4 ms·

I've read both the linked article (which was great) and the Wikipedia entry for Sacred Harp. But, I still don't quite understand how this works. That's probably

I've read both the linked article (which was great) and the Wikipedia entry for Sacred Harp. But, I still don't quite understand how this works. That's probably because I have no understanding of musical theory and couldn't read any form of sheet music anyway. With that said, my question is: what is lost as a result of using this notation? I can see what's gained: simplicity and ease of learning. But why wouldn't you use this notation for every form of singing?

swores 3y ago
I'm not an expert, but I have been able to sight read sheet music (to play or to sing) since I was a young kid. From the article and wiki page, I see claims that the sacred harp system makes things easier, but I can't actually see if or why I might've found it any easier to learn than the standard western notation I did learn. So my guesses are that either it's not actually an improvement, or it's a small enough improvement on a good enough already internationally recognised system that there just hasn't been pressure for this niche form to take over in many places.
aidenn0 3y ago
Basing it off of [1], nothing is lost from traditional notation, inasmuch as it's extra notation on top of traditional notation. In this sense, it's a bit similar to furigana[2] for Japanese, as an aid to readers. Something that surprised me is that [1] is of a minor key, but the solfege marks are for the relative major. I'm not a singer, so I can't say as to how/why that makes sense. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Harp#/media/File:Windham.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Harp#/media/File:Windha... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furigana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furigana
- arthurdenture 3y ago
  > Something that surprised me is that [1] is of a minor key, but the solfege marks are for the relative major Major and minor keys use the same shapes / solfege system. The major scale is "fa, so, la, fa, so, la, mi, fa", while the minor scale uses the same syllables but starts on la. This means that the shapes always represent the same intervals (i.e. pattern of whole and half steps) whether a song is in a major or minor. It's hard to describe but makes sense when singing.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    I'm aware that they are the same intervals; perhaps my brain is destroyed by my music theory classes, but I really think of a minor scale as a different beast from a major scale starting on the submediant. [1] indicates that other movable do systems may use "la" based minors, and that it is "sometimes preferred in choral music, especially with children," so I suspect this distinction is something I learned. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solf%C3%A8ge#Minor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solf%C3%A8ge#Minor
arthurdenture 3y ago
One limitation is that the shapes are really only useful for singing, not for instrumental music. They also would not be meaningful for music that switches keys or that isn't tonal (i.e. isn't in a particular key at all). So they are a very good fit for what you might think of as "church music" (at least written before the 20th century), but for other settings they would be either meaningless or a hindrance. That's one reason shape notation never caught on; another reason is that the notation was introduced by publishers of American sacred music and not by, say, music conservatories.
taion 3y ago
It’s not uncommon for vocal music to have different conventions like this, especially which the pitch isn’t absolute so standard notation isn’t quite correct anyway. Note the use of neums for chant – and those are harder to learn!
toast0 3y ago
I just took a quick look, but as an instrumental musician (4th grade - freshman year in college), what I'm gathering is this notation lets you use the shape of the note's head to tell you where it is in position to the fundamental of the key the song is in. That's great if you process music in those terms... but as a mostly sight-reading instrumental musician, I'm thinking about what note is written, and what fingering that requires on my instrument. When playing from sheet music, it never really mattered much to me what key we were playing in, or if I was playing the fundamental or a third; maybe if I were better attuned, I might adjust my fingering ever so slightly, but if I did that, it was unconscious and by ear. Now, when I was playing in Jazz band, improvising bass lines, the key makes a real big difference, because I'm going to play like 1-3-5-3 and such, but then I'm just working from a chord chart, not sheet music, and note shapes still don't help me. I was never very good at choral music, and never thought in do-re-me, etc. But I can see it being useful for people trained in that; move the do to the new fundamental, and go from there. Not sure how (or if) they handle accidental sharps and flats that take you away from the key signature... maybe not, since the emphasis seems to be on simplification. The other thing that was touched on is arrangement --- rather than a melody and harmonies arrangement, it seems like each part is arranged to sound nice on its own as well as together. This makes it easier to practice the parts individually --- sometimes harmony parts sound really iffy by themselves, so you don't want to practice it. I don't think there's necessarily much lost by using these shapes more, but I don't think there's much gained. And of course, it adds more labor to typesetting or hand writing the scores --- until you get to computer based typesetting where you can probably convince the computer to do the shapes for you.
- edjw 3y ago
  I've sung a lot of Sacred Harp and Christian Harmony that use four-shape and seven-shape shapenote notation respectively. I've never sung roundnote notation so a bit hard for me to compare but I know lots of people who've done a lot of both. A couple of things you gain with shapenote notation… You don't have to learn key signatures to sing from shapenote notation. So it's less work to pick it up. Sightsinging is easier with shapenote notation. After a while, you internalise the intervals between the shapes – you just know what a fa up to a sol feels and sounds like.
satiric 3y ago
I've grown up with both shape note singing and regular "round note" singing. Shape note is best for music that doesn't change key, and doesn't use many accidentals. The more "modern" the harmony, the less useful the shapes are. This is because a shape note singer learns to associate the shapes with the degrees of the scale. If a good shape note singer is given sheet music with just the shapes, with no staff, they can usually still sing it. But a shape note singer must "switch gears" every time the key changes or a note outside of the scale is used.
AlbertCory 3y ago
Same here. I've sung with "respectable" choral groups and never even heard of this. I suspect it's kinda looked down on by serious musicians. But hey, people like it and that's all that matters. Even in my choruses, they gave us each a practice tape with our parts; so much for snobbery. Ear training is really difficult if you didn't grow up with it. Some intervals are easy ("Here comes the bride" for a perfect 4th, "My bonny lies over the ocean" for a 6th. There are lots of apps to learn this. If shape notes help, hey.
- edjw 3y ago
  You’re probably right that some people who participate in music that has high status in society (that you might call “serious musicians”) would sometimes look down on Sacred Harp and shapenote notation. Also agree that snobbery isn’t good. I’ve sung a lot of Sacred Harp and people with a background in this high status music just blend in with everyone else really.

swores 3y ago

I'm not an expert, but I have been able to sight read sheet music (to play or to sing) since I was a young kid. From the article and wiki page, I see claims that the sacred harp system makes things easier, but I can't actually see if or why I might've found it any easier to learn than the standard western notation I did learn. So my guesses are that either it's not actually an improvement, or it's a small enough improvement on a good enough already internationally recognised system that there just hasn't been pressure for this niche form to take over in many places.

aidenn0 3y ago

Basing it off of [1], nothing is lost from traditional notation, inasmuch as it's extra notation on top of traditional notation. In this sense, it's a bit similar to furigana[2] for Japanese, as an aid to readers. Something that surprised me is that [1] is of a minor key, but the solfege marks are for the relative major. I'm not a singer, so I can't say as to how/why that makes sense. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Harp#/media/File:Windham.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Harp#/media/File:Windha... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furigana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furigana

arthurdenture 3y ago
> Something that surprised me is that [1] is of a minor key, but the solfege marks are for the relative major Major and minor keys use the same shapes / solfege system. The major scale is "fa, so, la, fa, so, la, mi, fa", while the minor scale uses the same syllables but starts on la. This means that the shapes always represent the same intervals (i.e. pattern of whole and half steps) whether a song is in a major or minor. It's hard to describe but makes sense when singing.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  I'm aware that they are the same intervals; perhaps my brain is destroyed by my music theory classes, but I really think of a minor scale as a different beast from a major scale starting on the submediant. [1] indicates that other movable do systems may use "la" based minors, and that it is "sometimes preferred in choral music, especially with children," so I suspect this distinction is something I learned. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solf%C3%A8ge#Minor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solf%C3%A8ge#Minor

arthurdenture 3y ago

One limitation is that the shapes are really only useful for singing, not for instrumental music. They also would not be meaningful for music that switches keys or that isn't tonal (i.e. isn't in a particular key at all). So they are a very good fit for what you might think of as "church music" (at least written before the 20th century), but for other settings they would be either meaningless or a hindrance. That's one reason shape notation never caught on; another reason is that the notation was introduced by publishers of American sacred music and not by, say, music conservatories.

taion 3y ago

It’s not uncommon for vocal music to have different conventions like this, especially which the pitch isn’t absolute so standard notation isn’t quite correct anyway. Note the use of neums for chant – and those are harder to learn!

toast0 3y ago

I just took a quick look, but as an instrumental musician (4th grade - freshman year in college), what I'm gathering is this notation lets you use the shape of the note's head to tell you where it is in position to the fundamental of the key the song is in. That's great if you process music in those terms... but as a mostly sight-reading instrumental musician, I'm thinking about what note is written, and what fingering that requires on my instrument. When playing from sheet music, it never really mattered much to me what key we were playing in, or if I was playing the fundamental or a third; maybe if I were better attuned, I might adjust my fingering ever so slightly, but if I did that, it was unconscious and by ear. Now, when I was playing in Jazz band, improvising bass lines, the key makes a real big difference, because I'm going to play like 1-3-5-3 and such, but then I'm just working from a chord chart, not sheet music, and note shapes still don't help me. I was never very good at choral music, and never thought in do-re-me, etc. But I can see it being useful for people trained in that; move the do to the new fundamental, and go from there. Not sure how (or if) they handle accidental sharps and flats that take you away from the key signature... maybe not, since the emphasis seems to be on simplification. The other thing that was touched on is arrangement --- rather than a melody and harmonies arrangement, it seems like each part is arranged to sound nice on its own as well as together. This makes it easier to practice the parts individually --- sometimes harmony parts sound really iffy by themselves, so you don't want to practice it. I don't think there's necessarily much lost by using these shapes more, but I don't think there's much gained. And of course, it adds more labor to typesetting or hand writing the scores --- until you get to computer based typesetting where you can probably convince the computer to do the shapes for you.

edjw 3y ago
I've sung a lot of Sacred Harp and Christian Harmony that use four-shape and seven-shape shapenote notation respectively. I've never sung roundnote notation so a bit hard for me to compare but I know lots of people who've done a lot of both. A couple of things you gain with shapenote notation… You don't have to learn key signatures to sing from shapenote notation. So it's less work to pick it up. Sightsinging is easier with shapenote notation. After a while, you internalise the intervals between the shapes – you just know what a fa up to a sol feels and sounds like.

satiric 3y ago

I've grown up with both shape note singing and regular "round note" singing. Shape note is best for music that doesn't change key, and doesn't use many accidentals. The more "modern" the harmony, the less useful the shapes are. This is because a shape note singer learns to associate the shapes with the degrees of the scale. If a good shape note singer is given sheet music with just the shapes, with no staff, they can usually still sing it. But a shape note singer must "switch gears" every time the key changes or a note outside of the scale is used.

AlbertCory 3y ago

Same here. I've sung with "respectable" choral groups and never even heard of this. I suspect it's kinda looked down on by serious musicians. But hey, people like it and that's all that matters. Even in my choruses, they gave us each a practice tape with our parts; so much for snobbery. Ear training is really difficult if you didn't grow up with it. Some intervals are easy ("Here comes the bride" for a perfect 4th, "My bonny lies over the ocean" for a 6th. There are lots of apps to learn this. If shape notes help, hey.

edjw 3y ago
You’re probably right that some people who participate in music that has high status in society (that you might call “serious musicians”) would sometimes look down on Sacred Harp and shapenote notation. Also agree that snobbery isn’t good. I’ve sung a lot of Sacred Harp and people with a background in this high status music just blend in with everyone else really.