Talk:Shape note

message: 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)
thread_title: Need to expand scope

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Examples needed

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Opus33 14:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for redirect

message: 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)
replies: text: I decided to make it for both seven and four shape. Comments still wanted. - Rlvaughn 19:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[List of shape-note tunebooks]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I've put in a link.  Thanks for pointing this out.  Opus33 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian link? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "choral" 

message: 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)
replies: text: (belated reply):  Thanks, Wellsoberlin; I think what you've done is more accurate. Opus33 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do shapes help if you already read music? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Modulation

message: 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)
thread_title: Modulation II

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of article title and division with [[Sacred Harp]] don't seem right 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What does "United Pentecostal" refer to? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Music vs Book vs Notation 

message: For reasons I've explained more fully at Talk:Sacred Harp#Internal Inconsistencies and Ongoing Issues%3A Origin of music%2C 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)
thread_title:  New sidebar + Please discuss organization