Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

[R. L. Vaughn]

I have read a number of views on the types of tunes in Sacred
Harp.,What about the types of text? Has anyone ever classified the
type of texts found in the Sacred Harp?

Here are a few I thought of.
Christian theology texts -- the majority of texts in the Sacred Harp
books speak of salvation, crucifixion, resurrection, the Bible, sin,
judgement, etc.
Patriotic texts -- as in Mount Vernon, Murillo's Lesson, America/My
Country Tis of Thee
Sentimental texts -- as in The Orphan Girl, Infant Request

Others? - as in what??

These divisions would not be mutually exclusive. For examples:
The Orphan Girl is couched within Christian terms, but the main story
is a sentimental one that tugs on the heart strings. My Country Tis of
Thee is both religious and patriotic. The "home" type texts (Home,
Sweet Home; My Beautiful Home, these types of hymns) seem to fall
between Christian theology and sentimental, a sort of longing type of
hymn/text.

Are these ideas correct? Valid? What types of text do you see in the
Sacred Harp tradition?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Robert Vaughn
Mt. E, TX

[Robert McKay]

 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT) "R. L. Vaughn" <rl_v...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Are these ideas correct? Valid? What types of text do you see in
> the
> Sacred Harp tradition?

 

I don't have a vast familiarity with what's out there - shoot, I don't even have a vast familiarity with the Denson book, which is what we sing from the majority of the time here in Albuquerque.  But it seems to me that all the various categories we could come up with are actually subdivisions of the general "Christian music" genre.  Of course, saying the songs in the Denson book (and, I would presume, in the Cooper book, the Harmonia Sacra, etc.) are "Christian music" isn't necessarily informative - that label also fits Phil Keaggy's stuff (I do so wish the story about Jimi Hendrix calling Keaggy the greatest guitarist in the world were true<vbg>), and praise chorus, and the country gospel of Abe Zacharias, and metrical psalms...

 

But unless there's something the Denson book that I've not yet seen (a possibility, since I haven't by any means sung or even read the text of all the songs in that book), and which falls outside the category, "Christian music" does fit all the material.  And then we can subdivide.

 

Having expatiated thus far, I will say that it seems to me that as such subdivisions, the categories you named are quite apt.

 

Robert McKay (goffsca...@juno.com)
Sacred harp singing rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------
You don't have to play,/You can follow or lead the way,/I want you to join together with the band,/We don't know where we're going,/But the season's right for knowing,/I want you to join together with the band.
[Taglinator 4.0 unregistered - www.srtware.com]

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Soaring 3000%
Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner is!
PennyStocksUniverse.com

[Wade Kotter]

Robert:

I prefer not to think of classifications as "correct" or "valid." To me, "appropriateness" or "usefulness" would be better terms; and to me the appropriateness or usefulness of a classification depends on its purpose.  If your purpose is to call attention to the differences between theological texts, patriotic texts and sentimental texts, then your classification is appropriate. In my feeble attempts  to compose tunes in the Sacred Harp style using either existing or new texts that I believe are appropriate for the Sacred Harp, I prefer to work with the classic distinction between:

1. Psalms -- poetic texts in meter that are based on the Hebrew book of Psalms, either in the form of direct translations into vernacular verse (such as those in Sternhold & Hopkins, Brady & Tate, the Scottish Metrical Psalter, etc.) or in the form of paraphrases "in the language of the New Testament" such as those by Isaac Watts.

2. Hymns -- poetic texts in meter that directly address God.

3. Spiritual Songs -- poetic texts in meter  that are on religious topics but do not directly address God. To me, all of the texts in the Sacred Harp have a spiritual dimension, so this category would include your patriotic and sentimental categories.

My primary purpose for using this classification is to help me decide what type of tune to write for a particular text. For example, when I approach writing a tune for a Psalm translation or paraphrase, I tend to write tunes in the "Psalm tune" style or, in a few cases, in the "Fuging Psalm tune" style. The same is true of most Hymn texts that I've set. However, when it comes to writing tunes for some Hymns and most Spiritual Songs, I tend to adopt a freer, more folky style with dance-like rhythms, etc. So, I would argue in my case that the above classification is appropriate and useful for its intended purpose but not necessarily "valid" or "correct."

Another possibility for classifying texts in the Sacred Harp would be to use subject categories similar to those used by 19th century "words only" hymn book compilers such as Benjamin Lloyd. The primary purpose in these cases was to assist people in selecting texts by subject. Of course, even Lloyd felt it necessary to include a Miscellaneous category!

When considering the classification of texts, I think it's instructive to note that a major purpose of oblong tune books, at least in their earliest forms, was in my opinion to teach people tunes but not necessarily to teach them texts. I'm not saying that the texts were unimportant, but they seem to me to be of less importance for learning purposes than the tunes. In fact, I don't remember seeing any late 18th or early to mid 19th century oblong tune books with a index of texts by subject or by first line. And I believe the 1971 edition of the Denson book was the first edition of the Sacred Harp to include a first line index.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: R. L. Vaughn <rl_v...@yahoo.com>

--
Google Groups "Fasola Discussions" Email List
FAQ: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8623821/Fasola-Discussions-FAQ.html

[Warren Steel]

At 07:47 AM 4/25/2011, R. L. Vaughn wrote:
>I have read a number of views on the types of tunes in Sacred
>Harp.,What about the types of text? Has anyone ever classified the
>type of texts found in the Sacred Harp?

Someone has at least suggested a few. Thanks to Wade
for reminding us of the classic Ephesian formulation of
"psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" also cited in the
"Sacred Harp FAQ" at http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/faq/

" Most of the words are religious, and are the work of English
evangelical poets such as Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley.
They include paraphrases of Psalms and other scripture
(Stratfield), hymns of praise (Albion), and "spiritual
songs" which recount experiences in the spiritual life of
the individual (Columbus) or the community (Holy Manna).
Other songs are moralistic (O Come Away), patriotic
(The American Star) or on other subjects. "

Psalm paraphrases are clear enough, but one might add clear
paraphrases of other scripture. Hymns and spiritual songs
are usually easy to distinguish, even though Watts and other
authors often combined them in the same collection. Hymns
are addressed to God or at least are divine-centered, praising
God or any of his attributes or mysteries in a manner often
called "objective."
Blow ye the trumpet blow.
Love divine, all loves excelling
Grace, 'tis a charming sound
Come ye that love the Lord
All hail the pow'r of Jesus' name
Hither, ye faithful, haste with songs of triumph

Spiritual songs are human-centered songs of spiritual
life and religious experience, often called "subjective":
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound (...a wretch like me)
Am I a soldier of the cross?
Brethren, we have met to worship
Sweet rivers of redeeming love
Young people all attention give
Dark and thorny is the desert
When I survey the wondrous cross
The Lord into his garden comes
But some seem to share attributes of both.
There are also liturgical hymns (morning, evening,
baptism, Lord's supper, foot-washing), narratives
for holy days--Christmas, Easter), and spiritual
songs that take a ballad form.
Others are patriotic songs (*not* all of them
religious, and Dwight's "Columbia" has been clumsily
Christianized by a later hand, perhaps that of the
James book editors), songs of various reform movements
(foreign and domestic missions, temperance, Sabbath
schools), songs of moral precepts, and, yes, a few
sentimental ballads with or without a veneer of piety.
As I've entitled my collection of complete texts that
interest me and may not be readily available, "Songs
Sacred, Moral and Patriotick."
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/texts/

Indeed, I've just added a new text by Dr. Watts called
Ode on Martyrdom that was set by Oliver King in 1805.
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/texts/Martyrdom.txt
It describes Ardalion, a Roman satirical actor who mocked
the Christian mysteries, underwent a sudden conversion,
and suffered martyrdom. A good recording is at track 15
of Make a Joyful Noise: Mainstreams and Backwaters of
American Psalmody, 1770-1840, New World Records
NWA 80255-2. The composer may be the same King who
composed Suffield on page 114 in the Sacred Harp (White
and James books, but removed from Cooper and Denson).

--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/

[R. L. Vaughn]

On Apr 25, 12:55 pm, Wade Kotter <wadekot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I prefer not to think of classifications as "correct" or "valid." To me, "appropriateness" or "usefulness" would be better terms; and to me the appropriateness or usefulness of a classification depends on its purpose.  If your purpose is to call attention to the differences between theological texts, patriotic texts and sentimental texts, then your classification is appropriate.
>

Wade, I'm not particularly purposeful at the moment; mostly curious.
But the differences between theological texts, patriotic texts and
sentimental texts is part of the curiosity. Another part of the
curiosity is to see if and what others may have done along this line.

>In my feeble attempts  to compose tunes in the Sacred Harp style using either existing or new texts that I believe are appropriate for the Sacred Harp, I prefer to work with the classic distinction between:

> 1. Psalms...
> 2. Hymns...
> 3. Spiritual Songs...
>
A classic New Testament categorization. For Sacred Harp purposes we
could probably add prose texts such as David's Lamentation, Baptismal
Anthem, etc.

> Another possibility for classifying texts in the Sacred Harp would be to use subject categories similar to those used by 19th century "words only" hymn book compilers such as Benjamin Lloyd. The primary purpose in these cases was to assist people in selecting texts by subject. Of course, even Lloyd felt it necessary to include a Miscellaneous category!
>

This would also be interesting. It would indentify subjects that are
common and ones that are neglected. I remember reading that W. M.
Cooper's apology (in the justification sense) for his tune on the
Crucifixion was something along the lines that there was not a song in
the book specifically on that topic.

> When considering the classification of texts, I think it's instructive to note that a major purpose of oblong tune books, at least in their earliest forms, was in my opinion to teach people tunes but not necessarily to teach them texts. I'm not saying that the texts were unimportant, but they seem to me to be of less importance for learning purposes than the tunes. In fact, I don't remember seeing any late 18th or early to mid 19th century oblong tune books with a index of texts by subject or by first line. And I believe the 1971 edition of the Denson book was the first edition of the Sacred Harp to include a first line index.
>

I think here is an area where we've changed through the 20th century.
It is evident (to me, at least) that in most of these early tunebooks
that the common hymns from the hymn books (and in ordinary meters)
often have only one stanza printed. Something folks wouldn't know from
the hymn books -- like The Dying Californian -- may get printed with
15 stanzas.
http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/ssb/display.cfm?TitleID=610&Format=jpg&PageNum=409
In modern times we have progressively added more stanzas to many songs
in the Harp books. I don't attribute that necessarily to a change in
the importance of the text. Probably as much as anything are changes
in culture, church practice, etc. Many folks in "the old days" would
have known more stanzas to the common hymns (by heart/memory) because
they were singing them from hymn books in their churches.

On Apr 25, 8:58 am, Robert McKay <goffscalifor...@juno.com> wrote:
> But unless there's something the Denson book that I've not yet seen (a
> possibility, since I haven't by any means sung or even read the text of
> all the songs in that book), and which falls outside the category,
> "Christian music" does fit all the material. And then we can subdivide.
>

Robert, I think that's gneerally true. I would suggest the texts with
"Mount Vernon" and "Murillo's Lesson", though not "unchristian", have
nothing directly Christian or religious about them -- one being about
the death of George Washington and the other being about the splendor
and progress of America.

Sincerely,
Robert Vaughn
Mt. E., TX

[Robert Vaughn]

Thanks for the nice list expansion. A few comments are below.

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.

--- On Mon, 4/25/11, Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu> wrote:
> Thanks
> to Wade
> for reminding us of the classic Ephesian formulation of
> "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" also cited in the
> "Sacred Harp FAQ" at http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/faq/
>
> " Most of the words are religious, and are the work of
> English
> evangelical poets such as Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley.
> They include paraphrases of Psalms and other scripture
> (Stratfield), hymns of praise (Albion), and "spiritual
> songs" which recount experiences in the spiritual life of
> the individual (Columbus) or the community (Holy Manna).
> Other songs are moralistic (O Come Away), patriotic
> (The American Star) or on other subjects."
>

Moralistic -- I certainly didn't think of that one. But it is a good description for this prohibition era text.

> Psalm paraphrases are clear enough, but one might add
> clear
> paraphrases of other scripture. Hymns and spiritual songs

> are usually easy to distinguish...

This made me think of something I recently read at another discussion site. Someone listed "Columbus" as an a-religious hymn "if you ignore the last verse." A lot of time unfamiliarity with hymns or the Bible or both may cause us to miss the point of origin or reference. The "once I had a glorious view" text is filled with allusions from the book of Job, at least in the first two and sixth stanzas.

> Dwight's "Columbia" has been clumsily

> Christianized by a later hand, (perhaps that of the
> James book editors),

Is that the earliest known occurrence of the change, then?

> The composer may be the same King who
> composed Suffield on page 114 in the Sacred Harp (White
> and James books, but removed from Cooper and Denson).
>

Off topic, but I found this mention interesting because this morning I was just noticing that B. F. White used "Suffield" as an example in his rudiments (p. 15). Probably was once popular.

[Warren Steel]

At 06:25 PM 4/25/2011, Robert L. Vaughn wrote:
>This made me think of something I recently read at another discussion
>site. Someone listed "Columbus" as an a-religious hymn "if you ignore the
>last verse." A lot of time unfamiliarity with hymns or the Bible or both
>may cause us to miss the point of origin or reference. The "once I had a
>glorious view" text is filled with allusions from the book of Job, at
>least in the first two and sixth stanzas.

Right you are! And despair is a recognized stage of
spiritual progress in the revivalistic world.

> > Dwight's "Columbia" has been clumsily
> > Christianized by a later hand, (perhaps that of the
> > James book editors),
>Is that the earliest known occurrence of the change, then?

It's the earliest I've seen. Ironically, Dwight was
an orthodox Congregationalist, later known as the "Pope
of New Haven." Yet he stuck to his message in "Columbia,"
the westward progression of civilization and the arts to
the new world, away from the tired monarch- and priest-ridden
lands of Europe. But someone thought is needed christianizing.

Just like the U.S. pledge of allegiance to the flag, which
was written in 1892 by a Baptist clergyman to be a pledge to
the flag of any nation without reference to God: "I pledge
allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands,
one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
After successive revisions, it became both parochialized and
sectarianized. I'm old enough to have learned it without the
"under God" business.

My point is, sometimes the original authors know perfectly
well what they're saying and to whom, and we're better off not
meddling. Many songs in the Sacred Harp have texts that were
altered early on, and were popular in 19c evangelical circles.
I believe the Cooper book has bowdlerized some of them still
further, most notably in the "bowels of thy love." Not that
many of us would prefer Wesley's original of "Hark how all the
welkin rings/Glory to the King of kings." ;)

[R. L. Vaughn]

On Apr 25, 8:45 pm, Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu> wrote:
>    It's the earliest I've seen.  Ironically, Dwight was
> an orthodox Congregationalist, later known as the "Pope
> of New Haven."  Yet he stuck to his message in "Columbia,"
> the westward progression of civilization and the arts to
> the new world, away from the tired monarch- and priest-ridden
> lands of Europe.  But someone thought is needed christianizing.
>

Looking at the James book last night, I noticed in the footnotes that
he takes credit for removing the last line and inserting the new
words. Based on how one interprets the statement, there is room that
someone else could have written it and James just put it in the song
and book. I think he probably meant he wrote it, though.

>     My point is, sometimes the original authors know perfectly
> well what they're saying and to whom, and we're better off not
> meddling.  
>

Best, although without some effort we won't know what we are used to
hearing/reading has been meddled with or not. Much has been. If it has
already been altered, it's probably best to just stick with what we
already know.

Sincerely,
Robert Vaughn
Mt. Enterprise, TX

[R. L. Vaughn]

Richard Burnham's text used with Pisgah makes an interesting example
of a textual revision. According to John Julian and Philip Schaff, the
original first line is "Jesus, my kind and gracious Friend." Julian
says "in this form it is almost unknown, but as 'Jesus, Thou art the
sinners' Friend,' it is the most popular of Burnham's hymns. Its use
in America especially is very extensive."

Philip Schaff gives the first two stanzas this way in _Christ in Song:
Hymns of Immanuel, selected from all ages, with notes, Volume 2_
(1868/1895):

Jesus! my kind and gracious Friend:
Simply I look to Thee;
Now, in the fulness of Thy love,
Dear Lord! remember me.

Remember Thy pure word of grace, —
Remember Calv'ry's tree;
Remember all Thy dying groans,
And then remember me.

I don't know when the first line was changed, but in a quick google
search I found it as early as 1826 in _The American Seaman's Hymn
Book: or, a collection of sacred songs for the use of mariners_ by
Noah Davis. Schaff notes "The original has 'bowels'," but mentions no
other changes. So I am assuming he quotes the rest as being original
as far as he knew. Cooper changed to "fullness", but it did not
originate with him. To me "fullness" seems smoother/easier to sing
than "bowels", but that is probably more about years of familiarity
rather than any difference in word sounds or syllables. For me it may
also be a little in the fact that we (me, family, community) pronounce
"bowel/bowels" as a one syllable word. "Bowels" may seem a little
strange to modern sensibilities, but it is a good sturdy Bible word
for the seat of the affections. Notice the original second lines of
both first and second stanzas are slightly different than we know them
in Sacred Harp books. I thought "Remember Calvary" might have
originated in the Sacred Harp revisions, but I found it mentioned that
way in Burrage's History of Baptist Hymns and Hymn Writers. "Calvary"
over "Calv'ry's tree" seems like it could be a singer's change, but I
may be imagining things there also. "O Lord" for "Dear Lord" (S. 1 L.
4) is a common sort of change we see in hymn texts. Our "Pisgah's" as
they are seem fine to me, since we're used to them. No use to go back
to Burnham's original or to a bowdlerized version that is earlier than
our bowdlerized version (here I use bowdlerize loosely; no one was
probably offended by "Jesus! my kind and gracious Friend", at least no
one who would change it to "Jesus, thou are the sinner's friend"). I
was slightly annoyed when we "corrected" our Cooper version of the way
we sang the chorus of Pisgah. But I got over it :-) and the fix really
was "correct".

Probably most of us have our little inconsistencies in whether to keep
the print tradition as it is or to fix errors & variations in hymns.
Sometimes it's hard to get it all to line up in our minds. If we like
or are used to the "error" we usually won't want to change it.
Theoretically, I advocate using hymns as originally written by the
hymn writer, yet I have fudged words and meters to use in tunes I have
tried to write. I suppose that is hypocritical to a degree, but so far
I've been able to live with myself. One of my favorite hymn and tune
combinations is "Sacred Throne". In its case I would love to see the
third stanza corrected to what is probably Kent's original and at
least makes sense -- Was free to TAKE away. Probably won't be, but
I'll keep singing it my way anyway.

If we advocate Sacred Harp as oral tradition, how much should we worry
about whether the words are as written? In the midst of advocating
what we sing (traditionally) over what is written, is there some
reason to impose a strictness over the words that we don't on the
music? Or is this a horse of a different color altogether?

[Wade Kotter]

Robert:

Like you, I'm inclined to prefer the original version of a text, although I see no reason for a strict rule. In this context, I think the following quote (especially the last sentence) from Watts' preface to his "Hymns and Spiritual Songs" is worth noting:

"If any Expressions occur to the Reader that favour of an Opinion different from his own, yet he may observe, these are generally such as are capable of an extensive Sense, and may be used with a charitable Latitude. I think it is most agreeable, that what is provided for public singing, should give to sincere Consciences as little Disturbance as possible. However, where any unpleasing Word is found, he that leads the Worship may substitute a better; for (blessed by GOD) we are not confined to the Words of any Man in our public Solemnities."

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: R. L. Vaughn <rl_v...@yahoo.com>

[invisibl...@gmail.com]

Hey Robert,

Interesting stuff.  I also agree with respecting poets' and composers' original intentions on principle, but I must say I prefer the alterations in "Jesus, Thou art the sinner's friend."  There are a few other examples that escape me right now of changes in a text that really improve upon or clarify the original. 

As for Sacred Throne, my Good Old Songs and Primitive Baptist Hymnal give the lines in question as " ...Was free to take away a Mary's or Manasseh's stains..."  Knowing how much research went into the PBH, I suspect that this must be the original text, but it at least makes sense and is much more satisfying to sing. 

Matt Bell

--

[Wade Kotter]

Robert:

The earliest printing of the "Jesus, thou art the sinner's friend" variant listed at hymnary.com is found in:

Parkinson, William. "A Selection of Hymns and Spiritual Songs: designed (especially the former part) for the use of congregations as an appendix to Dr. Watt's Psalms and Hymn." (New York: John Tiebout, 1809).

You can see a scan of this at:

http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/SHSS1809/page/185

Click on 186 > at the top right to see the next page.

Note that Parkinson attributes this text to "New Selec." I don't know what collection this refers to, but this strongly suggests that there is even an earlier printing of this variant. The 1811 and 1817 editions of Parkinson's collection are available on Google books, but I can find nothing in the preface of either volume that clarifies the identity of this "New Selec."

Interestingly, hymnary.com does not list any printings of the "Jesus, my kind and gracious friend" variant.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: R. L. Vaughn <rl_v...@yahoo.com>

[Wade Kotter]

Matt:

This has been discussed on the list before and I believe the consensus was that "Was free to take away a Mary's or Manasseh's stains" is how it originally read. However, during that discussion it was mentioned by someone that when Hugh McGraw was told this, he said something like "That may be, but we sing it as it's written in our book." So I've decided to sing it as written at least for now.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: "invisibl...@gmail.com" <invisibl...@gmail.com>
To: rl_v...@yahoo.com
Cc: Fasola Discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

Hey Robert,

[John Garst]

See *Original Gospel Hymns and Poems," by John Kent, Ninth Edition,
1853, at Google Books: "take" is found there. I think the hymn to be
much older than 1853 (Kent died November 15, 1843), but at least this
is from a book that purports to be his own.

John

>As for Sacred Throne, my Good Old Songs and Primitive Baptist Hymnal
>give the lines in question as " ...Was free to take away a Mary's or
>Manasseh's stains..." Knowing how much research went into the PBH, I
>suspect that this must be the original text, but it at least makes
>sense and is much more satisfying to sing.
>
>Matt Bell

--
john garst ga...@chem.uga.edu

[Wade Kotter]

I also found on Google Books the following 1819 English collection that uses the same wording as John found in the 1853 edition of Kent's collection and I found in Osbourn's 1836 collection:

Williams, William. "A selection of hymns, from the best authors, including a number of originals." (London: Printed for the author by J. Davy, 1819)

Since Kent's "Original Gospel Hymns and Poems" first appeared in 1803, this text must date no later than 1819. Now if someone, perhaps on the other side of the pond, can locate a pre-1819 edition of Kent's collection, we should be able to get closer to the original.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu>
To: Fasola Discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:07 PM

Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

[Wade Kotter]

John et al:

The date for John Kent's text given in "The Makers" is 1835. The earliest printing cited on hymnary.com is:

Reed, Thomas. "A collection of hymns, intended for the use of the citizens of Zion: whose privilege it is to sing the high praises of God..." (New York: W. Applegate, 1835).

Perhaps this is where Warren & Dick got their date. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full-text of this collection. However, I do have access to an 1836 source for this text:

Osbourn, James. "Old school sonnets, or a selection of choice hymns, for the use of the Old School Baptists." (Baltimore: John D. Toy, Printer, 1836)

And I can confirm that the verse in question (Hymn 192, on. p 208) reads as follows:

That sacred flood, from Jesus' veins,

Was free to take away

A Mary's or Manasseh's stains,

Or sins more vile than they.

I can scan the text and send it to anyone who is interested.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu>
To: Fasola Discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

[Warren Steel]

At 01:25 PM 4/27/2011, Wade Kotter wrote:
>This has been discussed on the list before and I believe the consensus was
>that "Was free to take away a Mary's or Manasseh's stains" is how it
>originally read. However, during that discussion it was mentioned by
>someone that when Hugh McGraw was told this, he said something like "That
>may be, but we sing it as it's written in our book." So I've decided to
>sing it as written at least for now.

That being said, there were some patently incorrect
texts in the James and Denson books that were awkward to
sing, yet singers made the best of them. Several of these
were in fact corrected in the 1991 edition, and singers
have embraced the corrections! A few examples:

100 Bower of Prayer, last verse, had a syllable missing,
spoiling the scansion, forcing the word bower to be sung on
two syllables with the accent on the second. The missing
word "loved" was restored, and all is fine now.
341 The Lone Pilgrim, last verse, same thing, read "The
same that led him"; the missing word "God" (it should have
been "hand") was inserted, and it sings fine now.
358 Murillo's Lesson, second verse, read "To the last
refuge"; restored "thee," now scans better: "To thee, the
last refuge"
434 Fillmore. The second verse was a mess, and was dropped
entirely.
334 O Come Away: there were scansion problems, but not
insuperable. In the fourth measure from the end, additional
notes were added and in the first verse the text was changed
to add another syllable. What a mess! This change was not
so successful, and most singers I know continue to sing it
the old way: "from all that in-TOX-icates" nor "all that does
inTOXicate."

So it's not entirely true that well-known texts in the
Sacred Harp tradition cannot be corrected or changed, if
done sparingly and thoughtfully. After all, what about the
singers who sang "bowels" for generations and then opened
their brand new Cooper revisions and were faced with
"fullness"? They may have been flummoxed at first, but
they eventually got over it.

There are two extremely infelicitous texts that could well
be corrected successfully. One is 569b Sacred Throne, where
the current text "free to make away;/And Mary's or Manasseh's
stains" doesn't make a bit of grammatical or theological sense.
The correction "free to take away/A Mary's or Manasseh's stains"
would be easily accepted, and welcomed by those like Matt who
sing this hymn already from correct versions.

The other is 91 Assurance. "And songs of joy and victory/
within thy temple found" doesn't make a bit of sense (though it
brings to mind the convenient discovery of a scriptural book,
presumably Deuteronomy, in the temple during the reign of Josiah,
2 Kings 22). This poem has nothing to do with "finding songs" in
the temple. In the original printing of the music, in Billings's
Psalm Singer's Amusement, the word "sound" is written with a long
"s" which looks a little like an "f". When White added this song
to The Sacred Harp in 1870, replacing T.W. Carter's "Church
Triumphant" on page 91, he may have had an original printed copy
of Billings, or a handwritten copy made from the original. Not
being accustomed to the long S, he read it as "found" and printed
it that way. I think if singers can sing real spiritual poetry or
corrupt gibberish, they would prefer the real thing if it can be
achieved through such a minor correction. "And songs of joy and
victory/Within thy temple sound."
Am I too optimistic? I used to hear "Where God's redeemed
their VIRGILS keep" with some frequency, but not so much any more.

[Wade Kotter]

No, I don't think you're too optimistic. And I agree that wording shouldn't be written in stone, especially in the case of pretty obvious cases such as Sacred Throne. My decision to sing it as printed was made out of personal deference to Hugh, which may not be the best reason. And I have no desire to push that decision on other singers. In fact, I hope that the editors of the next edition will decide to restore the original text so that the meaning of this beautiful is clear. Hopefully I'll be around to experience the change.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu>

At 01:25 PM 4/27/2011, Wade Kotter wrote:
> This has been discussed on the list before and I believe the consensus was that "Was free to take away a Mary's or Manasseh's stains" is how it originally read. However, during that discussion it was mentioned by someone that when Hugh McGraw was told this, he said something like "That may be, but we sing it as it's written in our book." So I've decided to sing it as written at least for now.

[Robert Vaughn]

Good points, Warren. I wouldn't see any reason in NOT correcting obvious errors. We still have a number of them in the Cooper Book, but Karen is working on weeding them out. The "within the temple sound" was corrected in 2006. I must say I was taken aback when I first saw it, but after seeing what's going on in the hymn it obviously makes better sense than "found". Sometimes we don't realize that we are singing "nonsense" (though I wouldn't say the Assurance error is quite that extreme). When people see the point of the change most will be very accepting of it. Sometimes we don't think too much about it, then there's the spots like in The Dying Californian where one unfamiliar with the song runs up on two notes and one syllable -- doth instead of do-eth -- and everyone notices something is wrong even if they don't know what!

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.

--- On Thu, 4/28/11, Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu> wrote:

[Chris Brown]

COPAC says that there is an 1803 edition of Kent's 'Collection of Original Gospel Hymns' in the British Library and an 1813 edition in Edinburgh. However, I can't consult them until late June. Perhaps someone else can do so rather sooner.

 

Chris Brown

Elland

[amity]

In 91, Assurance, I take it for granted that "the temple" is the body/heart
of the person in the first line referenced in "Now shall my soul..."
ICor 3:16-17, ICor.6:19
Otherwise it doesn't make sense for the song to switch randomly from "my
soul" to "Thy temple" if the temple is the Temple of Solomon as in 2Kings,
does it?

Terre

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Steel" <mu...@olemiss.edu>
To: "Fasola Discussions" <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>

[rgoodell]

Warren -- I have made a copy of your glossary to use when these issues
may arise. Thank you.
Also thanks for using the word scansion, which, although I had some idea
of the meaning from the context, made me "stir my stumps" as my parents
would say and look it up in my Webster's.

Bobbie Goodell
S. Thomaston, Maine, where we've had strong wind gusts and torrential
rain, but no tornados yet.

[Warren Steel]

At 05:43 PM 4/28/2011, amity wrote:
>In 91, Assurance, I take it for granted that "the temple" is the
>body/heart of the person in the first line referenced in "Now shall my soul..."
>ICor 3:16-17, ICor.6:19
>Otherwise it doesn't make sense for the song to switch randomly from "my
>soul" to "Thy temple" if the temple is the Temple of Solomon as in 2Kings,
>does it?

It's Psalm 27. This stanza paraphrases verses 6 and 7:

6. And now shall he lift up mine head :
above mine enemies round about me.
7. Therefore will I offer in his dwelling an oblation,
with great gladness :
I will sing and speak praises unto the Lord.

Watts likewise has "head" rather than "soul":

Now shall my head be lifted high
Above my foes around;

And songs of joy and victory

Within thy temple sound.

Makes perfect sense, with no change in person. As a
"Psalm of David" it's not literally the temple of
Solomon--the Hebrew has "tent" or "tabernacle," as
in the Authorized Version.

[Robert McKay]

 

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:30:02 -0400 rgoodell <ar...@roadrunner.com> writes:

> Also thanks for using the word scansion, which, although I had some
> idea
> of the meaning from the context,  made me "stir my stumps" as my
> parents
> would say and look it up in my Webster's.

 

Scansion is why I don't bother anymore to try to write blank verse.  I absolutely can't make the stuff scan.    :)

 

Robert McKay (goffsca...@juno.com)
Owner of the Sacred Harp Singers list on Yahoo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SacredHarpSingers
--------------------------------------------------
That wascally wabbit!

[Taglinator 4.0 unregistered - www.srtware.com]

____________________________________________________________
SHOCKING: 46&#34 LCD TVs for $54.09
Today ONLY: Unique site sells 46&#34 LCD TVs for up to 98% off retail price.
SmartStyleLiving.com

[Robert Vaughn]

Speaking of using texts in their original forms, what about changing words whose meaning (or more often connotation) has changed over the years?

This thought came to me while musing over a Josiah Conder text (The Star in the East, and Other Poems, 1824).

Beyond, beyond that boundless sea,
Above the dome of sky,
Further than thought itself can flee,
Thy dwelling is on high;
Yet dear the AWFUL thought to me,
That Thou, my God, art nigh.

"Awful" is the word of which I'm thinking. No doubt to Conder it meant something about inspiring awe or a godly reverence. To many moderns it will conjure up something bad or very unpleasant. If YOU were using this text in a tune, would you change it?

In our church tradition we use the King James Bible, so I am used to a lot of words that may be somewhat archaic or not common in modern usage. But it is the Bible and we don't change them. But then again, hymns aren't the Bible. Should they be updated sometimes to modern language? I don't mean hymns already in the book, but new tunes being written.

[amity]

My favorite example of this has to do with the metaphor of "bowels." There
are loads of old hymns mentioning bowels, most written by Watts, it seems.
Watts even has a phrase about "his bowels move."
Now that is likely to conjure up a mental image very different from what
Watts intended.
In today's language I think the meaning would be expressed by "heart."

Anyway, to answer your question ... if I was editing a modern hymnal that
would be used in church worship I would want to change it. But in Sacred
Harp I would say, No, keep it. I had to look up the word "refulgent" when I
first encountered it, but I wouldn't suggest changing that, either. Archaic
language is part of Sacred Harp.

Terre

--

[Robert Vaughn]

This Watts text made its way into the Sacred Harp, but in its altered version before it got there. It is the text with Sardinia, 296, and which S.M. Denson also used with Arbacoochee.

Behold the love, the generous love,
That holy David shows;
Hark, how his sounding bowels move
To his afflicted foes!

Someone thought "his kind compassion move" seemed better than "his sounding bowels move," and I can't say I disagree.

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.

--- On Sat, 4/30/11, amity <amit...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

[Robert McKay]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Robert Vaughn
<rl_v...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Beyond, beyond that boundless sea,
> Above the dome of sky,
> Further than thought itself can flee,
> Thy dwelling is on high;
> Yet dear the AWFUL thought to me,
> That Thou, my God, art nigh.
>
> "Awful" is the word of which I'm thinking. No doubt to Conder it
> meant something about inspiring awe or a godly reverence. To many
> moderns it will conjure up something bad or very unpleasant. If YOU
> were using this text in a tune, would you change it?

Were the decision in my hands, I'd simply alter it to "awesome," which -
despite the trivialization of the word (e.g. "that play was awesome!")
still conveys the meaning that "awful" used to. Furthermore, "awesome"
and "awful" share a syllable, and are both two-syllable words, so there
would be no problem fitting the change into the song.

Robert McKay (goffsca...@juno.com)
Owner of the Sacred Harp Singers list on Yahoo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SacredHarpSingers
--------------------------------------------------

Live, from beautiful downtown Burbank . . .

[Taglinator 4.0 unregistered - www.srtware.com]
____________________________________________________________

Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4dbc17e3214be1ad1f8st02duc

[Warren Steel]

At 07:38 PM 4/29/2011, Robert Vaughn wrote:
>Speaking of using texts in their original forms, what about changing words
>whose meaning (or more often connotation) has changed over the years?

>"Awful" is the word of which I'm thinking. No doubt to Conder it meant
>something about inspiring awe or a godly reverence. To many moderns it
>will conjure up something bad or very unpleasant. If YOU were using this
>text in a tune, would you change it?

St. Paul's Cathedral, London, was rebuilt to designs
by Christopher Wren. Someone (was it Queen Anne or Dr.
Johnson?), upon seeing the magnificent dome for the
first time, exclaimed, "How awful, how artificial, how
amusing!" Wren was highly flattered to realize that his
design was regarded as awesome, skilful and inspiring.

[Wade Kotter]

The typo king strikes again. The first line of the text for SALEM, etc. is "He dies, the friend of sinners dies," not died.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: Wade Kotter <wadek...@yahoo.com>
To: Fasola Discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 10:11 AM

Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

Robert:

I believe it was Joel Barlow who changed this line from Watts' paraphrase of Psalm 35 to "Behold his kind compassion move" in his revision of Watt's psalms for American use first published in 1785 under the title Doctor Watts's imitation of the Psalms of David / corrected and enlarged by Joel Barlow ; to which is added a collection of hymns ; the whole applied to the state of the Christian Church in general. At least this is the way Psalm 35 reads in my 1791 copy of "Barlow's Watts." So this change has a very long history and sounds much better to me as well. I believe it has also been shown that the compilers of the Sacred Harp used "Barlow's Watts" as their primary source for the text of Watts' psalms. Another interesting revision, this time to a text originally published in Watts' Horae Lyricae, occurred during the 18th century in first line of the text used in the 1991 ed. for MORNING, SALEM and SINNERS FRIEND, which originally read "He dies, the Heavenly Lover dies" but was changed to "He dies, the friend of sinners died." I can't remember the English compiler who made the change, but it was quickly adopted by compilers on both sides of the pond. In this case, the change may have been theologically motivated, which raises the question of whether theologically based changes are appropriate. But in this case, I suspect that the compilers of the Sacred Harp did not know that Watts' original had been changed.

[Wade Kotter]

Robert:

I believe it was Joel Barlow who changed this line from Watts' paraphrase of Psalm 35 to "Behold his kind compassion move" in his revision of Watt's psalms for American use first published in 1785 under the title Doctor Watts's imitation of the Psalms of David / corrected and enlarged by Joel Barlow ; to which is added a collection of hymns ; the whole applied to the state of the Christian Church in general. At least this is the way Psalm 35 reads in my 1791 copy of "Barlow's Watts." So this change has a very long history and sounds much better to me as well. I believe it has also been shown that the compilers of the Sacred Harp used "Barlow's Watts" as their primary source for the text of Watts' psalms. Another interesting revision, this time to a text originally published in Watts' Horae Lyricae, occurred during the 18th century in first line of the text used in the 1991 ed. for MORNING, SALEM and SINNERS FRIEND, which originally read "He dies, the Heavenly Lover dies" but was changed to "He dies, the friend of sinners died." I can't remember the English compiler who made the change, but it was quickly adopted by compilers on both sides of the pond. In this case, the change may have been theologically motivated, which raises the question of whether theologically based changes are appropriate. But in this case, I suspect that the compilers of the Sacred Harp did not know that Watts' original had been changed.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: Robert Vaughn <rl_v...@yahoo.com>
To: amity <amit...@peoplepc.com>; Fasola discussions <fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:18 AM

Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

[amity]

You missed a few, Robert:

Blest is the man whose bowels move,
And melt with pity to the poor;

Blest are the men whose bowels move
And melt with sympathy and love

The father saw the rebel come,
And all his bowels move

His heart is made of tenderness,
His bowels melt with love

Yet why, my soul, why these complaints?
Still while he frowns his bowels move

Here we behold his bowels roll,
As kind as when he died

Now by the bowels of my God,
His sharp distress, his sore complaints

Here every bowel of our God
With soft compassion rolls

He, in the time of gen'ral grief,
Shall find the Lord has bowels too.

... and that is just from Watts' Psalms and Hymns. There are more in his
other books. Plus a couple in Olney, too, I think.

Terre

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Vaughn" <rl_v...@yahoo.com>

To: "amity" <amit...@peoplepc.com>; "Fasola discussions"
<fasola-di...@googlegroups.com>

[John Garst]

I think I'd rather leave texts alone and teach people what they mean.

John

At 7:14 AM -0600 4/30/11, Robert McKay wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Robert Vaughn
><rl_v...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Beyond, beyond that boundless sea,
>> Above the dome of sky,
>> Further than thought itself can flee,
>> Thy dwelling is on high;
>> Yet dear the AWFUL thought to me,
>> That Thou, my God, art nigh.
>>
>> "Awful" is the word of which I'm thinking. No doubt to Conder it
>> meant something about inspiring awe or a godly reverence. To many
>> moderns it will conjure up something bad or very unpleasant. If YOU
>> were using this text in a tune, would you change it?
>
>Were the decision in my hands, I'd simply alter it to "awesome," which -
>despite the trivialization of the word (e.g. "that play was awesome!")
>still conveys the meaning that "awful" used to. Furthermore, "awesome"
>and "awful" share a syllable, and are both two-syllable words, so there
>would be no problem fitting the change into the song.

--
john garst ga...@chem.uga.edu

[Wade Kotter]

As part of this teaching process, it occurs to me that with modern music notation software one could fairly easily add a footnote to the score explaining the original meaning of "problematic" words such as "awful" or "bowels."

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu>
To: fasola-di...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2011 8:07 AM

Subject: Re: [fasola-discussions] Re: Texts in the Sacred Harp tradition

[j frankel]

"Awful" can be changed to "awesome" & retain exactly the intended meaning, I feel, as well as the right # of syllables!  As long as it isn't in a rhyming part of the song (internal rhymes as well as end-of-line rhymes count), which it isn't here.

 

"Awful" is a word that I would change in a modern setting.  I wouldn't change it in a historical setting.  And I'd only change it because it now has an opposite meaning to its original meaning.

 

(In folkie circles there's a newly-repopularized Scottish ballad, "Willie's Lady", newly set to a Breton dance tune by someone who I guess didn't like the original tune, which I've never heard, or maybe loved the dance tune so much they wanted to be able to sing it in mostly-English) which retains the original's phrase "light o' bairn" when talking about a woman who's been cursed by her husband's mother to die in childbirth rather than have an easy delivery.  Now, nowadays we don't go around saying of a woman who's just had a child "Ah, she's finally light o' bairn!", but in the context of the song "and light o' bairn she'll never be" is clearly understood, & doesn't need translation into modern English.

 

 

And having said all that, I wonder if the "bowels of his love" is a reason Pisgah, a tune I love as a tune, doesn't get sung as much as it might be, at least up north here, & not the highness of the alto part.  Cooper having replaced "bowels" with "fullness" doesn't help at all, at least not to me, not if you know the word replaced was "bowels". 

 

Everybody understands the context of "bowels of his love", but, people being people, even so they are inclined to giggle.)

[Wade Kotter]

Joan et al:

Here are the 9 instances of "awful" in the 1991 ed. (according to the online index), first as currently written and second with "awful" replaced by "awesome":

And for the awful tomb. 205 (Pleasant Hill)

And for the awesome tomb.

"Before Jehovah's awful bar 37T (Ester)

"Before Jehovah's awesome bar

To hear my awful sentence there 37T (Ester)

To hear my awesome sentence there

But Oh the sad and awful state 60 (Days of Worship)

But Oh the sad and awesome state

From heav'n the awful mandate flies 110 (Mount Vernon)

From heav'n the awesome mandate flies

His head with awful glories crowned 120 (Chambers)

His head with awesome glories crowned

Sweet majesty and awful love 362 (Norwich) & 536 (Sweet Majesty)

Sweet majesty and awesome love

Thou awful judge of quick and dead 131T (Messiah)

Thou awesome judge of quick and dead

To my mind and ear, none of these replacements works as well as the original, especially when we consider the way in which awesome has been trivialized. And I believe a singer would really have to been inattentive to interpret the following phrases using the modern meaning:

"awful glories" = "terrible glories" ???

"awful love" = "terrible love" ???

"awful judge" = "terrible judge" ???

I think instead that singers were really wanted to would instead ask "why is the word awful used here?" And that's where John's comment about education would kick in.

Wade Kotter

South Ogden, UT

---

From: j frankel <ghos...@gmail.com>

[Robert McKay]

On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:07:13 -0400 John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> writes:

> I think I'd rather leave texts alone and teach people what they
> mean.

The only problem with that is that eventually the language will change so
much that you'll spend more time translating than anything else. Just
look at Old English sometimes, or even Middle English, to see how far
languages can drift. And even the English of 400 years ago can sometimes
be tricky - I've heard sermons where the preacher spent as much time
translating the KJV into something 20th century Americans could
understand as he spent doing anything. :)

Robert McKay (goffsca...@juno.com)
One Million Conservatives - www.omc.org
--------------------------------
The lesser of two evils may be lesser, but it's still evil

[Taglinator 4.0 unregistered - www.srtware.com]
____________________________________________________________

Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4dbf4ae6666542132d1st02duc

[rgoodell]

One way to bring current meaning to the word "awful" would be to spell
it "awe-ful", or even "awe-full."

Bobbie Goodell

[j frankel]

To restate what I was saying; I'd appreciate it if people leave the historical settings alone.  Except for that one about bowels, darn it.  Most people can figure out what "awful love" means, in context, & if it were to disappear from songs its now in, the singers familiar with it would be disturbed.  But when setting new songs using those historical texts, if I were going to be doing that, I'd strongly tend to "awesome".  "Awe-inspiring" would remove the modern-day-slacker-speak connotations that I frankly hadn't even thought of until someone brought them up, but has too many syllables.  "Gracious" would fit but doesn't mean the same thing, though I recall it being used in same or similar context.  Of course, "gracious" in modern-day context doesn't mean "the grace of G-d", whereas in the songs, it does, & I believe that's apparent from context too.

[B.E. Swetman]

Changing a single word in a hymn that is otherwise familiar is just not a good idea. Too many people sing from memory & get jarred by the change. When we change to a different book with slightly different words we get jarred as well, but live with it.

If someone was looking in some old hymnbook & found poetry not previously used in the book and wanted to change a word or phrase for a new tune, most of us would not even know it for a change. In that case, I would have no problem with it.  As the discussion has shown, hymn words have been fiddled with for a long time so there no real reason to stay slavishly with the authors original words if there is a good reason for a change.

Barbara

--

[Robert McKay]

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:54:46 -0400 "B.E. Swetman" <bswe...@hamilton.edu> writes:

 

> Changing a single word in a hymn that is otherwise familiar is just not a > good idea. Too many people sing from memory & get jarred by the

> change. When we change to a different book with slightly different

> words we get jarred as well, but live with it.

 

Perhaps I'm just not following you, but it seems to me that if we can "live with it" in the one instance, we ought to be equally capable of "living with it" in the other.  That is, changing the words in Book A ought not to be any more of a problem than finding different words when we occasionally sing from Book B.

 

Robert McKay (goffsca...@juno.com)
One Million Conservatives - www.omc.org
--------------------------------

Free Scotland!

[Taglinator 4.0 unregistered - www.srtware.com]

____________________________________________________________