Awake My Soul, Part 1

Over the last few weeks, we’ve spent some time covering the general background of the singing schools and shape note singing. For the next few weeks, we’ll continue this with a video study, using the PBS Awake My Soul video. The plan is that we’ll watch half an hour or so of the video and then discuss what this presents, particularly in terms of what this might or might not mean for us.

Do-Re-Mi or Fa-So-La?

We had some discussion last week, in the introduction to Shape Notes/Sacred Harp about the “Fa-So-La” notation that’s probably the most common structure in Sacred Harp singing, with a scale of Fa-So-La-Fa-So-La-Mi-Fa. Both of these are examples of Solfège, which is a music education method to teach pitch and sight singing.

Many people of my generation, at least, probably think of the Sound of Music when we talk about do-re-mi, and the song of that name as done by Julie Andrews. But this seven note solfège is ancient, as discussed in the Wikipedia article linked above, among other sources.

In the eleventh century, a six note scale was proposed by Guido of Arezzo, which was ut-re-mi-fa-so-la. Ti (or si) was added shortly later and ut became do. This six-note scale is also sometimes referred to as Guidonian Hand, after a hand-based mnemonic to remember the notes and positions.

During Eizabethan England (late 16th and early 17th century), a simplified version came into vogue, with the four syllable solfège, that was designed to be easier to read and understand. It was out of these same roots that the singing schools arose and this same four note solfège persists in the Sacred Harp/Shape Note singing of today.

• Demonstrate scales in multiple keys

A key point to understand is that for most music education programs, we use a “movable” solfege, so that “do” is the base note of the key. If the music is in the key of C major (no sharps or flats), do corresponds to C. If the music has one sharp (key of G major), do corresponds to G. And if the music has one flat (key of F major), then do corresponds to F. Regardless of the key, a major scale (e.g. C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C) is two whole steps, a half step, three whole steps, and a half step.

Fa-so-la with just four shapes was (and I agree) easier to see and read than seven different shapes. The singer simply needs to understand that “fa” (a triangle) is always a half step above the note below it, and everything else is a whole step above the note below it. For us citified musicians, we have to remember the key signature to know whether that note on the third line of the treble clef is a B natural (as in the key of C) and therefore a half step below the third space (C) or it’s a B flat (as in the key of F) and therefore a whole step below the third space (C).

At least for me, as a fairly classically trained musician, the shape notation seems complex and confusing. But I can also see the beauty and simplicity of the system for training people to sight read and sing music in church. That’s why it was created and it is something I think that opens up music to a group of people who might well otherwise be intimidated by it.

Singing Schools

This week, we’ll start a journey that will take us in, around, and through some particularly American expressions of music, with a particular look at shape note singing and the Sacred Harp tradition.

Over the past year, we’ve looked at a variety of different kinds of music and touched on some of the different perspectives of what constitutes appropriate music for church?

• In your opinion, what kind of music should be sung during a church service?
• From our previous discussions, and your own experience, what kinds of perspectives have there been about what constitutes music appropriate for worship services?

The controversy over what constitutes appropriate music is hardly a new one. Consider the following[1]:

1. It is a new way, an unknown tongue.
2. It is not so melodious as the usual way.
3. There are so many tunes we shall never have done learning them.
4. The practice creates disturbances and causes people to behave indecently and disorderly.
5. It is Quakerish and Popish and introductive on instrumental music.
6. The names given to the notes are bawdy, yea blasphemous (i.e., fa-sol-la-mi, etc.)
7. It is a needless way, since our fathers got to heaven without it.
8. It is a contrivance to get money.
9. People spend too much time learning it, they tarry out nights disorderly.
10. They are a company of young upstarts that fall in with this way, and some of them are lewd and loose persons.

This is from a 1722 pamphlet, describing the work of the so-called Singing Schools, which were an attempt by Harvard trained ministers to improve what they saw as the appalling quality of music in their congregations. The bulk of the congregational music at that time was just melody, done in line-out (call and repeat) format. The key idea of the music schools, which were patterned after similar efforts in the late 17th century rural England, was to teach people (everyone) the rudiments of music theory, reading music, and leading music. In one sense, this can be viewed as an extension of the push to literacy. For Protestants, in particular, a key factor in the push to literacy was to enable people to read the Bible. A key factor in the singing school movement was to teach people to read music and sing, thereby increasing the quality of music and bringing an improved offering to God.

Some relevant articles and links:

• Wikipedia article on Sining Schools. Note the comments from Laura Ingalls Wilder.
• FaSoLa article. Note the rather scathing comments about Lowell Mason.
• SmithCreekMusic.com article

---

1. Leonard Ellenwood, The History of American Church Music, p. 20, as quoted on smithcreekmusic.com  ↩