Talk:Shenandoah Harmony

Differences between Shenandoah Harmony and The Sacred Harp

Because the Sacred Harp is better known, the article would benefit from a list of "distinctives", but thus far no third party source has provided a list. Anecdotally, the following may be mentioned:

• (1) Social Setting: Sacred Harp tradition, beginning 1844 emphasizes singing in large conventions, whereas Shenandoah Harmony goes to an earlier level of American tradition, where "table singing", i.e. small group singing predominated, and the songs lend themselves well to this social setting.
• (2) Tonality: not only is the pre-1844 emphasis on minor key songs recovered, but there are also many songs of ambiguous tonality (e.g. song begins in major key, ends in minor key), and fascinating examples of Early American dissonance (e.g. page 200 Conflict, revived from 1790 Federal Harmony, composer unknown). Discussions in surviving copies of B.F. White's The Organ suggest that the Sacred Harp tradition made a conscious decision to remove or "correct" songs with ambiguous tonality.
• (2b) One-chord tonality and singing speed: Since first being published in 1844, the Sacred Harp has progressively added more one-chord songs with every printing. Not only can these songs be sung fast, for a good sight-singer who knows the words already (because they are used in a church hymn), it is possible to sight-sing these songs at break-neck speed. Some singers complain about the reckless pace of Sacred Harp singings; for others, this is the main attraction. Shenandoah Harmony contains far fewer one-chord songs. In terms of tempo, very few songs lend themselves to break-neck tempos. Perhaps this is one difference between show-off convention singing and intimate table singing.
• (3) Living tradition: A living tradition renews itself (a) by rediscovering its roots and (b) by fostering creativity of the young generation. Shenandoah Harmony rediscovers the roots of Shape Note singing by reviving over 300 songs, many of them pre-1844; and it includes almost 90 new compositions.

Americans are experts at gushing over a living tradition when they are tourists in a foreign land, but rarely notice when it happens right beneath their noses (Mark 6:4). Vagabond nanoda (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your new article on "Shenandoah Harmony". Note that other editors have called for more evidence of notability. The article currently has some robust sources but they tend to be about people associated with the Shenandoah Harmony project, or similar books, but not necessarily about this book itself. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the article..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Shenandoah Harmony is notable because it is "the largest new four-shape tunebook published for more than 150 years" (reference provided in article). It is now in its fifth edition, and Shape Note singers around the world are singing from it. Note that, of the 11 folk music magazines listed in , only two are still being published today: Folker in Germany, and Young Guitar Magazine in Japan, which changed to Heavy Metal in the 1980s. Shenandoah Harmony is thus also notable as keeping old-time singing alive, creative, and full of diversity at a time when the institutions that would naturally note the notability have died. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the notability concern has been addressed. The concern seems to have been about the sources. While some of the sources cited do indeed constitute "trivial" mentions of the topic, Davis dedicates an entire chapter of his doctoral dissertation to the Shenandoah Harmony. This is remarkable, especially given the fact that the dissertation was completed in 2016, only three years after the initial publication of Shenandoah Harmony. Davis identifies Shenandoah Harmony as the most impactful and widely-used four-shape tunebook of the modern era. Davis's scholarly attention itself attests to the significance of the topic, and surely anticipates further scholarly engagement. I therefore suggest that the notability standard has been met, and I propose to remove the notability template in four weeks if there is no objection. --Esmoell (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As no objections were raised in response to my September 5 announcement that I intended to remove the notability template, I have removed the notability template. --Esmoell (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)