeated the problem.

I am not overly concerned about what happened with past revisions. The fact that something unethical may have happened at that time doesn’t justify a repeat performance. The current revision purported to be a blind selection of the best songs, and composers submitted songs in good faith to that end - assuming their song was being judged on its merits, not its potential.

- Charity

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2026, at 7:39 PM, Micah Walter <micahj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Charity, to your question about discrepant treatment: yes, I believe this was very well explained. Songs that needed no edits to fit perfectly in the new book received no edits; those that in the committee's judgment would strengthen the book more after improvements were edited. It had to do with the details of the songs and what was best for the book. (If you are implying that discrepant treatment was personal or malicious, I'm afraid you may be encountering rumors and hearsay.)

I think this addresses Robert's question also:

What about all the songs that were submitted in 'SHified style' originally? Why might they have been overlooked for others not in the style that had to be rewritten?

According to my memory – apologies if I am remembering incorrectly – someone from the Revision-Music Committee said during one of the panels that about half the songs received edits to one degree or another. Some songs were stylistic as submitted, and they were approved with no edits. Others were strong contenders for the book, and had the potential to contribute to the greatness of the revision, but in the judgment of the Revision-Music Committee would benefit from improvements. It does not seem reasonable for creating the best possible revision of The Sacred Harp to be the goal, and then to disqualify excellent songs simply because edits (whether light or extensive) would be required for them to shine at their best in the context of this book.

Speaking for myself – my songs were accepted with edits that were significant, but I believe the songs' essential character was certainly maintained. Hearing the recordings and going through the edits with an open mind allowed me to look past my attachment to how they had lodged themselves in my mind, acknowledge that the vast majority of the edits improved the song (at least in terms of making them more stylistic for Sacred Harp singing), and propose a small number of counter-suggestions where I felt an "edit to the edit" would improve upon what was there originally while addressing what I felt to be lacking in the first edit.

Note also that edits and revisions to songs have taken place throughout the history of the book, since the first arrangements of folk hymns. As one more recent example where we can actually see the edits because successive revisions were published – WHERE CEASELESS AGES ROLL was significantly revised for the 1966 edition, and is much different than the 1960 version. (Sometimes the book is most improved by excluding a song; sometimes it is most improved by revising. Sometimes people may disagree on what is best in a given case, while still respecting this basic principle.)

It's possible that composers who felt that any edits to their song whatsoever, or who thought that every element of the original song was integral to their vision, or who wished to preserve their original vision over what would be best in the context of the book and our singing community, would choose not to approve the proposed edits, or to approve most but suggest a few counter-edits in good faith. Such would be their right and I would not begrudge them. But composers' different preferences and attitudes to their own work, and hence their different reactions to the process, certainly would not constitute malicious discrepancy on the part of the committee.

Micah

On Mar 12, 2026, at 11:37, Charity Vaughn <cevaugh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Micah,

From your recollection of events the rest of us do not have access to was there an explanation of why some composers were treated discrepantly?

- Charity

Sent from my iPhone

Charity Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:40:31 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to ghos...@gmail.com, Discussions Fasola

Maybe. Or maybe it’s that their songs were known to certain people on the committee who selected them for that reason. Considering people I personally know who submitted songs the theory that those individuals got their songs in the book because there was nothing else appropriate doesn’t hold water.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2026, at 4:33 PM, j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr-y17cDPpRmZayxTHMrDT6P2GH6p7wqLgoAUFZxCwDZAA%40mail.gmail.com.

Carlton, David L

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:40:32 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to rl_v...@yahoo.com, ppa...@yahoo.com, Fasola Discussion List, j frankel, cevaugh...@yahoo.com

Robert and All,

I find this discussion a bit confusing. No one has contended that the Revision Committee could not find ten percent of the submissions that were in “Sacred Harp style.” Joan has remarked that the songs in the test singings she attended seemed “fussy,” but that may well have been luck of the draw, as only 80-90 songs of the over 1,000 submissions were sung at each session. I participated in two of those singings, and was underwhelmed with a lot of what was on offer, so that wouldn’t be a surprise to me. Nor is there any reason to believe that the Committee bypassed the testing process for favored songs or composers.

The Committee did edit for “improvement.” “Improvement,” of course, is often in the eye of the beholder, but the process was a joint effort, and the Committee members have stated that they worked by consensus, which would provide a check on any personal biases (I would add that I’ve known virtually all the members for many years, and have the utmost respect for them). I don’t doubt that in a project this huge missteps were made in working with submitters, but I see no evidence of bad faith.

Finally, I’d note that *any* submission for publication (and I’ve made quite a few in my academic career) involves submission to editing. The submission may be *your* product, but the publication is *theirs.* The SHPC is primarily obligated, after all, not to those who submitted new tunes, but to maintaining the integrity of the tradition and the vitality of the singing community. By those criteria, I consider the 2025 edition a triumph.

Micah Walter

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:40:33 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to Charity Vaughn, Discussions Fasola

Charity, to your question about discrepant treatment: yes, I believe this was very well explained. Songs that needed no edits to fit perfectly in the new book received no edits; those that in the committee's judgment would strengthen the book more after improvements were edited. It had to do with the details of the songs and what was best for the book. (If you are implying that discrepant treatment was personal or malicious, I'm afraid you may be encountering rumors and hearsay.)

I think this addresses Robert's question also:

What about all the songs that were submitted in 'SHified style' originally? Why might they have been overlooked for others not in the style that had to be rewritten?

According to my memory – apologies if I am remembering incorrectly – someone from the Revision-Music Committee said during one of the panels that about half the songs received edits to one degree or another. Some songs were stylistic as submitted, and they were approved with no edits. Others were strong contenders for the book, and had the potential to contribute to the greatness of the revision, but in the judgment of the Revision-Music Committee would benefit from improvements. It does not seem reasonable for creating the best possible revision of The Sacred Harp to be the goal, and then to disqualify excellent songs simply because edits (whether light or extensive) would be required for them to shine at their best in the context of this book.

Speaking for myself – my songs were accepted with edits that were significant, but I believe the songs' essential character was certainly maintained. Hearing the recordings and going through the edits with an open mind allowed me to look past my attachment to how they had lodged themselves in my mind, acknowledge that the vast majority of the edits improved the song (at least in terms of making them more stylistic for Sacred Harp singing), and propose a small number of counter-suggestions where I felt an "edit to the edit" would improve upon what was there originally while addressing what I felt to be lacking in the first edit.

Note also that edits and revisions to songs have taken place throughout the history of the book, since the first arrangements of folk hymns. As one more recent example where we can actually see the edits because successive revisions were published – WHERE CEASELESS AGES ROLL was significantly revised for the 1966 edition, and is much different than the 1960 version. (Sometimes the book is most improved by excluding a song; sometimes it is most improved by revising. Sometimes people may disagree on what is best in a given case, while still respecting this basic principle.)

It's possible that composers who felt that any edits to their song whatsoever, or who thought that every element of the original song was integral to their vision, or who wished to preserve their original vision over what would be best in the context of the book and our singing community, would choose not to approve the proposed edits, or to approve most but suggest a few counter-edits in good faith. Such would be their right and I would not begrudge them. But composers' different preferences and attitudes to their own work, and hence their different reactions to the process, certainly would not constitute malicious discrepancy on the part of the committee.

Micah

On Mar 12, 2026, at 11:37, Charity Vaughn <cevaugh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 12, 2026, 10:40:34 PM (2 days ago) Mar 12

to ppa...@yahoo.com, Fasola Discussion List, Carlton, David L, j frankel, cevaugh...@yahoo.com

Hi, David. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I do not think anyone is objecting to the use of editing, per se, but rather to how it was applied (and whether it was applied equally). In your experience with academic journals, etc., how was the editing process followed? With collaboration? Was it reshaping, dialoging, suggesting changes, further nudging, etc., etc.? Revise this, resubmit, let us talk about it? Or were the editors doing the rewriting themselves? Or something else?

Let me clarify, David, that I did not assert that the Revision Committee could not find ten percent of the submissions that were in “Sacred Harp style.” But I did ask about it, considering there were 1155 submissions and only 113 songs were chosen, and many of those edited (and of course all of the 113 were not by living composers. Only what, about 80 by about 50 living composers?). But I did understand it to be asserted in this thread that many were not in the style, and that even composers at the symposium said the committee worked diligently with the composers to "SH-ify" their songs. That seems to be an admission that they did not fit the style.

Sing on,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 12:46:29 AM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Charity Vaughn, Micah Walter, Discussions Fasola

Micah,

Thanks for sharing your memories. I certainly understand not remembering everything correctly. I have that problem as well. But what you say that someone from the Revision-Music Committee said agrees with what Board President Mike Hinton also said, that about 50% of the songs were edited. I do not recall if he mentioned degree of editing, but he did mention percent. It certainly is not unreasonable to expect some songs would need editing. Yet some of what happened with the editing – we don’t have to call it malicious – was just wrong. I am unaware of any acknowledgement of that, though the more we talk about this the more obvious it is that all composers whose songs were selected were not given the same opportunities regarding the editing of their songs.

Your own experience indicates that you had an opportunity to see and listen to the edits, consider the value of them (or not), and to propose counter edits. Now that process sounds fine; what we might expect. But why were other composers not given that same opportunity that you had?

As I have previously said, no one is objecting to the principle that submitted songs could need and get edits. (Although it does seem a bit surprising that after picking about 10% of 1155 songs – and less than that, considering some of the 113 were old songs – that many of them still needed substantial edits.) Neither is anyone claiming that editing has not been done by Sacred Harp committees in the past. Some of it may have even been done in a manner that we would not approve of now. Ultimately, that becomes a bit of “whataboutism” if intended to distract from the elephant in the room, the present discussion of whether there are present problems or not.

I also am not primarily concerned about composers own preferences about the editing of their work. That is a different discussion. My primary point at the moment is to ask for an answer to why some composers were given the opportunity to communicate with the committee regarding the edits of their songs and others were not. I hope that may help clear up what I am trying to get across, and I hope someone on the music editing committee will eventually answer that.

Thanks.

Sing On,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAHUXprTi0y42s-cbbkHvYuY5hwH8iuO%3DxubKtUtnds%3DfHRwAZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Dan Thoma

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 12:59:37 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to fasola-di...@googlegroups.com

Robert,

You are asking questions that may be unanswerable. The committee was transparent about its "macro" processes, but out of necessity will probably remain mum about its individual decisions and interactions with composers. In my mind, it's kind of like a public council that goes into executive session when discussing personnel issues. There are details you have to shield from the public in order to preserve the privacy of others and in order to have free and frank discussions among yourselves.

Those of us not on the committee have very limited information about a process that roils with powerful hopes, dreams, and disappointments. We love this tradition and this book. What may look like discrepant treatment might be the result of discrepant circumstances; or maybe not. Perhaps you know a lot more than I do, but it's hard for me to imagine that anyone outside the committee has enough information to make a judgment about whether the committee's treatment of one composer vis-a-vis another was wrong. In my view, the very sensitivity of the subject is the core reason why we will never know key details about the committee's decisions and interactions.

Sincerely,
Dan Thoma

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1815587662.77941.1773372693412%40mail.yahoo.com.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 12:59:49 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions

I keep remembering being told that Bruce Randall was told they were going to swap his tenor & treble parts on "Natick" for the 1991 book. Not asked, told.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/1815587662.77941.1773372693412%40mail.yahoo.com.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 1:02:54 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions

Thinking about it, this may devolve into who on the committee is doing the editing, & the communicating about it. Some having different styles than others. Not intentional malevolence. And different time frames they're working on for fitting songs onto various pages.

And has anyone studied if & if so, how the new-to-book songs from dead composers were reworked? And if permission was asked of their descendants?

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 2:30:12 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions, j frankel

Joan,

There were some changes. In songs that were in the public domain, it would be up for grabs, with no need to ask for permission. If the song were more recently composed and copyrighted, permission would be needed.

I cannot recall all of what I have seen, but remember a few offhand. A couple of notes were changed in the bass of Dan Brittain's IOWA. Changes were made in two of Raymond Hamrick's songs (more extensive changes than in Dan's) -- SLEEPERS AWAKE & HUMILITY. HUMILITY has a fairly substantial rewrite of the alto part. SLEEPERS AWAKE has some note changes in the bass and alto. There are also note changes in the tenor (one note change might be a correction of a typo). In measures 16 & 17 they do not change the notes, but tie five notes together with a slur and then changed the text to make the words fit that change.

Sing On,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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

https://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2025/09/an-example-of-2025-sacred-harp.html

Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr8eR%3DqA5EvZa8VxRMU--WkXX%2BEWmiD5rnDXCiwAQVNLwg%40mail.gmail.com.

Chris Noren

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 2:30:23 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to ghos...@gmail.com, Fasola Discussions

Glen Wright. And honestly both parts are excellent melodies!

Chris N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-discussions/CAKN%2Bcr_10_aJo-azExr%2B3kNt%2BTW3m%3DHGQhX-RaE_D12EDjDwGg%40mail.gmail.com.

j frankel

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 4:27:45 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions

I believe "Mount Desert" is the song I meant.

Peole who cautioned us "they may change your song" also told us "you have to give the Corporation copyright".

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 3:09 PM j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Western Mass Convention
To: Paul Robinson <ptr....@comcast.net>

People have pointed out I ascribed wrong song to Reynolds. I can't reach book (I can't easily move these days) to look up right song.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 1:44 PM Paul Robinson <ptr....@comcast.net> wrote:

You're probably thinking of a different song. Glen Wright wrote "Natick" and the parts in the book are what I remember from when he wrote it.

--paulr

j frankel

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 4:27:57 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Western Mass Convention
To: Paul Robinson <ptr....@comcast.net>

People have pointed out I ascribed wrong song to Reynolds. I can't reach book (I can't easily move these days) to look up right song.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 1:44 PM Paul Robinson <ptr....@comcast.net> wrote:

You're probably thinking of a different song. Glen Wright wrote "Natick" and the parts in the book are what I remember from when he wrote it.

--paulr

On 03/13/2026 12:29 PM EDT j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com> wrote:

j frankel

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 4:28:16 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to Fasola Discussions

Another reason a song could get rejected is not "its not SH enough" but "it sounds too much like a song we already chose".

But if so, they should *say* that.

Robert Vaughn

unread,

Mar 13, 2026, 4:43:07 PM (yesterday) Mar 13

to fasola-di...@googlegroups.com, dst...@comcast.net

Hi, Dan,

Interesting stuff to think about. Thanks.

I am unable to imagine any kind of discrepant circumstances which would lead a music editing committee to communicate with some composers and not others – unless they just could not get ahold of them. But, then again, if they could not get ahold of them to discuss music editing, how could they get ahold of them to ask for permission to use their song? Others may have a better imagination than I.

But for now, let us pass over the committee’s treatment of one composer vis-a-vis another. What about their treatment of one composer? This is situation known to the committee, known to the composers, and known to Sacred Harp singers. No reason I can see to maintain privacy or secrecy at this point, and seems in this case better not to. Under what standard of ethical editing is it right to edit another person’s work without their knowledge? As David and I previously discussed, that is not considered ethical practice in the academic world.

So, real life circumstance; not a fictious scenario. A composer is notified in May that the song had made the final cut. Almost a year later, that composer is notified by the committee that the song has been selected for inclusion in the new revision. The correspondence including attachments of the song as revised by the committee (seen here for the first time by the composer), as well as legal forms (permission, etc.) to be returned within one week. This circumstance exposed a flaw and then brought to light further inconsistencies in the revision process. I had not given it much thought until this happened.

Sing on,

Robert Vaughn

Mount Enterprise, TX

Ask for the old paths, where is the good way

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