Dr. Kiri Miller's presentation on Tuesday, March 14th

Kiri Miller For class discussion on March 14th Please read this article for historical background: Campbell, Gavin James. 1997. "Old Can Be Used Instead of New": Shape-Note Singing and the Crisis of Modernity in the New South, 1880-1920. Journal of American Folklore 110:169-188. (available via JSTOR) Then read the following excerpts from the Sacred Harp listserv (discussions@fasola.org). This is a moderated, archived listserv, open to anyone with an email address. I have not edited individual postings, apart from deletion of irrelevant material (noted in square brackets). The postings appear in their original order. None have been deleted until near the end of this document, where I have excised a few days' worth of material that came between Colin Henein's post and the closing exchange between Tim Miller and Bob Meek. Bring a printout (or your laptop) to class so you can refer to specific postings. You might want to prepare a short list of common themes that emerge. The postings make frequent reference to the following song texts: "Stafford" See what a living stone The builders did refuse, Yet God hath built His church thereon, In spite of env’ous Jews. (Isaac Watts, 1719) "Indian Convert" (first verse) In de dark woods, no Indian nigh, Den me look Heb’n, and send up cry, Upon my knee so low; But God on high, in shiny place, See me at night, wid teary face— De preacher tell me so. As you will gather from the listserv discussion, these are not typical Sacred Harp texts. The second song does not appear in The Sacred Harp at all but rather on p. 133 of the Southern Harmony tunebook (William Walker, 1835), where it is attributed to “Johnson.” Unlike The Sacred Harp (first published in 1844, revised most recently in 1991), the Southern Harmony has not changed since the 1835 edition. Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:41:15 -0600 Sender: Tim Cook <cook015@bama.ua.edu> Dear Singers: I love this music to pieces, as the state of my books is beginning to tell, and promote it every chance I get. However, I was wondering what people make of the reference to "envious Jews" in "Stafford" in the Sacred Harp. If this reflects any 18th-century prejudice on the part of Isaac Watts, he got it from no less a source than St. Paul, in Acts (e.g., ch. 17). From my untutored eyes 20 centuries removed, Paul appears spiteful of Jews, sort of like reformed smokers are of smokers, but worse in that he's dealing with an entire religion, not a bad habit. Does not such a characterization of Jews too easily give license to prejudice? And for Christian Harmony and Southern Harmony singers, how are we to read "Indian Convert"? At my first Christian Harmony singing, I was ecstatic about these beautiful songs at once so new and somehow so familiar to me. Then we got to "Indian Convert" with its pidgin English and I could hardly mouth the words, so stunned was I at what is very hard not to take as racist, or at least paternalistic. After moving to Alabama in 1998, both my wife and I go to as many of Christian Harmony singings as we can, the singers having become our second family. But "Indian Convert" happens to be one of their favorite songs, which they sing with utmost sincerity and teary eyes, just like in the song ("But God on high, in shiny place, See me at night, wid teary face--De preacher tell me so.") I understand the words are supposedly dictated from an Indian back when Indians were struggling with the invaders' new language, but Native Americans nowadays go to great lengths to dispel the stereotypes that that song seems to promote. One could say that this is all just historical music, that we don't really mean this 18th-century stuff anyway. But for the most part, when we're singing these songs, I think many of us really do mean it, even the scary parts. At least I do. But when we get to words that seem disrespectful, then it's hard to sing them without meaning them, which I don't want to do. Has anyone else been bothered by any of this? Tim Cook Tuscaloosa, Ala. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RSRICHMOND@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:48:54 EST Tim Cook in Tuscaloosa writes about two issues in ancient and modern sensibility: >>I was wondering what people make of the reference to "envious Jews" in "Stafford" in the Sacred Harp. If this reflects any 18th-century prejudice on the part of Isaac Watts, he got it from no less a source than St. Paul, in Acts (e.g., ch. 17). From my untutored eyes 20 centuries removed, Paul appears spiteful of Jews.<< Tim Cook refers to Acts 17:5a KJV: "But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy [Gk ze:lo:santes, GNB jealous (of Paul and Silas' success)]...." alluded to by Isaac Watts 1719 in SH78 Stafford, which I've never sung but it's a rousing major-key fuguing tune: See what a living stone The builders did refuse, Yet God hath built His Church thereon In spite of env'ous Jews. In my opinion (speaking with some authority as the non-Jewish father of a daughter who is a practicing Conservative Jew, as is her mother) this verse is pretty offensive, with its juxtaposition of a most important biblical metaphor (in York Rite Masonry there's a whole degree built around it) with an entirely gratuitous insult. I'd suggest substituting a different short-meter verse, or else a patch such as "lest we salvation lose." >>And for Christian Harmony and Southern Harmony singers, how are we to read "Indian Convert" with its pidgin English? "Indian Convert" happens to be one of [the AL CH singers'] favorite songs, which they sing with utmost sincerity and teary eyes, just like in the song ("But God on high, in shiny place, See me at night, wid teary face--De preacher tell me so.")<< I've never sung "Indian Convert" (CH1873 287). I've never seen this "Indian language" anywhere else, except in one or two more Harp songs. (It looks like a pidgin, but not one I've ever encountered.) It's different from the "me see-um heap big chief" convention we may have learned as children. I've thought of posting this query on the SSILA (Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas) listserv, but it's always seemed too offensive. - Conceivably this "pidgin" is a convention of "Indian Guide" Spiritism, a post Civil War religious movement that still survives marginally in some Afro-Caribbean religions. Bob Richmond New Harp of Columbia singer Knoxville TN --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MarthaH605@aol.com Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:23:52 EST In a message dated 3/22/2002 6:17:23 PM Central Standard Time, cook015@bama.ua.edu writes: > Has anyone else > been bothered by any of this? > Tim, The Sacred Harp is not politically correct music. "The Indian Convert" does not bother me, although I thought it strange at first. It is not written that way to be disrespectful of Native Americans or to make fun of them. Instead, it's the testimony of one person in his own words, about how Jesus saved him. "In spite of envious Jews" is harder to take. In fact, I don't know anyone who sings this. But the song follows a centuries-long Christian tradition of blaming the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion, because when Pilate asked, "What shall I do with this man?" the gospel story says that the Jews who were present shouted, "Crucify him!" It has only been in recent years that the Catholic church, for instance, officially made up with the Jews. One could, if one wanted to, get upset that the Sacred Harp refers to God as "he," or that there are lots of references to blood (There is a Fountain), damnation (Tribulation), eternal judgment (World Unknown), death and decay (Morning Sun), and sin (Jackson). Modern church hymnals often studiously avoid these things, or change the hymns to be more palatable. (I've seen God referred to as "she," or just as "God" or not at all, when the original hymn said "he." And Amazing Grace was changed from "That saved a wretch like me," to something else that I can't remember at the moment.) That's one of the reasons I like the Sacred Harp. Its texts are unadulterated, unexpurgated, the real thing. Strong stuff! Something that you can really sink your teeth into. And I love it that way. Martha Henderson --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:04:02 -0800 (PST) From: Forbes Bruce <brucewrites@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: "Envious Jews"; Pidgin English I went to my Sared Harp book and read the lyrics to STAFFORD, and my take is that I can take this in a purely historical setting and not have a problem with these lyrics. But if there were some who were using something like this to foster prejudece, then I would not allow it to be sung. Sometimes we NEED to put our art into it's historical setting to fully appreciate it. INDIAN CONVERT does not seem to be in the book I have, but I would guess my feelings would be the same. I have too many Jewish friends to purposely insult them. I appreciate the foundation the Law of Moses laid for the 'temple' of Christianity to be raised - although I obviuosly do not beleive that Judaism is the most current covenant God has made with mankind, I still respect it for what it is. And, being a westerner, I have too many 'native american' friends to pidgeonhole them into any sort of stereotype. My opinion, aqnyway Bruceman Salt Lake City --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:39:54 -0600 From: Warren Steel <mudws@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu> In message <3C9BDECD@bama.ua.edu>Tim writes: >I love this music to pieces, as the state of my books is beginning to tell, >and promote it every chance I get. However, I was wondering what people make >of the reference to "envious Jews" in "Stafford" in the Sacred Harp. If this >reflects any 18th-century prejudice on the part of Isaac Watts, Watts was merely paraphrasing Psalm 118 in his wonted fashion, "the language of the New Testament." To insist on this verse as "traditional," and to object to "political correctness," would be to ignore the tradition of interchanging music and words in congregational psalmody. Read's tune appears elsewhere with other words, or with no words at all. In a 1993 posting to the new fasola list, I suggested a minimal change, by way of replacement or supplement, using another verse from Watts's setting of the same psalm. Here is that posting. ---------------------------earlier posting follows-------------------- Subject: More words to STAFFORD (page 78) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 93 14:45:48 -0500 From: mudws@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu Here's the first in a series of amplified and alternate texts for tunes in The Sacred Harp. How about an alternative verse for Daniel Read's tune on page 78? Many people are uncomfortable with the reference to "envious Jews"; in many places, singers of Jewish faith and background participate in Sacred Harp singing. Watts's text is based on Psalm 118, verse 22: "the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone." While not inherently anti-Semitic (the next verse specifies *which* envious Jews are meant: "the scribe and angry priest"), Watts's tone and interpretation are a bit contentious, to say the least. Here's another verse from the same psalm: you can sing it *with* the other one, or *instead of* it. Like all of Watts's Psalms it is "imitated in the language of the New-Testament," but at least it shows repect for the Messianic traditions within Judaism. Hosanna to the King, Of David's royal blood; Bless him, ye saints: he comes to bring Salvation from your God. ----------------------------end of enclosed posting------------------- From: "mbnelms" <ninelives@sanmarcos.net> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:50:05 -0600 "envious Jews" in "Stafford" in the Sacred Harp I know this one. I don't know the other. As far as I can tell, Jews don't envy Christians at all. They think we are mistaken. So on the one hand, it's incorrect. On the other, it strikes me as antisemitic. I sing it, but with reluctance. I wouldn't object if that song was either deleted or the text changed; in fact, I'd welcome it. Morris Nelms San Marcos, TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sharon Kellam <kellam@skybest.com> Amen! Martha Henderson, I am a Christian Harmony singer and would not want to change any of the words to any of our songs. Many of us love the 'Indian Convert' and I have been told that there was once a time when we rarely had a singing where it was not sung. I,for one, do not sing it with anything but love in my heart for the tradition and times that produced it. If one does otherwise, than that's their thoughts and hearing, not mine. I think if we forget history we are doomed to repeat it. I for one do not want to tamper with any of this tradition of shape note hymns. My heart and mind are large enough to hear the love and spirit that speakes to me beyond the words. If one begins to tamper with and make politically correct Shakespeare ( for instance) -- it's NOT Shakespeare anymore! Yes, Martha, this is STRONG music and it is also our history. Sharon Kellam --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jordan Singer <jordan@alumni.stanford.org> Subject: Re: "Envious Jews"; Pidgin English Knowing that the person singing beside me might be Jewish, I couldn't sing the "Envious Jews" verse from "Stafford". Knowing that the person singing beside me might be Native American, I couldn't bring myself to sing the pidgin in "Indian Convert". Of the two examples, Stafford seems clearest. "Envious Jews" is just an insult. We can use the historical and biblical context to understand why that verse is there, but that doesn't mean we have to sing it, or keep it in the book. One of the worst results of having a verse like this is that "Stafford", a good song, probably doesn't get sung very much. And how many Jewish folks would come to the next singing if "Stafford" were their first exposure to SH? If we don't lose the verse, then we lose the song or the singers, or both. "Indian Convert" seems less clear cut. There's a bit of history in that song, and the Pidgin was probably not written with any malicious or disrespectful intent. Let's face it, there probably *were* more than a few Native Americans who spoke just like that in the time the words were transcribed. On the other hand, there were also plenty of Native Americans who spoke perfect American English, and those Native Americans don't appear in our books. Though I can't speak for the Native American community, I suspect the reason many of its members would be offended is the fact that the "guy who can't talk straight" represents Native Americans in Southern/Christian Harmony. However, my main objection to this verse is based on something other than the fact that some folks would be offended by it: There seems to be a convention that only English is used in our song books. (Sometimes I think this is a shame -- Wouldn't a little Latin, or Navajo, or Xhosa spice things up a bit?). But there it is. The pidgin in "Indian Convert" just isn't English. If we were to start transcibing how people actually talk rather than using the King's English of Wesley and Watts, then why only transcribe the poor "Indian convert's" non-standard dialect? Our shape note tradition has been primarily Southeastern American for more than a century. When I listen to recordings made in the South, the English used is consistently different than the dictionary pronunciation of what's on the page (e.g. "Your" is sung as "Yer"). And although I can't hear it because it's my own, I'm sure our Washington Dialect creeps into the Northwestern singings I attend. The point is that we don't write it down that way. Southerners would *scream*, and rightly so, if we started transcribing shape note songs in a sort of Mark Twain Southern dialect. Even if it were an accurate transciption. Even if it were first-person in a new song. The words in our books are put down on the page in standard English, then we sing them how we want. This is the tradition. Why make an exception with Native Americans? 'Course, if we really wanted to allow the sincerety of the "Indian Convert" to flow into our music, we could allow him to express himself on our pages in his native Oneida (or other) language. Then *we* could struggle with the language, rather than enshrine his difficulties. I lived in Japan for 4 years, and I can tell you I sure wouldn't want anything I said (or tried to say) in Japanese written down and repeated for centuries to come! My two cents... -- Jordan Singer --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carlton, David L" <david.l.carlton@vanderbilt.edu> --On Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:39 PM -0600 Warren Steel <mudws@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu> wrote: > Watts was merely paraphrasing Psalm 118 in his wonted > fashion, "the language of the New Testament." To insist on this > verse as "traditional," and to object to "political correctness," > would be to ignore the tradition of interchanging music and words > in congregational psalmody. Read's tune appears elsewhere with > other words, or with no words at all. In a 1993 posting to the > new fasola list, I suggested a minimal change, by way of > replacement or supplement, using another verse from Watts's > setting of the same psalm. [etc.] I'd like to heartily second Warren's argument. While Sacred Harp singers pride themselves, in my view justly, on sticking to the old texts and eschewing the sort of theological tinkering that all too often messes up contemporary mainline hymnals, there are some lyrics that do cross a line, and generally singers in my experience deal with them by avoiding them [I've never sung "Edmonds" with the 1991 Sacred Harp text, and am just as happy never to have made its acquaintance]. The conclusion to "Stafford" is one such case for me--which I hate, because, like others who have posted here, I so love the tune, and, actually, *most* of Watts's words. I've toyed with calling it and asking the class to substitute another SM lyric--say "Come ye that love the Lord"--but I've been fearful of sowing confusion or violating etiquette. At present I prefer to follow the advice of St. Paul, and avoid putting stumbling blocks in the way of others coming to the tradition; Warren's suggestion, though, might well work. When "Indian Convert" comes up at a Southern Harmony singing, I confess that I usually find myself needing to slip out for more water. In that case, the way out for me is the 1991 SH, in which the same tune appears as [tah-dah!] "Nashville," with the wonderful anonymous lyrics that begin "The Lord into His garden comes . . . ." [I'm not *that* PC!] David. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David L. Carlton Associate Professor of History VU Sta. B, Box 1523, Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235 Ph.: (615) 322-3326 FAX: (615) 343-6002 E-Mail:david.l.carlton@vanderbilt.edu www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/history/carltodl/carltodl.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:25:27 EST From: Twj921@aol.com As for strong stuff, if one is conscious of what one is singing, it would sort of depend on what kind of stuff and how strong it is. Everybody has some kind of threshold; I won't sing that phrase myself. Some have suggested substituting "in spite of empty pews" or "in spite of drugs and booze," or others I can't remember. I'd go with Warren's idea too. --Ted Johnson --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MINCEYJUDY@aol.com Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:37:43 EST I have not heard "Stafford" in several years. If the dear little lady I last heard lead it had ever met a Jew, she didn't know it and would never have intentionally offended them or anyone else. I decided not long after I first heard it to treat it as a historical document, bite the pc bullet and sing it. Then I heard "Indian Convert." My Cherokee blood boiled! But sense prevailed; it is not meant to be derogatory, but as a dialect piece, like an Uncle Remus story. My favorite recording of those is by a white man, my own cousin. I will even sing "Edmonds," which, to me, is the most offensive of all. People do not love a particular song for the words alone. It has layers of personal history, being " the favorite of Great Uncle Vernon who taught me all I know" or Granny or Aunt Una ( substitute own mentor or loved one). It is a reminder of childhood, of friendship, of mutual love and not a political statement. I am appalled at the sanitizing of hymns. I don't have a problem with the hearty language and the lack of inclusive pronouns. Martha hit this nail right on the head. We have made a mountain of a molehill in this country. In our great desire to offend no one, we offend everyone by making our speech and writing both bland and cumbersome. Sing on (as written), J --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna Abrahams" <poweralto@msn.com> To: discussions@fasola.org Subject: re: envious Jews Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:51:59 -0500 Forgive me if this is written hastily, and possibly not as perfectly as I would wish -- but I would like to weigh in on the "envious Jews" debate before it passes. As a Jew, and as a human, I find this lyric inappropriate and will not sing it. I will sing almost anything else in the Sacred Harp, even if it does not agree with the letter of my personal theology, because I believe in the underlying goodness and spirituality of its intent -- can see the good fruit growing from its tree, to use a scriptural metaphor. This lyric, however, has nothing to recommend it. Just the opposite, it can keep a wound open that should have been allowed to close long ago. So like a vegetarian who avoids meat for moral reasons and prays that others will someday stop killing sentient beings to nourish their bodies, I pray that others will someday allow this lyric to fall into history. Not through forced purging, but through personal choice. Donna Abrahams Maryland --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stefan4121@aol.com Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:02:23 EST As a relative newcomer to SH, I read the lyrics of "Stafford" because I saw all the discussion of the use of the words "envious Jews" without any context. It looked bad enough by itself, so I wondered what it means. When I read the lyrics of Stafford, it seems to be a historical reference to the circumstances leading to Christ's crucifixion: Religious leaders of Jesus time began to envy and fear the large following forming around Jesus, leading to the crucifixion. Despite His crucifixion, the church grew. Is there reason to believe that the lyrics mean that modern day Jews are envious of Christians? I can't imagine that this would be the case, because Christianity is open to anyone. If a Jew isn't a Christian, it's because he doesn't want to be. All that said, if I went to a singing in a Moslem society and someone requested a song whose lyrics said that God's Prophet established Islam despite the Christian Crusaders, I doubt that I would sing along. In fact, though, such comments are ingrained in some of the Islamic literature that I have seen, and I would be amiss to demand changes of old traditional Islamic documents because they didn't agree with my Christian beliefs. I'm not sure that I've really reached a conclusion, but I'm just throwing out my thoughts to the conversation. Can someone tell me where "Indian Convert" is? I don't see it in the 1991 book. Should I get my blue book out of storage? Steven --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Anitra L. Kaye" <Kaygen@cox.net> To: <discussions@fasola.org> Subject: Envious Jews Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:39:29 -0800 Being jewish and a shape-note singer I want to vote in and say I'm not offended nor envious. However our shape-note group in keeping with the SoCal (Southern California) tradition, ingenuity has prevailed and we sing 'Envious Dudes'. Peace Out! Anitra L. Kaye ***** From: MarthaH605@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:53:46 EST In a message dated 3/24/2002 12:25:45 PM Central Standard Time, jordan@alumni.stanford.org writes: > Though I can't speak for the Native American community, I suspect the > reason many of its members would be offended is the fact that the "guy who > can't talk straight" represents Native Americans in Southern/Christian > Harmony. > > However, my main objection to this verse is based on something other than > the fact that some folks would be offended by it: There seems to be a > convention that only English is used in our song books. (Sometimes I think > this is a shame -- Wouldn't a little Latin, or Navajo, or Xhosa spice > things up a bit?). But there it is. The pidgin in "Indian Convert" just > isn't English. > If we were to start transcibing how people actually talk rather than > using the King's English of Wesley and Watts, then why only transcribe the > poor "Indian convert's" non-standard dialect? Our shape note tradition has > been primarily Southeastern American for more than a century. When I > listen to recordings made in the South, the English used is consistently > different than the dictionary pronunciation of what's on the page (e.g. > "Your" is sung as "Yer"). And although I can't hear it because it's my > own, I'm sure our Washington Dialect creeps into the Northwestern singings > I attend. > The point is that we don't write it down that way. Southerners would > *scream*, and rightly so, if we started transcribing shape note songs in a > sort of Mark Twain Southern dialect. Even if it were an accurate > transciption. Even if it were first-person in a new song. The words in > our books are put down on the page in standard English, then we sing them > how we want. This is the tradition. Why make an exception with Native > Americans? > I believe that you are missing the point here. In my opinion, the reason that the people who love this song sing it with such love and devotion, and find such meaning in it, is that it talks about this one person's experiences when God found him, when Jesus saved him. He was lost, he cried to God; God heard him and responded. I would venture a guess that the people who find meaning in this song are also remembering a time when they were lost, and when God found them. It is so easy to get stuck in the mechanics of the songs -- their language, key signature, etc. But to truly understand their meaning, IMHO, you have to look at the heart of the song, at why it was written that way, and what it means to the people who love it most. And always, IMHO, you have to consider that these songs were written as a way for people to worship God, and as a way to encourage them on their Christian path. To read anything else into them, or to take them change them and try to make them fit our own sensibilities (when those don't match the meaning or purpose of the song) is disrespectful to the song, to the people who wrote it, and to the people who sing it and love it, IMHO. You don't have to like the song. If it bothers you too much, don't sing it. But try to understand why the song was made that way, before writing it off. Martha Henderson St. Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mark Wingate" <mlwingate@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:04:49 -0600 An interesting ( to me, anyway ) bit of serendipity: I just watched the film "Ghost World" this evening, then, reading the posts about "envious Jews" and "Indian Convert", I was reminded of one of the plot lines -- an antique and racially offensive advertising logo entered "as is" in an art class exhibit as a found object illustrating how racism hasn't gone away, it just isn't as explicit as it once was. I see a similar phenomenon with those who publicly perform songs from the old-time string band tradition. Many of the titles and lyrics just won't do nowadays. Do you change them, avoid them, proudly sing them because they are in the tradition, or flaunt them as edgy found art? Ironically, the last two choices could be indistinguishable to the uninformed observer! The "proudly sing" alternative reminds me of the Stephen Crane poem, with the final line "Because it is bitter, and because it is my heart." I also wonder we are more reluctant to change hymn lyrics than to change more secular lyrics. Are hymns more sacrosanct by virtue of being religious in nature? Do we impute to hymns some of the status we give to scripture? I say, the lyrics are preserved in the books -- preserve the books. Those in favor of singing the lyrics just as they are seem not to be on the receiving end themselves. Maybe the _best_ way for the change to take place would be for those 'inside' the tradition to initiate it. The only way I can envision that happening is by individuals coming to understand that the lyrics hurt people they know and care about. When my church in North Carolina changed to a newer hymnbook, there was resistance to the way some of the familiar hymns had been revised. But I feel that we as humans have this work to do at this time -- we won't get it right the first time, and it will involve sacrifice, but we can't not do it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MarthaH605@aol.com Message-ID: <a7.1dbfd4f3.29d0374f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 03:18:23 EST > I wouldn't object if that song was either deleted or the > text changed; in fact, I'd welcome it. Delete it: Fine. Change it: No. Please see my other posting for an explanation. If someone wanted to take the tune and put an entirely different hymn text to it, in the same meter, and maybe give that hymn a different name, this would be fine, especially if the hymn was something traditional by Watts or Wesley or someone, and not some new-age thing. When singing out of Lloyd's hymnal, which has only words, one puts the words to any tune that fits that meter and strikes the spirit of the moment. This would be the same idea. The hymn, using the same tune, would become a wholly different song. This is good. But don't change only parts of it and try to shoehorn it into today's sensibilities. I've seen a number of hymns that use the same tune. The one that comes to mind is 229 Irwinton, in the Sacred Harp. "What poor despised company of travelers are these..." That tune is also used for "The gracious Lord my shepherd is ..." So if you like the tune to Stafford, find another whole hymn text that fits the meter, and maybe try to get that song into the next book. Martha Henderson --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "B.E. Swetman" <bswetman@hamilton.edu> In New York one year Kat Kinkaid had us change the last line of Stafford to "The man that God did choose." This works both theologically & poetically. For background on Watt's text also consider Jesus's use of the Psalm 118 passage in the accounts of the Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-45; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19) http://bible.gospelcom.net/ So far as I understand the Sacred Harp tradition, most of the tunes were not intended to be sung to just one set of words. We can feel free to substitute another set of words in the same meter to any tune appropriate. I do not really want to see wholesale minor word substitutions so personally I would prefer a completely different set of words for Stafford & I'll add Whitestown to the list. If Warren's suggested words were substituted in some future edition, that would be fine. In the mean time, our best bet may be to try other Short Meter words that are already in the book & that we know or can look up easily. Maybe we could check out the list http://fasola.org/index/1Meter.html#SM & see what other texts work well. I think the offensiveness of the words to Whitetown is obvious. Where nothing dwelt but beasts of prey, Or men as fierce and wild as they, In addition, as someone who lives close to the Whitestown of the tune name, I'd like to sing it, but have decided I can't. The land ownership problems created about the time the song was written are still unresolved. It just feels like pouring oil on an open wound even if no one at the singing is directly affected by the unresolved land claims. Edmonds works out Ok if you use verses 1 & 3. The Indian Convert is sung by some groups that it are using 19th cent. books that are not being actively revised in the same way the Sacred Harp is. Using alternate words in a new edition is not a practical possibility. Presumably different 8,8,6,8,8,6 texts might be used. That's a local judgment call. Barbara Clinton, NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Terre Schill" <amity@ev1.net> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:56:41 -0600 No one has yet mentioned the song that most "offends" me. Whitestown = 211 in the Cooper book ("where nothing dwelt but beasts of prey, or men = as fierce and wild as they, He bid th'oppressed and poor repair, and = build them towns and cities there"). Now there's a relic of some = outmoded thinking! But it probably taught me something more significant = about my own history as an American than all my undergraduate studies of = official policy toward native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries. = I want to weigh in to point out that there is nothing whatsoever = consistent at any level about these song lyrics as a group. They = reflect social attitudes and values in flux over time. They reflect = many contradictory theological beliefs. They represent our varied = cultural inheritance, and the issues which have prevailed at different = places and eras. That is a part of their richness. If we look closely, = we can each no doubt find grounds for offense at all of these different = levels as well. For example, the predestinarian poetry may offend some. = Shall we expunge that, too? The evangelistic lyrics might offend the = predestinarians.... Can we possibly contrive a body of material so = bland that it can be sung by everyone and yet offend no one? And if we = could, would it still have enough meaning to move anybody? I believe that most of us are either singing lyrics that we don't agree = with, altering the words that WE individually sing to suit our beliefs, = or just remaining silent during passages that we can't with good = conscience sing. I know I do all three, and from listening to those = around me I know that this is true of many others as well, but I have = never yet heard of anyone prohibiting a song from being led as it is = written even if there are some present who believe it to be absolute = heresy. And we definitely have to draw the line when it comes to = altering lyrics as originally written or we will obliterate what we seek = to preserve (i.e., Sacred Harp) and replace it with an artifact of early = 21st century society set to 19th century music. This discussion reminds me of the movement to remove offensive racial = terminology from the works of Mark Twain and other classics of = literature for school use. If such a move were to truly succeed in = banishing everything offensive, how would students ever learn to = understand the social history of that period? We would just have to = TELL them about it and how "horrible" it was, rather than letting those = long-dead authors speak for themselves and their cohorts. That would be = censorship of the worst sort. Terre Schill --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <dehuger@mindspring.com> Steven (Stefan4121@aol.com) wrote: >Can someone tell me where "Indian Convert" >is? I don't see it in the 1991 book. Should I >get my blue book out of storage? "The Indian Convert" is in the Christian Harmony, both the Carolina and Alabama books. The first time I sang it, I was sand-bagged: I stumbled through by the shapes, which I was learning, and thought, that's a nice tune; then we started through by the poetry, and I was stunned. I had to stop singing, which the person sitting next to me, waiting for my reaction, thought was hilarious. Over the years I have sung "The Indian Convert" often. At first, I tried 'avoidance', then I tried 'cleaning up' the language, which I still do. But I began to see that some people sang it with tears. And I have come to lead it, the first time in particular memory of an older singer whose favorite it had been, and who, however much of a Christian he was, was also a sinner. I began to realize that the song is not about "The Indian", so much as it is about "The Convert". And to understand that those tearful people relate personally to conversion. The notion that the song negatively stereotypes this particular Indian, or American Indians in general, would be not merely offensive to them, but unimaginable; they could as easily accept the notion that their own conversion might in some way negatively stereotype themselves. Perhaps, in some persons' opinions, it does. Even so, it has been said that if the greatest asset of Christianity is Jesus, then its greatest liability is Christians. Yet if Christians are not always a liability, conversion is why. Dan Huger North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MINCEYJUDY@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:53:59 EST Terre Schill has the right of it, folks. If we go tampering with one thing, something else will "need" fixing. Follow your own conscience and let God handle the rest. I, for one, will sing what the leader calls. If I don't agree with the theology, I pray for that person. If I don't agree with the political content, I praise God we have got beyond those attitudes. And if I just 'hate that tune,' I remember that while I'm singing it, it's my favorite. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "roberta goodell" <rgoodell@prexar.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:03:41 -0500 Christian Harmony was my introduction to shape note music. I loved the tunes and harmonies, was fascinated by the shapes. Then I came across "The Indian Convert" and was stunned. It was like finding a stone while sorting beans. I "discard" it (don't sing it) as I would the stone. Re: changing lyrics which hurt, are inaccurate or prejudiced vs remembering the context, historical period, people who love them, not tampering with tradition, etc. -- does this mean we never change? Even the Bible has had newer versions. Maybe some who were a part of the editing process of the newer editions of the various books recently discussed (e.g. 1991 Sacred Harp) could share any relevant aspects? Bobbbie Goodell Searsmont, Maine ***** From: "Terre Schill" <amity@ev1.net> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:49:50 -0600 A move to deliberately "clean up" Sacred Harp or any other songbook to = accomodate any particular belief system is a new and frightening thought = to me. Where would it ever end? Many songs have been omitted from the Sacred Harp due to non-use. If a = song is no longer led it will be dropped from the book in time..... = isn't that how these decisions have "traditionally" been made? But if = those who love a particular song continue to lead it, please don't rain = on their joy by fiat. That would seem to violate the very principle of = toleration of and respect for others which such censorship seeks to = defend. =20 Despite our many heart-felt religious differences down here where this = music is still sung primarily for spiritual reasons, we each acknowledge = that Sacred Harp is a non-denominational practice. We all know that = Sacred Harp is not *our* church, where only the *the truth* may be = uttered. Please allow that spirit of true toleration of others' views = to continue to prevail, especially on issues to which one group might be = sensitive... =20 It has been generally acknowledged that none of the song lyrics in = question were intended as a slight to anyone. Stafford is a scriptural = reference, Indian Convert may be a transcription of some individual's = personal testimony, etc. Let's realize that it is merely our own = historical vantage point and misconceptions about our forebears that = makes these lyrics "offensive" to us, and seek to remedy our frail = understanding of their true significance with a deeper spiritual = insight. I have a suggestion which has more precedent than making sweeping = changes to the Sacred Harp/Christian Harmony based solely on = contemporary mores: =20 Wouldn't it be preferable to start entirely new and separate revisions = much as Cooper did in the early 1900s, leaving the earlier books to = continue in their own paths? Yes, the Bible has been revised for those = who want a revision, but the original King James version was left = unaltered for those who love it.=20 Terre Schill =20 =20 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Malinda Gar Snow <engmgs@panther.Gsu.EDU> Dear Readers-- I wasn't paying proper attention when this thread got started, so excuse me if I repeat something that's already been said. The debate, it seems to me, basically lies here: are the poems in our books (_Sacred Harp_, _Southern Harmony_, and so on) artifacts--works of art and historical documents that we ought not to tamper with, or are these books liturgical? It's not an easy dilemma to resolve, and perhaps to choose one while excluding the other would be to oversimplify. Clearly these books do contain poems that are works of art, that do reveal not only the thoughts and prayers of individual writers but of their cultures and times. They are valuable as such and serve the student of the culture and time; they also appeal to any who feel sympathy for the thoughts, images, prayers, and faith expressed in them. As some people have noted, if they don't appeal and are no longer led, they will be omitted from subsequent editions (assuming we are talking about a book that is part of a living tradition and has subsequent editions). That last point brings up the question of liturgy. Of course the shape-note books are not used for common worship in a particular church, but in the more general sense of "the work of the people," I think they are liturgical. They are part of a long tradition of common experience, a living tradition, and they form the basis of common activity that is largely worshipful. (Yes, I know there are those who "come for the music," not for the theology.) Now if they are liturgical, they are subject, like all liturgy, to translation and modernization and modification. In fact, they _have been_. Shape-note books are full of songs consisting of eighteenth-century verses with long kite-tails of refrains from the nineteenth-century camp-meeting tradition, for instance; and full of songs consisting of verses put together from different original texts (whatever we decide an "original" text is) so there's precedent for changing the words. People have mentioned Bible translations. Every English Bible translation, going back to Coverdale and Geneva and so on, reflects the faith and prejudices and purposes of its translators. In fact, the original texts do. Many people have trouble with the anti-semitism in the Gospel according to John, for example, or the vindictiveness in some of the psalms. I tend to agree with Judy and Terre that we should leave these poems alone. Perhaps, as long as we see them and hear them, we will be moved to ask ourselves why they were written at all and what sort of prejudices they reflect, and also to remind ourselves that future generations will surely be made uncomfortable by some of our prejudices that we don't even notice. A couple of observations about the poems people have mentioned: "Indian Convert," with its note about dictation taken by a missionary, is a very conventional text. Maybe a missionary did take it down, but I doubt it. Whoever wrote it used the type of language that eighteenth-century England used to represent "native" speech; it sounds like Robinson Crusoe's Friday. It also has echoes of Alexander Pope's "Lo, the poor Indian" passage in _The Essay on Man_. It was simply the language that people who'd never seen an Indian used to signal that they were assuming the character of one. Whitetown's couplet, quoted in several messages, is imitated from Oliver Goldsmith's "Deserted Village," specifically from the description of my dear home state of Georgia. I won't quote it all, but you can find it beginning about line 341 of the poem. Specifically, Goldsmith writes, Where crouching tigers wait their hapless prey, And savage men more murderous still than they. He is trying to make the colonies seem especially awful, and he mentions wildcats, rattlesnakes, tornadoes, bats, and so on; the "savage men" are part of the general horror awaiting those who leave Mother England. And the "romish lady" is another stock character out of English anti-papal progaganda. So you have a nice little lesson in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English culture and beliefs, preserved in shape-note hymns. It has often struck me that some of these details constitute part of a body of Protestant saints' legends. The converts, both Indian and Romish, for instance, are clearly offered as pious examples for our edification. That we find them offensive now suggests that we've developed different ideas about strangers, about a sectarian God, about being "right" and "wrong." What keeps me singing though is the presence of so many texts that, no matter when they were written, speak to the universal human condition and the power of God's love to overcome doubt, fear, and death. Best-- Malinda --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Wells <charles@freude.com> Subject: Religious nature of Sacred Harp Jim North said, "I overheard two singers at one convention lament that the main thing wrong with Sacred Harp was that the texts were sacred in nature. They particularly bemoaned the presence of texts that were specifically derived from Christian doctrine." In the seven or so years I have been one of the NE Ohio & Oberlin organizers of Sacred Harp singings, I have been in contact with a number of people (perhaps six) who tried it out and didn't take part because of the religious nature of the words. This includes one who sang for quite a while before quitting. I suspect several other people who didn't come back aftter trying it once of not liking the religious aspect but being too polite to say so. A lot of the students here at Oberlin who sing shape note are from folk-music backgrounds. Many of the folk-singers who like Sacred Harp (at Oberlin and elsewhere) say they are not religious. Nevertheless, a number of them have written new shape note tunes and most of those have chosen religious words, commonly by Watts or from the Old Baptist Hymnal, etc. If there is any movement towards writing songs with really secular words, raising the possibility of a separate stream of shape note singing without religion, we here at Oberlin are in a good position to detect it, and I can say quite positively that there is no evidence of anything like that happening. --Charles Charles Wells professional website: http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/math/wells/home.html personal website: http://www.oberlin.net/~cwells/index.html genealogical website: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/w/e/l/Charles-Wells/ NE Ohio Sacred Harp website: http://www.oberlin.net/~cwells/sh.htm *** From: cmh@orange-carb.org (Colin Henein) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:49:48 -0500 (EST) Greetings all. [reminder about MIME-format postings deleted] With regards to the question at hand: Clearly, as a previous poster has suggested, it can be difficult to draw the line once we begin to change the words, as evidenced by the hymnal revisions he points out. I don't think that the Sacred Harp is in danger of being revised to this extent; hymnal editors have a tough job because they are instructed to make the church accessible to others. Sacred Harp editors wouldn't engage in rampant revisionism because (at least around here) there is less pressure to make things accessible... we like what we're singing. Besides, any edition that was that heavily revised would simply not be used by singers. In my humble opinion, however, if we come up with some inflexible policy which nixes all changes in the name of the "tradition" then I think we may be a bit confused about what kind of tradition is wrapped up in this harp. To insist that we freeze the 1991 edition of the sacred harp forever is to deny (again, in my humble opinion) the fact that this music is a living tradition, which has already been changed several times before. As I recall the alto parts are largely a later addition to the book, there are obviously some new pieces added each time, and I'm pretty sure that there have been verses added and deleted in the latest revisions. Revisions in the earliest editions were quite dramatic I believe. I haven't been singing this music for very long, so I'm out on thin Canadian ice with these comments I'm sure, but I think we're unlikely to find one answer on the topic of revisions that fits all cases. Sometimes a change may be necessary to save a song from disappearing (because people won't sing it). Sometimes a song may need to be defended from change because people won't stay with the tradition if the tradition is butchered. Most of the time, however, we will find ourselves trying to balance the requirements of these two positions... and that's what makes things difficult. I think we should recast the question... Should we revise Stafford to make it less offensive in this historical/traditional tunebook OR would we be better to keep Stafford as is and protect the historical/traditional perspective of the Sacred Harp? ...as a question that relates to sacred harp as a living tradition, and which recognises that this is a practical problem, not an academic one: Should we save Stafford (which people are uncomfortable singing) by changing it OR should we keep it as is, but realise that it may slip from our tradition over time? On this topic of Stafford, my personal feeling is that alteration might preserve a song which could very well fall by the wayside over time. I personally would never sing this song, because I personally have strong feelings about the ways that seemingly small, often repeated statements like the one in Stafford can keep religious intolerance alive. Having said that, there is no question that the Sacred Harp is a religious book, and I for one don't support the idea that we must change all the songs in the sacred harp to make them less focused on the Christian tradition. Those of us who don't approach Sacred Harp as worship (I know there are many who do) have a deep respect for this material as liturgical for many, and sing it accordingly. I personally am comfortable lending my voice to the messages within the Sacred Harp, because I feel that (realising I'm being too simplistic) they're mostly messages of peace, and heartfelt advice. I personally cannot sing Stafford, because I will not lend my voice to a view which I personally feel is harmful to others... I think we should save Stafford, and I think we have three choices: 1. Set different words entirely. 2. Set an additional verse to it, so that each can choose for him/herself whether it is the current words, or the revision that is most offensive. 3. Alter the last line, as has been suggested several times. Personally, I'd favour #1 or #3, number two doesn't solve my problem if the leader calls for the current wording. Kind regards, Colin Henein, Ottawa, Canada -- || when we're little kids maybe we need stories || to help us go to sleep. but sooner or later we || need stories to help us wake up... -- Utah Phillips **** Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:41:18 -0800 From: Timothy Miller <tmiller@lodinet.com> Subject: Re: Secular shape note singing Greetings, I sang Sacred Harp with a group of very good friends for several years in Santa Cruz, CA, almost every Sunday morning between 1975 and 1978 or 1979. We enjoyed the music. We enjoyed each other. We had a wonderful time. We were not offended by the religious content of the songs, although some of the singers were somewhat hostile to Christianity, or all organized religions. We made the occasional irreverent, facetious comments. Nobody considered them a big deal one way or the other. None of us could have been considered Christians, even in the loosest sense of the word, and none of us ever became Christians, as far as I know. If, by chance, a sincere Christian had wanted to sing with us, we would have made him or her as welcome as possible, though we probably would not have censored ourselves for his/her sake. A few of these old friends went on to participate in the present version of the Santa Cruz group, a rather active chapter, as far as I know. I occasionally drop in to sing with the Santa Cruz group. As far as I can tell, the group is a heterogeneous bunch of people, in every respect. There are Christians there, of every stripe, along with agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, and who-cares-ists. There are probably a few wiccans, Hindus, and heaven knows what else. No one bothers anyone else; everyone is respectful of everyone else. I was surprised to find how much praying there was. At these times, the non-believers patiently and politely maintained reverent, non-religious silence--or maybe they contemplated or reflected or meditated or something. Everyone has a good time. Santa Cruz is like that. So are many other places in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. In regard attempting to start a secular version of shaped note singing-- None of the people in my original group would have wanted that. The religious content of the songs was familiar and comfortable. We just didn't happen to believe it. Charles, if you or other Sacred Harp singers are uncomfortable with the foregoing, more discomfort lies ahead for you. Life might not be as simple as you would like it to be. Personally, I hope for future opportunities to sing Sacred Harp. Unfortunately there are few opportunities near where I have lived for the past twenty years. If I found a Sacred Harp singing group nearby, I would not cooperate with any religious "litmus test." If I did cooperate, I would fail the test. I hope there will be more discussion of this important point, and I hope I will not turn out to be a minority of one. Best regards, Tim Miller *** From: Fasolaky@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:02:34 EST Greetings; On 4/03/2002 Tim Miller wrote: "We were not offended by the religious content of the songs, although some of the singers were somewhat hostile to Christianity, or all organized religions. We made the occasional irreverent, facetious comments. Nobody considered them a big deal one way or the other. None of us could have been considered Christians, even in the loosest sense of the word, and none of us ever became Christians, as far as I know. If, by chance, a sincere Christian had wanted to sing with us, we would have made him or her as welcome as possible, though we probably would not have censored ourselves for his/her sake." If the test of "PC crowd" is not to offend I am afraid this group just flunked. I have run into a simular situation here in Kentucky in which some members of that group has in the past made fun of the Christian aspects of the songs. I LEFT and never returned. Sorry, I don't go to a Jewish temple and make fun of that religion, nor neither Hindu, Buddist, or others. If I did I would be label a "narrow-minded bigot". HOWEVER, I do expect respect from others in singing SACRED music. I do not demand they believe, nor convert, but I do expect to at least fake an attitude of respect when singing. If that makes me a "narrow-minded bigot", then so I will be a minority of one. Bob Meek (Caintuck) *** Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:45:11 -0700 From: Timothy Miller <tmiller@lodinet.com> [quote from previous posting deleted] Bob, Do you understand that it was "our group"? We started it. A pious Christian who wanted to sing with us would be "our guest" at first. I suppose if he or she continued attending, he would eventually become "one of us." Whether he or she continued attending would depend on whether he or she liked us. Tastes differ. I don't think you would have liked us. Tim Miller