Talk:Shape note

Need to expand scope

IMO, this article needs to be expanded to recognize that Shape Note Music is much broader than Sacred Harp. For more detailed comments see Talk:Sacred Harp. Rlvaughn 22:12, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I concur with Rlvaughn. This article could describe the origins of seven-note music in more detail, rather than merely contrast the system with the four-note system. The article could also expand on the sentence: "There are other seven-shape systems" at the conclusion of "Four-shape vs. seven-shape systems" section. Finally the article could acknowledge the southern gospel tradition, a major contemporary context in which seven-shape music is sung. Silversand (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Material from musical notation

The following was added to musical notation - I (Camembert) don't think it's useful duplication, so I've removed it from there. I think everything is covered in the article, but I thought I'd put it here just in case:

An alternative notation sometimes used for sight-singing uses shaped notes. Standard musical notation is augmented through the use of shapes in place of the round or oval dot or circle. The shape used depends upon the note's location on the major scale.

Shaped notes were used in hymnals in the late 19th century, mainly in southern Baptist congregations in the U.S. states previously part of the confederacy. Most of these congregations would sing a capella, since they could not afford a piano or organ. Shaped notes made it easier to teach the songs to people who had no previous experience with musical notation.

Shaped note hymnals and sheet music are still produced today, and continue to be used by some congregations and for some gospel singing events.

Examples needed

I believe that Lilypond can be persuaded to produce Shaped Notes: is there anyone who can produce some samples so the rest of us can see what we're discussing? Phil 18:07, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this gap, Phil. Sooner or later I would like to take on the task of music notation software; for now, at least there are links in the right places that the reader can follow.

Opus33 19:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can put out a request to some singers who probably would be capable of putting the notes directly into the Wikipedia article. - Rlvaughn 21:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Improvements needed

Ok, gang, sorry for the dup. However, there is still work to do.

First of all, it is called both "shaped note" and "shape note," and anyone who has spent any amount of time in the rural south can tell you that the word "shaped" and the word "shape" though appearing to be different in written English, are pronounced exactly the same. This complicates word choice in writing an article about what is fundamentally an oral tradition.

Second, the article must make clear that the notation system is an adjunct to the standard five line staff. At least, I've never seen any shaped notes written without a staff. Therefore, people who read music in the usual way can just ignore the shapes and still get the equivalent information content from the position of the note on the staff, and the key signature.

Third, although the method of teaching and the notational convention are almost inseperable, shaped notes are really a system of notation rather than a method or style of singing.

I have also made comments at musical notation regarding linking.

If someone wants to make these updates, great, I will do so boldly in a while if no one else does. UninvitedCompany 22:04, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

1. I don't think there has ever been a really consistent name or spelling, varying from shaped note, shaped-note, shape note, shape-note, etc. IMO, "shaped" note is more accurate because we are talking about a "shaped" note head; but "shape" note is simpler, because, as you noted, it all sounds that way in conversation anyway.

2. This a good point that needs to be made. There was an attempt, by Andrew Law, I think, to just use the shaped notes independently of the staff, but it never caught on. I have a Welsh hymn book that has a system of solfeggio "notation" (but not shaped notes) that is independent of the staff, but I suppose that has no bearing on this article. I have often wondered why anyone would ever object to shaped notes, because, as you say, a person can just ignore the shape and still get the same information as they would if all the notes were round. But that's a different subject.

3. Though technically shaped notes are ONLY a system of notation, in actual practice they are very much associated with particular styles of singing. Sacred Harp, for example, (though the music certainly could be sung if written in round notes) would not exist without shaped notes. IMO, there are styles that can be correctly referred to as shape note traditions. - Rlvaughn 22:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Request for redirect

Is this the wikipedia equivalent to the Britannica entry? If so please create a redirect from shape-note hymnal

Thanks, lots of issues | leave me a message 00:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC), the EB 2004 project

Done. Opus33 14:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of shape-note tunebooks

I am creating a list of four-shape shape-note tunebooks as an organizational tool for finding and linking to articles about such books. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments. A list for seven-shape books might be good as well. - Rlvaughn 19:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I decided to make it for both seven and four shape. Comments still wanted. - Rlvaughn 19:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello RLV, I think this is a great idea. I have added a chronological sort, a prefatory passage, and a couple little additions. Opus33 15:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opus, I like the additions and changes. Thanks for adding the date on Northern Harmony. I didn't have it at hand, and couldn't seem to find it easily online. I especially like the chronological ordering. I usually have "alphabetical on the brain", but chronological is much better for this list. - Rlvaughn 23:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "A Shape-Note Singing Lesson" is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/shapenote.pdf

If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an External Link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

160.111.254.11 21:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Smithsonian Institution Center for Education and Museum Studies

I've put in a link. Thanks for pointing this out. Opus33 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

currently active shape note traditions

This section contains the following claim:

"The shape note tradition that currently has the greatest number of participants is Sacred Harp music."

Does anyone have a source for this? I would bet that right now most shape note music is 7-shape sung in churches.

amity150

Oops. I was the one who put that in. In fact, I have no idea what is the relative number of participants for singings vs. church services. Has anyone ever tried to count them? I would judge that unless good data are available on this point, we should probably just say nothing.

It's certainly true that Sacred Harp dominates at singings, but that's not what's at issue here.

I'll try to fix this next time I edit, if no one else does first. Thanks for spotting this, Amity.

Opus33 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went and rewrote it, but not too satisfactorily, so please help out. I was hoping there would be some entries that would help to illustrate some of this, but alas, we are going to have to write other webpages, which really should be done anyway! Let's all work on new sections to this article, with the hopeful aim of having it promoted to "featured article" one day soon. I think it would be great to have a section on the Sacred Harp Diaspora, to use Kiri Miller's term, and we also need to work on the entry on singing schools to describe how all this is learned. Amity150 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps we should step back and think about this before making more changes, or perhaps leave it out altogether. We have gone from "The shape note tradition that currently has the greatest number of participants is Sacred Harp music" to "Thus today denominational songbooks printed in seven shapes probably constitute the largest branch of the shape note tradition", both of which are probably guesses at best.

First we need to define what we mean by a shape note tradition. For example, if this is simply four-shape versus seven-shape, I would have little doubt that seven-shape is larger -- it encompasses the Primitive Baptist and Church of Christ song books, Stamps-Baxter song books, both used in church and singing conventions, the Christian Harmony, New Harp of Columbia, Harmonia Sacra, etc. So if we talking simple use of one or the other, I think seven-shape. On the other hand, I don't think we see enough unity there to call it a "shape note tradition". Stamps-Baxter song books constitute almost a totally different genre than say, "The Good Old Songs" by Primitive Baptist C. H. Cayce, where Sacred Harp is a more or less unified tradition. Again we get into a definitional problem with saying "denominational songbooks". Do we intend to include, for example, Favorite Songs and Hymns and/or Heavenly Highway Hymns, which seem to be favorites among rural Missionary Baptists in East Texas and elsewhere? Yet they clearly aren't "denominational songbooks". These are just some problems I see in trying to formulate a statement for which there is little documentation and possibly not even a clear definition. Perhaps an in-depth discussion of this would be in order before we make further changes?? - Rlvaughn 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

While we looking at this block, is there something we can use rather than "Singings are also intermittently held which feature more modern seven-shape gospel music..." Although intermittently can mean "stopping and starting at regular intervals", I think with many people it will have a connotation of "off & on, not at regular intervals". Stamps-Baxter conventions usually meet annually or some other regular basis, just like Sacred Harp, et al. This might be taken in the wrong way, IMO. - Rlvaughn 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought "intermittently" was the case, and meant it exactly in the sense you understood it: Not on a regularly scheduled basis. I took Missionary Baptists out of the list. Make whatever other changes are appropriate. I would love to see this article get longer and more detailed though.Amity150 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"choral"

My next question is on the use of the term "choral" to describe shape note traditions (first sentence). Is this a proper use of a musical term that I am not musically savvy enough to truly understand, or does it imply that shape note singing is a performance art, and if the latter then should the congregational nature of shape note singing be elaborated on somewhere in here? I'll admit I have infrequently seen impromptu "choruses" thrown together for "demonstration singings" but it has never been the historical norm, has it?

Well, it is some weeks later now, and still not having received an answer I went ahead and changed every appearance of the word "choral." Following the link created by the term choral showed that little/ nothing in the article pertained to shape note music. Sorry I didn't know how to sign my first post...now I do. Amity150 07:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do shapes help if you already read music?

I learned to read music and sang in church choirs long before I got into shape note music and the shapes definitely help me. I miss them sometimes in choir practice. That is why I weakened the comments about this from "probably" to "may". In any case, "probably" needs justification (survey or something like that). wellsoberlin 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(belated reply): Thanks, Wellsoberlin; I think what you've done is more accurate. Opus33 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Modulation

I put in a little bit about modulation, under the theory that some reader might reasonably wonder, "if the shapes match the scale of a particular key, what happens when you change keys?"

I'm pretty certain that Sacred Harp music almost never modulates If anyone can contribute on this point concerning other shape note traditions that would be very helpful. Opus33 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In seven-shaped notes the shape does not match any particular key. This is the "Movable DO" system as it is sometimes called. Whatever your key signature, that is your "DO". --Dshepherd70 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the article already says this - take a look. The question I raised is what happens in the notation when the music changes key (if it ever does). Opus33 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple, the shaped notes move accordingly. The key change should be marked, though, as I assume it is with non-shaped. Arlen22 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Modulation II

Hello Nuberger. Excuse me, but your revert didn't make any sense to me. You said I didn't have a reference source, but the source is right there, cited, namely the book by Dorothy Horn. It covers not just Sacred Harp but other shape note traditions.

I'd be willing to stop restoring this section if you can find a published source that indicates that modulation is found as a normal component of other shape note traditions. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of article title and division with Sacred Harp don't seem right

I'm trying to start a centralized discussion of this at Talk:Sacred Harp. Please contribute there if you think you can help address the holes in our article-naming and subject-dividing logic. I don't think I know enough to undertake a redivision on my own. Wareh (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "United Pentecostal" refer to?

There is a large USA denomination called "United Pentecostal" as well as a couple of small ones elsewhere. There are many pentecostal churches in the USA that may sing 7 shape music that are not in that denomination. This needs to be clarified. SixWingedSeraph (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Music vs Book vs Notation

Cross-post from Talk:Sacred Harp

One of the most confusing thing for readers and writers about Sacred Harp music is that the terms "Sacred Harp" and "shape note" refer to several different, overlapping things:

• The style of notation
• The book, The Sacred Harp
• That special kind of music associated with both of the above (and the living tradition in which it is situated)

The two main articles on the topics, Sacred Harp and Shape Note, have a lot of overlap: more than I can resolve right now and more than probably should be resolved unilaterally. The existing first sentences of the articles, though (which for the reader are going to define what subjects of the articles are, whatever we think), do set out two clear and distinct, if overlapping, focuses:

• Shape note: "Shape notes are a music notation designed to facilitate congregational and community singing."
• Sacred Harp: "Sacred Harp singing is a tradition of sacred choral music … "

Wareh suggested years ago on the Shape note article that the logic of the article-naming and subject-dividing leave something to be desired, but until someone figures out a better solution, I've revised the beginning of Sacred Harp to make the de facto division clear, and I'm cross-referencing the articles to each other.

19:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalartist (talk • contribs)

New sidebar + Please discuss organization

For reasons I've explained more fully at Talk:Sacred Harp#Internal Inconsistencies and Ongoing Issues: Origin of music, scope and organization of coverage, I've added a sidebar to this page.

There are some big issues about the overall organization of Wikipedia's coverage of this subject matter and how to organize it into various articles. I think it's really important for editors involved in this group of articles to discuss the subject and come to a consensus, because the current state of affairs can be very confusing in some respects. Various people have occasionally brought these problems up on various talk pages, but I'm hoping everyone might congregate at the talk section above and figure out some solutions to disentangling these interrelated topics and organizing them into a sensible group of articles.

LiberalArtist (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)