then the chorus;?not a tune, like the song of sailors at the tackles and falls but a barbaric, tuneless intonation. // In 1859, Dana is still using his terminology of "song at tackles and falls". I wonder if, while away from sea, his vocabulary has been updated or not. Probably not, and it's not surprising he doesnt say "chanty." But what is more deserving of careful thought: He says that these short, improvisated [intoned] staves, followed by chorus were *not* like the sailors' songs. Well, not like them for their lack of "tune" -- though his definition of "tune" is certainly subjective. One presumes he means that they didnt have much in the way of melodic leaps and they had a very narrow ambit, though they were still tunes at some level if ~intoned~. I think what he is saying is fairly clear, but I do wonder if he is comparing this to the "songs at the tackles and falls" of *his* day -- remembering that we are unclear what the songs/chanties were like in his day. It's come time....*drumroll*....to break out the source that may be "ground zero" for much of what is now contained in the shantying collections. It is Alden's July 1882 article in HARPER'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE, "Sailor Songs." It has been mused over quite a bit in the Sydney/Frisco thread. Now to look at its details in relation to what came before it and to see if it indicates anything about the trajectory of chanty development.