Three-liners
HENRY JOHNSON
Warning (213b), which has four parts on three staves, or The Young
Convert, which is in the rudiments. The committee which produced the
1911 James Revision added the alto to 327 songs from the 1869 edition,
leaving 82 three-liners. The alto was added to all the songs which they
believed could be "improved" by the addition. In the Denson Revision of
1936, the number of three-liners dropped to 34. By 1971 the number was
26. The 1991 committee dropped six three-liners, added an alto to
Petersburg (174), and put in four three-liners: Converting Grace (230),
Thou Art Passing Away (231), Garden Hymn (284), and Ainslee (348t). An
interesting point to me is that although three-part singing dominated in
Sacred Harp from 1844 to 1911 and beyond, there were always four-part
songs in the book--the Third Edition contained 126 of them. Have women
with low voices always doubled the bass on three liners, or did they
perhaps double the tenor or treble an octave low? Has the square always
had an alto section, or was it once three-sided, with some singers
switching to alto for the four-part songs? During the transition to
four-part dominance, was the male alto as much of an oddity as he is
today? I hope the three-liner never disappears from the Sacred Harp.
It is an integral part of our tradition. Henry
Wade Kotter
Thanks, Henry. I can add that the 1844 first edition has 67 four-part songs, which really surprised me. I've made a list of these four-part songs and will post it to the group web page once I add some finishing touches. It occurs to me that a study of the alto parts in these four-liners might give us some insight into the role of the alto part in these early times.
Wade Kotter
South Ogden, UT
Donna Abrahams
Someone once suggested to me that the (add-on) alto parts throw in intervals that are usually missing or rare, and some songs are therefore truer to harmonic form without them. No idea if this is true, and if it is, surely it should be possible to construct an alto line without this liability.
The 3-parters I've sung seem starker, if not almost eerie. But that could be a totally alto-centric perception.
Donna Abrahams
amity
Karen
An article appeared in the Musical Quarterly, 1989 73:153-171. It struck me as such a wonderful defense and analysis of the alto part in the Sacred Harp books (Denson & Cooper & JL White) that I transcribed it and made it available on the PNW singers' website.
Go to http://pnwshs.org and click on "Handouts" in the lefthand column, and then choose "Article on Alto Parts" to download the document. There are numerous good quotes there to throw in the teeth of those who dare disparage the alto for messing up the purity of the oldtime songs.
Karen Willard, dangerous alto
mesc...@rcn.com
With the leader's back always to us when they state their song-choice or other announcements, they're facing the tenor section (with maybe a slight nod to the right or left but rarely turning around to fully face the altos); they don't seem to be aware that it's harder for us who are behind them to hear their words. In certain environments where sound doesn't travel well, we often have to ask the leader to repeat his/her instructions.
Our seating often has a "makeshift" feel to it -- usually there isn't as much room in our section as in others, or we're on different levels on the dais.
Sometimes it seems like we're the step-children.
If it's true that some centuries ago women didn't sing in churches, it's even more likely that music was at one time written for only three parts.
To my ears, three-liners never sound as rich. But I'm probably biased.
MaryEllen Schrock
Alto
Robert Vaughn
> the songs which they
> believed could be "improved" by the addition.
This in a sense gets into the original question. Is this stated in the James book or James' writing elsewhere? One thing that originally made me start thinking about this was thinking about the main three-part tunes I knew in the James/Denson tradition and thinking how they were not kept by Cooper. IOW, maybe he didn't think they were improved by an alto part either, but chose to leave them out instead of leaving them alone. But of the original total there are quite a few that Cooper added alto to.
> In the
> Denson Revision of
> 1936, the number of three-liners dropped to 34.
Do you know if these were mostly drops due to the downsizing? Did they keep some of the original amount in James and add altos to them at this time?
> Has
> the square always
> had an alto section, or was it once three-sided, with some
> singers
> switching to alto for the four-part songs?
I wish I had pursued this more when my Dad was still living. I realize what he remembered was childhood memories and are not memories of an adult singer living in those early days. But I don't recall him ever mentioning any of the older generation of ladies in our community singing alto. Perhaps this was just that the treble stood out. I remember several times his mentioning his grandfather singing treble "with the women", also giving the impression that the women were sitting in the treble section. Seems some of his description also indicated men singing bass sitting on around where the alto would be. Realize though that this was a rural community singing and the conventions were likely to be more progressive in accepting the alto, IMO.
> I hope the three-liner never disappears from
> the Sacred Harp.
> It is an integral part of our tradition.
I guess I have mixed feelings about this, in this sense -- I personally don't have any "musical feelings" for the endurance of the three-liner, but from the standpoint of tradition I have some feeling for it. From a practical standpoint, the community as a whole has wholeheartedly adopted alto and altos for almost twice the length of time three-liners dominated. The altos represent, theoretically, one fourth of our community and probably more at times in actual numbers. For example, at our monthly singings our alto section is a large group -- dwarfing the bass and treble and on occasion outnumbering the tenors. (I sure want to keep them happy!)
Note: None of what is said above is influenced by the knowledge of possible infiltration of the Alto Liberation Front on to this list. ;-)
[But seriously, I wouldn't want to sing many songs that exclude this wonderful part of our body, though I do intend to lead 116 (Denson) next Monday night.]
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.
Wade Kotter
Terre:
Yes, I believe it's true that some (many?) of the three-part songs in the 1844 first edition were originally composed and printed with four-parts. The Kentucky Harmony, a probable source for many songs in the Sacred Harp, is made up almost entirely of four-part settings. The question, of course, is why the alto parts were dropped from many, but not all, four-part songs that were selected by B.F. White, E.J. King and others for the 1844 and later 19th century editions. One possibility is that White, King and their collaborators did not have access to some of the earlier four-part settings. The trend towards three-part settings goes back, I believe, as far as the Missouri Harmony of 1820 and is very apparent in the 1835 Southern Harmony, which White and King certainly had access to. Another possibility, as the person you mentioned suggested, is that 3 parts became the fashionable sound in the 1830s and 40s when the first edition was being compiled. While
this may be true, the fact that 67 songs in the 1844 first edition were set in four-parts suggests that 3 part songs were not the exclusive fashion of the day. Another thought that occurs to me is that the switch to printing songs in three-parts could in part be a matter of economy. Three-part songs take up less room; you can get more songs per page, unless you use smaller type or increase the page size. But then the book would be larger and more expensive. In fact, I remember reading in the preface to one of the more obscure 4-shape books I've collected that the songs were printed in three parts for this very reason, to reduce the size and cost of the book. Unfortunately, I can't remember which tune book this was. I guess what I'm suggesting is that there were probably a number of reasons why three part settings became the "in thing" in the 1830s and 1840s. Preference for three part songs may have been one of them, but I doubt it was the only reason.
Wade Kotter
South Ogden,
Annie Grieshop
original alto part from a added-back-in alto part, just by how it sings.
Alto is the only part I almost never sing -- it's too high (or too low) for
my voice -- so I don't have much experience with singing alto parts. But I
do sometimes sing alto at singing schools or at our regular singings, if
needs be. And I have noticed that some alto lines just sing themselves,
while others are less... engaging .
It took me a while to notice that pattern -- but when I did, I suspicioned
that the ones that are really fun to sing (and add wonderfully to the
overall harmonies of the song) are likely the alto parts written by the
song's original composer.
Conversely, I'm guessing that the alto parts with a narrower compass of
notes and much more predictable movement of tones are the ones that have
been added at a later date by someone else. And those are the ones that
"sweeten" our normally more austere harmonies.
As I said, this is as yet only a hypothesis.
Annie
> Database version: 6.12950
> http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Karen
Seaborn Denson knew how to please altos; here and there other musicians show a flare for us, too. And that gifted person isn't necessarily the composer of the other 3 parts.
Karen Willard
Donna Abrahams
The comment has been made that alto parts are sometimes (how to put this delicately?) less complex and challenging than the other lines. 'Tis true. In the infamous mock Norumbega Harmony membership test from days gone by, there is a multiple choice question that reads "How tedious and tasteless the ___," and one of the fill-in choices is "alto part."
But what better part for the average female singer to cut her sightreading teeth on? And the fact that the alto parts vary from book to book makes it particularly exciting to attend singings from other books.
Also, some of the alto parts are wonderful. Some contemporary composers -- including Roland Hutchinson, Bruce Randall, and Hal Kunkel -- are particularly attentive to the altos. In Roland's case, I don't think it hurts that he is married to power alto par excellence, Gina Balestracci. In Bruce's case, we have an individual who sings counter from time to time. And Hal -- well, Hal delights in every voice and honors it. (Check out the alto on "Ten Thousand Charms," for example -- in the B part, the altos come in on a boffo wave that stirs body and soul.)
I confess that I enjoy the occasional 3-parter. Definitely more fun for me than a 4-parter where the alto is actually a second treble.
I believe that Mimi Stevens had a t-shirt that read "Real women sing alto." I don't think that's any more accurate than "Real men don't eat quiche," but the point is well taken. Not everyone with two X chromosomes should aspire to being a treble or an octave-up tenor, and that's one of 1,001 reasons why I love Sacred Harp singing. "And each fulfill his [or her] part"!
With sympathizing heart, and thanks for the thread --
Donna Abrahams
> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:41:30 -0700
> From: karenw...@mac.com
> To: fasola-di...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [fasola-discussions] Re: Three-liners
>
>
Annie Grieshop
were handled by those with a gift for all the parts. I find many alto parts
to be rather difficult to sing, not because they are "tedious and tasteless"
but because they make what I find to be odd leaps and non-melodic movements.
Those alto parts remind me of the shims you pound under a bookcase to keep
it from wobbling -- doesn't matter what it looks like or what it's made of,
as long as it fills the space. I don't like that! Our altos sing so
beautifully, and I want their lines to be lovely, too.
The well-written parts, on the other hand, are so much fun to sing, they
make me wish I had the range to do so. (Instead, I have to jump octaves
constantly, trying to keep it low enough for my baritone voice.)
In any case, I concluded (erroneously, as it turns out) that a composer who
can handle the other three voices with skill and grace should be able to do
the same with the alto part. Obviously, it ain't true. Ah well, a
hypothesis can only be disproven....
At our bi-weekly singing today, we were introduced to Belknap's "Berlin",
which is a delightful song in all four parts. And then we sang "Boulder" --
ditto! (Two of our singers are related to Daniel Belknap, so we're building
a repertoire of his songs from books he published.
Thanks for this discussion, everybody, as it's a topic that I've been
chewing on for several years, and I thoroughly appreciate any enlightenment
(on this or anything else).
Annie
Robert Vaughn
--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Donna Abrahams <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
> And the fact
> that the alto parts vary from book to book makes it
> particularly exciting to attend singings from other
> books.
>
The altos deftly maneuver around this difficulty that the other parts don't have to put up with, and we probably don't really appreciate what you all have to deal with. I render honor to whom honor is due!
Judy Mincey
From: Robert Vaughn <rl_v...@yahoo.com>
To: karenw...@mac.com; fasola-di...@googlegroups.com; powe...@msn.com
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2009 6:38:07 PM
Subject: [fasola-discussions] Re: Three-liners
--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Donna Abrahams <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
> And the fact
> that the alto parts vary from book to book makes it
> particularly exciting to attend singings from other
> books.
>
The altos deftly maneuver around this difficulty that the other parts don't have to put up with, and we probably don't really appreciate what you all have to deal with. I render honor to whom honor is due!
Robert Vaughn
Mount Enterprise, TX
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/
Ask for the old paths, where is the good way.
http://mtcarmelbaptist.blogspot.com/
John Garst
However, the idea that the added alto parts tended to destroy the old
flavor was not held by G. P. Jackson, as I recall. I *think* it was
he who commented that the new altos very often duplicate a note
already present in the other parts, so as not to affect the "harmony"
(I think there are those who would not call what we sing "harmony").
If this wasn't Jackson's comment, it was someone else's from many
years ago (ah! the joys of age!)
McKenzie traces the term "dispersed harmony" to the 1936 book, but my
recollection is that it goes back to the 1910-13 period (I don't
recall the details, and I don't have the relevant books with me). He
then gives several definitions of "dispersed harmony," a subject that
has been discussed here before. (1) Chord exceed two octaves or alto
goes above soprano (by which he means "treble"). If McKenzie is
correct in this statement that one (or both) of these conditions is
met only occasionally in The Sacred Harp, then this cannot be what
Rudiments writers mean by "dispersed harmony." (2) One part to each
staff (attributed to G. P. Jackson). This doesn't make good sense
because it is an attribute of notation, not an attribute of harmony.
It can be dismissed. (3) Musical texture with many open fifths and
fourths; the notes of the intervals are dispersed, *spread apart*,
and sound that was. This is McKenzie's own interpretation, and I
think it no better than the others.
I believe that the quotation provided by McKenzie is a good clue:
"The harmony used in this revision of the Original Sacred Harp is
dispersed or freely moving." "Freely moving" is the clue. In
conventional harmony, chords tend to persist through several beats or
measures. To me, "freely moving" implies no such constraints; it
could even be interpreted perhaps, to mean that chords themselves are
neglected, that is, if they occur at all, it is by accident, more or
less.
In one view, the typical musical arrangements of folk hymns in The
Sacred Harp do not use "harmony" at all. Instead, they are best
described as a type of "polyphony." This is made clear by various
authors' instructions on composing: Give each part a good melody.
Try to avoid dissonances ("unearthlty tones," perhaps).
Here is the definition of "polyphony" from the Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary: a style of musical composition employing two or more
simultaneous but relatively independent melodic lines. Sometimes the
"independent" melodic lines are not synchronous, and I think that
many people think of that case when they hear the word "polyphony,"
but the dictionary definition does not require that, it only requires
"relatively independent melodic lines." That is found in a great
many of the songs in The Sacred Harp, even those with synchronous
parts (all sounding at the same time).
I think Warren commented, some years ago, that "dispersed harmony" is
merely the Sacred Harpers' name for this type of polyphony. I agree
(I hope my memory is correct, Warren.)
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the "good old songs" were
under constant attack from ideological descendants of the "better
music" crowd of earlier times, those who favored conventional
("sweet") harmony and called that of the "good old songs" crude. In
particular, the critics included the Kieffer-Ruebush-Showalter
school, who aggressively promoted their music through "normal"
schools. Sacred Harpers must have felt that to defend their music
they needed words to describe it and give it legitimacy. Surely this
is the origin of "dispersed or freely moving harmony."
McKenzie asks, "Why was it felt desirable to add a fourth part to
these tunes which were known so well and had been sung for so long in
their three-part arrangement? ... Was the alto part desired in order
to provide an individual line for low-voiced women to sing? ... Was
the addition of alto parts seen as an effort to bring the music up to
date so as to attract younger singers? Did the adding of another
melodic line result simply from a creative urge amongst some Sacred
Harp leaders? ...." At the end of his article, McKenzie seems to
endorse the "creative urge" option.
I think I disagree. I suspect that the primary motivation was to
meet the challenge of what we now call "southern gospel music" (a
misnomer if there ever was one - many of the most active purveyors
were Yankees), which is written in four parts.
BTW, Karen, on my computer the musical examples in the McKenzie
article are all garbled. Some symbol substitution seems to have
taken place somewhere along the line. Do you know of a fix?
Thanks,
John
--
john garst ga...@chem.uga.edu
Ted Johnson
| Adding my thanks to Karen for the McKenzie article--and to John Garst for his really enlightening reflections on it. "Freely moving"--what a great way of putting it. (I'm lucky I didn't jump in with any of my half-formed impressions before reading these.) -Ted Johnson (who loves altos and married one) --- On Sun, 8/2/09, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote: |
John Garst
Indeed, when I open the pdf file in Acrobat, rather than Preview,
everything is fine.
John
>--- On Sun, 8/2/09, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote: > > BTW,
>Karen, on my computer the musical examples in the > McKenzie >
>article are all garbled. Some symbol substitution > seems to have >
>taken place somewhere along the line. Do you know of > a fix? > You
>might try reading it in a different browser -- For example, if
>you're using Internet Explorer try Firefox, or vice versa. After I
>converted to Firefox at work I found it would not properly work with
>some of the functions of TEA's electronic textbook program. (I read
>McKenzie's article on Firefox and it appeared OK). You might also
>check your PDF reader (Adobe Acrobat, etc.) to make sure you have
>the newest version. 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.
--
john garst ga...@chem.uga.edu
Robert Vaughn
--- On Sun, 8/2/09, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote:
> However, the idea that the added alto parts tended to
> destroy the old
> flavor was not held by G. P. Jackson, as I recall. I
> *think* it was
> he who commented that the new altos very often duplicate a
> note
> already present in the other parts, so as not to affect the
> "harmony"
Looking in _White Spirituals_, I didn't find any indication that Dr. Jackson thought the alto parts destroyed the flavor of the old songs. But I could have missed it since I was just looking where I thought it would be. "Alto" is not listed in the index in the edition I have.
> McKenzie traces the term "dispersed harmony" to the 1936
> book, but my
> recollection is that it goes back to the 1910-13 period (I
> don't
> recall the details, and I don't have the relevant books
> with me).
James uses the expression "dispersed harmony" in the 1911 edition, though it is not clear to me what he meant. The preface states, "...the music composed and compiled is in four shaped notes, and written on four staffs in dispersed harmony..." Perhaps this is where G. P. Jackson gets the idea of dispersed harmony = "one part to each staff" (WSSU, p. 97)?? I don't really take that as the meaning in the preface, but I don't know for sure what they meant.
I didn't find that James used "freely moving" in 1911, but it is not a stretch that is what he meant. The Denson edition uses it in 1936 and they worked with James on the 1911 edition.
A few years ago I posted a variety of comments on dispersed harmony on my blog. Perhaps all it proves is that the term means whatever it means to the person using it -- there is quite a bit of variation on what people think it means.
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2007/12/dispersed-harmony.html
I think both Jackson and Cobb mention in their books that A.M. Cagle wrote something on dispersed harmony that was never published. Anyone know what he had to say about it?
> McKenzie asks, "Why was it felt desirable to add a fourth
> part to
> these tunes which were known so well and had been sung for
> so long in
> their three-part arrangement? ... Was the alto part desired
> in order
> to provide an individual line for low-voiced women to sing?
> ... Was
> the addition of alto parts seen as an effort to bring the
> music up to
> date so as to attract younger singers? Did the adding
> of another
> melodic line result simply from a creative urge amongst
> some Sacred
> Harp leaders? ...." At the end of his article,
> McKenzie seems to
> endorse the "creative urge" option.
>
> I think I disagree. I suspect that the primary
> motivation was to
> meet the challenge of what we now call "southern gospel
> music" (a
> misnomer if there ever was one - many of the most active
> purveyors
> were Yankees), which is written in four parts.
>
I agree with you. The seven-shape/gospel movement was very much a movement of the people. Seven-shape teachers were teaching in the same communities, competing for the same "market". Sacred Harp was in a sense in a fight for its life, and the adoption of alto was, IMO, a large response in that fight. That wouldn't exclude those other possibilities. For example, there could have also been the desire to provide an individual line for low-voiced women to sing. But I think that and other things would be secondary and the response to the seven shape/gospel movement was primary.
Robert Vaughn
--- On Sun, 8/2/09, John Garst <ga...@chem.uga.edu> wrote:
> I believe that the quotation provided by McKenzie is a good
> clue:
> "The harmony used in this revision of the Original Sacred
> Harp is
> dispersed or freely moving." "Freely moving" is the
> clue.
How far can J.S. James' statement that all the songs in his 1911 edition were written in dispersed harmony be used in trying to frame a Sacred Harp definition of dispersed harmony? I don't have enough training to determine this, but it seems to me that some songs -- e.g. Martin, Warning, The Marriage in the Skies, The Great Roll Call -- don't fit my vague concept of dispersed harmony. If so, are these exceptions to the rule, or can they be used in helping define the rule?
Warren Steel
> > "The harmony used in this revision of the Original Sacred
> > Harp is
> > dispersed or freely moving." "Freely moving" is the
> > clue.
>How far can J.S. James' statement that all the songs in his 1911 edition
>were written in dispersed harmony be used in trying to frame a Sacred Harp
>definition of dispersed harmony? I don't have enough training to determine
>this, but it seems to me that some songs -- e.g. Martin, Warning, The
>Marriage in the Skies, The Great Roll Call -- don't fit my vague concept
>of dispersed harmony. If so, are these exceptions to the rule, or can they
>be used in helping define the rule?
Good call, Robert! In the James edition, these are indeed
exceptions. Martin and Warning, songs in the Mason-Hastings
idiom, are retained like all the 1870 content. The latter two
are in the contemporary gospel idiom, and were composed for the
Union Harp of 1909 by Denson family members; note that the "roll
call" is in the "sandbox" area of the rudiments. Seaborn and
Sidney Denson had several gospel music composers among their
descendants, including son Whitt Denson, and grandsons Owel
Denson and Otis L. McCoy, the latter a major figure in the
Vaughan establishment before he founded Tennessee Music and
Printing Company in 1931, a Church of God enterprise. But
certainly the avoidance of gospel-tinged music (with these
exceptions) is a major distinction between the 1911 James
book and the revisions of W.M. Cooper and J.L. White. Gavin
Campbell's 1997 article in Journal of the American Folklore
Society explores the reasons for such conservatism on the
part of New South entrepreneur James, and quotes from the
OSH front matter:
" Given this unique heritage, James saw his revision as particularly
important in
checking modern sacred music that had become "badly tainted with operatic,
secular and rag-time strains" (1911:iii). The Original Sacred Harp, he
asserted,
would continue "in a simple form a great body . . . of sacred tunes which
are as
far from secular, operatic, rag-time and jig melodies as it is possible"
(191 1:iii).
James promised that his book contained "few of the twisted rills and frills
of the
unnatural snaking of the voice . . . which have in the last decade so
demoralized
and disturbed the church music of the present age," which only "retards the
great work of the Gospel and of the churches" by driving away "religion and
religious feeling [from] among the church" (1 9 11 :iii). The Original
Sacred Harp
stood alone as a symbol of uncompromised religious authenticity. "
This is quite a strong statement, reminiscent of
D.H. Mansfield's preface of the American Vocalist (1848):
" Another evidence of the inferiority of most modern music,
is its short life. What has become of the ten thousand tunes
composed within the last twenty years? With few exceptions,
they are dead and gone. Old Windham, and China, have acted
as pall bearers for half a century, and were it not for Old
Hundred, and tunes of like character, there had been no
music suitable either for a Doxology, or a Benediction upon
surviving friends. The fact is, the old composers were
probably better acquainted both with God and man. They had
studied human nature as well as scientific theories. Many
of them were holy men, and their music, composed among the
hills and forests of Puritanic New England, is but an
embodiment of pious devotion. This will explain the reason
why old Majesty, and Fluvanna, will make the eyes of a
congregation sparkle, or Hatfield and New Durham, make them
weep, while modern compositions produce little or no effect.
" Another fact. In every part of the United States, even
where new music is sung in the public congregation because it
is fashionable, let any one mingle with the devout worshippers
of God in their social meetings, and he will hear not the
scientific gingling of imported discord, but the simple harmony
of old Turner, Northfield, the Union Hymn, or something that
moves the hearts of good men, if it does not tickle the
fastidious fancy of infidels. "
Strong words, and strong opinions, from a State of Maine
Methodist!
In previous discussions of the term "dispersed harmony,"
however, some have raised the typical 19th-century meaning
as opposed to close harmony. In the latter, the alto and
tenor parts largely parallel the soprano melody so that all
three parts may be played on a keyboard, while the bass part,
though not melodically tied to the soprano, fulfils a
harmonic function. This describes the hymn tunes of Mason,
Hastings, Bradbury, etc. as well as much early gospel music,
especially of the more homophonic variety. It does not
describe the "freely moving" parts of the Sacred Harp as
described by McKenzie.
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Robert Vaughn
--- On Wed, 8/5/09, Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu> wrote:
> In the James edition, these are indeed
> exceptions. Martin and Warning, songs in the
> Mason-Hastings
> idiom, are retained like all the 1870 content.
Thanks for defining where "Warning" should go. I wasn't sure where to place it. Would "The Savior’s Call" fit there as well? I have not closely observed two of my favorites -- Hebron and Shawmut -- in context of dispersed harmony, but my thinking is that they probably wouldn't fit either. Yet, some of the Mason-Hastings stuff has a little different feel to me and maybe had some of the harmonies reworked by southern tunesmiths??
> The
> latter two
> are in the contemporary gospel idiom, and were composed for
> the Union Harp of 1909 by Denson family members;
> note that the "roll call"
> is in the "sandbox" area of the rudiments.
I've always wondered about this song, kind of like it was "snuck in" to say, hey, we can write in this idiom too. It appears to be in the rudiments and yet is after them, and has a history attached to it like the rest of the songs in the book. Perhaps James had a wry sense of humor, like when he avowed in the introduction not moving any songs unless absolutely necessary and then sending J. L. White's "Evening" into the outfield and putting a different song on 70b. I also have an impression -- just an impression -- that James was the most successful politician of the three revisers and was able to avoid some of the minefields set by the progressives and old-schoolers. Or, IOW, I don't think the greater success of James' revision was all music-related.
> But
> certainly the avoidance of gospel-tinged music (with these
> exceptions) is a major distinction between the 1911 James
> book and the revisions of W.M. Cooper and J.L. White.
I think there is no doubt of that distinction, but I think some have mistakenly taken James' statement that _all_ the songs in his 1911 edition were written in dispersed harmony to mean absolutely all without any exceptions. That just isn't true. The "all" should probably be taken as more the idea of being dominated by a particular feature. If not, fitting "Warning", "The Marriage in the Skies", etc. into a definition of "dispersed harmony" would greatly skew what most in the shape note community intend, it seems to me.
Would it be correct to view the "gospel-tinged music" that J.L. White preferred as being a different than some of what we have in the Cooper book? There seems to be a difference in style that I can't put my finger on.
> Gavin
> Campbell's 1997 article in Journal of the American
> Folklore
> Society explores the reasons for such conservatism on the
> part of New South entrepreneur James, and quotes from the
> OSH front matter:
I'm guessing Duncan Vinson's _"As Far From Secular, Operatic, Rag-time, and Jig Melodies As Is Possible": Religion and the Resurgence of Interest in The Sacred Harp, 1895-1911_ may address some of this as well?
> The fact is, the old composers were
> probably better acquainted both with God and man.
> They had
> studied human nature as well as scientific theories.
> Many
> of them were holy men, and their music, composed among the
> hills and forests of Puritanic New England, is but an
> embodiment of pious devotion.
No doubt some truth in this, but someone writing in 1848 could look back with a little different perspective than some of the Puritan ministers living back in that time had!
> In previous discussions of the term "dispersed harmony,"
> however, some have raised the typical 19th-century meaning
> as opposed to close harmony. In the latter, the alto
> and tenor parts largely parallel the soprano melody so that
> all
> three parts may be played on a keyboard, while the bass
> part,
> though not melodically tied to the soprano, fulfills a
> harmonic function. This describes the hymn tunes of
> Mason,
> Hastings, Bradbury, etc. as well as much early gospel
> music,
> especially of the more homophonic variety. It does
> not
> describe the "freely moving" parts of the Sacred Harp as
> described by McKenzie.
Robert Vaughn
Richard Schmeidler
> I believe that Mimi Stevens had a t-shirt that
> read "Real women sing alto." I don't think
> that's any more accurate than "Real men don't
> eat quiche," but the point is well taken. Not everyone
> with two X chromosomes should aspire to being a treble or an
> octave-up tenor, and that's one of 1,001 reasons why I
> love Sacred Harp singing. "And each fulfill his [or
> her] part"!
And Annie Grieshop has written "I have to jump octaves constantly, trying to keep it low enough for my baritone voice."
In the 90s, when I hosted Joe Beasley's singing in Brooklyn after he died, our numbers were sometimes small. It was not uncommon for me to be the only one singing bass. In 1998-99, I was regularly joined by a woman bass. She sang in the bass octave, and took the low choosing notes.