Unaccompanied Singing

Subject: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 11:17 AM

These days, I've been thinking about the Gospel In Black and White Workshop I'll be leading at NOMAD this weekend, with fellow Catters Jim and Cindy Bean, and Dwditty. It got me thinking about a capella singing.

A few days ago, Colin, Carole, Noreen, Theresa and Allan of the Shellbacks were here at a house for a morning of singing with the Gospel Messengers and Karen Kabela. The Shellbacks sang a capella exclusively, as did Karen. We sang with guitar accompaniment (although we do several a capella numbers, too.) There is clearly a much stronger tradition of a capella singing in England than there is here in Amurica. That started me thinking about a capella music, too.

Rather than go all over the map to start with (I make no promises for the future,) I thought I'd get your thoughts on a capella music in gospel. Now, in contemporary gospel (black and white) a capella is anything with less than three keyboards, two electric guitars and an electric bass. But, in the older style gospel (black and white,) how much singing was done a capella?. In black gospel, I think of groups like the Fairfield Four who have always been a capella, but they are unusual. Most black gospel groups did a few a capella numbers, as we do. And white gospel? well, there's shape-note singing (and black shape-note singers, too) that is unaccompanied and much of the early church music sung by congregations was sung a capella ( in black churches, too.) There are differences in styles of a capella music, between black and white, which I'll coment on.

In the workshop, Rich Gallagher (dwditty) will do some guitar accompanied black gospel. I was thinking of Mississippi John, and perhaps it's an innacurate generality, but I mostly remember him singing gospel unaccompanied. Someone can correct me on that, who has heard more of his gospel (or has a better memory.)

For starters, anybody have any thoughts about unaccompanied gospel singing? Do you think it was more common in black or white gospel?
Why was gospel sung unaccompanied? Any opinions?

I go into a black gospel chat room, and when I ask people if they are musicians, they'll often answer "No, I just sing." I find that a very odd concept... and probably more Amurican than British. You mean there aren't any musicians in the Shellbacks, except the woman who plays concertina?

C'mon... let's hear what you have to say...

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 11:22 AM

According to my OED that's a cappella, for singing. I think (I can't put my hand on an authority at the moment) that "capella" is a she-goat.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 11:41 AM

I never heard a she-goat sing gospel... thanks for the correction, Richard. But if she did, I bet she'd sing a capella..


Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:01 PM

Don't know much about Gospel Singing, but in the UK Folk Scene there is a very large amount of unaccompanied singing. Although the term Acapella is used in certain circumstances to describe singing which is unaccompanied as the term refers to it being "as in a church or chapel", I wouldn't describe shanties or much of British Folk as anything to do with a church (there are, of course exceptions, both in content and/or style of presentation). I prefer the term "unaccompanied" for most of what WE do over here.
Quack!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:22 PM

Traditionally in UK ALL 'Folk' singing was unaccompanied,Church music tended to be accomanied,sometimes with several musicians,and 'Court'
music was also accompanied. A lot of 'Folk' singers DID play various instruments,but ONLY for dancing.The idea of accompanied Folk Song is relatively recent developement dating from the Folk revival since the Second World War.
    Gospel singing I cant help you with.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Peterr
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:25 PM

I quite agree with the duck - never been sure why it was thought necessary to replace the term 'unaccompanied' with 'a capella' to include all singing without instruments. Thread drift anyway, that goes nowhere towards giving Jerry any answers.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:45 PM

What's a thread without drift? The thread is about a cappella singing (in contrast to singing goats.) Ballad singing in this country seems to have been more likely to be unaccompanied, and still is in folk venues.

I never thought of a cappella as being associated with church singing.
Webster defines it as singing without accompaniment. It's not a phrase I normally use, myself.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:57 PM

So, Lead... Any thoughts about why people prefer singing unaccompanied? There are some songs that I sing, where I find accompaniment limits my ability to sing freely.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:59 PM

Jerry - interesting. Got me to thinking about it, too, although I'm not a gospel singer. I would think there are two possible reasons for singing gospel unaccompanied -

First, the church might look askance at instruments -- the fiddle being called the "devils box" and the banjo seen as a racous tool for frivolity, drinking, dancing -- and not want their sacred music associated with "bad" music.

Second, simple economics. I suspect many gospel singers don't come from money, and, in times past, couldn't afford even a simple instrument.

What do you think ?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Janie
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:59 PM

Jerry,

The Baptist sect that my grandparents belonged to believed that the playing of instruments was sinful. My grandfather gave up playing fiddle and banjo when he joined his church. They did, however, believe it was wonderful to "make a joyful noise" and their Sunday services rang with a cappella singing.

Hopefully Joe Offer will chime in on this thread.

Janie

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:04 PM

I think that you're right on both counts, Les... my friend Frankie in my group explained the difference between gospel music and juke joint saturday night music.. Juke joint music starts you moving your hips from side to side, church music gets you jumping up and down.

It's all in the hips..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dani
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:07 PM

I'm with you, Jerry.

There are certainly times and pieces of music where the instrument and voice are perfectly matched, and there's plenty of instrumental music that I love, but I MUCH prefer singing without instruments, either alone or in a group.

Spending time with the Shellbacks really made me think about how the culture of singing somehow got almost completely lost when we crossed over: not just the English, but the Irish, and the Africans, and plenty of other folks. Now American musical culture seems almost all "accompanied", and almost all SUNG FOR us by someone else!

Us people who just like to sing are sort of on the fringes around here, even in traditional music circles, which in these parts involves plenty of fiddle and banjo, and precious little singing.

Dani

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:08 PM

The term "unaccompanied" isn't a replacement for "a capella," it's the other way around.

Way back in medieval times, when many musical terms came into existence, Gregorian chants, for example, were sung in a cathedral or chapel without any instrumental accompaniment. Organs and instrumental "consorts" came along later. Some secular singers, such as troubadours, generally accompanied their singing with some sort of portable instrument. So to distinguish a song sung without instrumental accompaniment from one with accompaniment, it was referred to as "a capella," or "in the manner of singing in the chapel.

Incidentally, I've heard it argued that when a group of monks is chanting, it is not unaccompanied because any given voice is being accompanied by other voices. True, but it is still "a capella"—in the manner of the chapel.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:16 PM

merriam-webster gives both spellings of a cappella/capella

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:27 PM

Jerry - so is Hip Hop music a fusion of the two :) ?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:29 PM

Dontcha just love Mirriam?

When I am singing I often like to take the last time around on the chorus without an instrument, just to hear the wonderful sound of voices in harmony. Somehow, it has even more impact when the instrumental background is dropped out..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 02:39 PM

Jerry - Most of the Non-Traditional stuff I do was written to be sung
accompanied,so I tend to do a lot of guitar/banjo backing.However at
odd times I do sing the occasional Traditional Song.Some of these do
'work' as accompanied songs and some do not ,unless I really work hard at the accompaniment becuase of timing shifts.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 04:48 PM

"a capella" implies a certain kind of formality which unaccompanied does not. To call some kinds of singing and some kinds of songs "a capella" just because they don't have instrumental accompaniment borders on the ridiculous.

"After the game we all had an acapella rendering of Eskimo Nell and similar ditties." "The sailors struck up an a capella sea shanty." "Leadbelly sang John Henry a capella on this occasion."

I remember years ago the first time I ever heard real Gospel Singing, with an American choir on tour. They may have had some kind of piano going some of the time - but if so, you wouldn't have even noticed it.

The basic thing with accompaniments is, they shouldn't stand in the way of the singing. With some types of singing that'd be because it's wrong to risk interfering with the singer. With gospel it'd be because the instrumentalist who got in the way might get run over.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 04:54 PM

Very good, Kevin! I agree wholeheartedly... accompaniments are supposed to compliment the singing... not compete with it. If your attention is drawn to what the accompanist is doing, unless it's a dance tune, they're not doing their job.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 04:58 PM

I approve of the old dance band convention in which a singer with the band was called a "vocal accompanist".

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 04:58 PM

I can't add much about gospell singing but here on Guam people seem to be very impressed that I am willing and able to sing without accompaniment. Clearly there is no longer a tradition of singing unaccompanied thanks to 300 years of Spanish influence on the culture. But even the old Chomorro people created musical instruments to accompany their music.

Yet there is evidence that the old timers also sang a capella. One of the UOG professors explained to me about the Chamoritas which were gossip songs sung by (mostly) women while they worked in groups with each woman contributing a verse. Since a large part of Chamorro humor consists of teasing they would gossip about each other, making up "news" to contribute. Friends who've heard a Chamorrita sung by two old women told me the results were inevitably hilarious.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: sian, west wales
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:24 PM

Leadfingers, I'd have to disagree with your first comment that, "Traditionally in UK ALL 'Folk' singing was unaccompanied". That's pretty sweeping. There's a whole type of folk music in Wales in which the vocal and the instrumental are inseparable.

(Hi Jerry! How's tricks?)

sian

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Snuffy
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:51 PM

I tend to look upon A capella singing as meaning choir-like, multi-part harmonies, as against the unison-with-occasional-harmonies we do with the Shellbacks or rugby songs.

And solo unaccompanied is something else altogether and can no way be A capella - you can't have a choir of one person!

WassaiL! V

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Snuffy
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:55 PM

There are plenty of instrumentalists in the Shellbacks - in America I think we had 4 or 5 concertina players, 3 guitarists and myself with whistles and kazoo. And plenty who didn't come with us (Andy Maliphantplays the tuba (or is it euphonium?))

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: vectis
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:00 PM

It's true that accompanied singing was the norm during the revival. When my dad was a lad they sang unaccompanied most of the time because few working class people carried instruments around with them. Accompanied singing took place in homes and pubs when there was a pianist there, otherwise it was unaccompanied.
Bob Copper remembers being stood on the table of a local hostelry and singing while his dad got free drinks because folks liked the entertainment. Knowing Bob, he probably got a drink or two even though he was as young as eight at the time.

Singing unaccompanied is still the norm round here. It is easier to be expressive when you are not restricted by the rhythm of an instrument like a guitar. A few clever clogs can sing and play squeezeboxes at the same time. Most of us can't even talk when playing, or we lose the tune completely.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:07 PM

To me, "a capella" connotes *group* singing without instruments, while "unaccompanied" is more appropriately used for solo vocals without instrumental (or vocal) accompaniment. Not strict, mutually-exclusive definitions, now -- just my perception of the general sense of these words in my experience of common usage.

[Aside: There's a nice 20th-century tradition of secularized black-gospel-influenced group singing that includes "doo-wop" and the like. If you've never heard of the Persuasions, you might check 'em out.]

I'm not really familiar with the school of thought that singing shouldn't be accompanied, and instrumental music shouldn't be interrupted by vocals. In fact, I had never heard of such a thing until fairly recently, when I first read about it here.

All else being equal, I observe that soloists who sing and accompany themselves on some kind of (string) instrument are a bit more apt to hit all their notes right on the button, and *much* more likely to keep strict time, than unaccompanied singers. The ability to silently count "2-3-4" between verses seems to be pretty rare.

Now, I know that *some* songs should be sung in a loose, flowing rhythm, but not all of them.

In fact, some folk songs that are properly sung without intrumental accompaniment were originally sung in the very strict meter enforced by swinging pickaxes and sledgehammers, or by hauling on a bowline or whatever. Some of today's singers who deliver these numbers while standing on a stage fail to duplicate that kind of rhythm, which builds a kind of momentum that is integral to that musical genre. Better, perhaps, that they tolerate a bit of accompaniment -- maybe percussion only, nothing melodic, which *would* simulate the original context.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:07 PM

Just about the only instrument you can play while you're drinking is the bones. And even with that, it's tricky not spilling your beer. (Well, I suppose you could play the piano one-handed. Except I can't)

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: harvey andrews
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:46 PM

Just spent an evening in the audience at a Coope, Boyes, Simpson concert. Unnaccompanied singing at its very best, and the songs all composed by the boys!

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Burke
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:02 PM

Jerry,
There are some US denominations that historically have not used instruments in church. Among those I'm aware of are Primitive Baptists, some Mennonites, and the Church of Christ. I have a seven shape Church of Christ hymnal that I've used as a source for early 20th cent. Gospel standards.

Not all saw the instruments as sinful, just not appropriate for church. I've heard of some that have decided to add instruments.

You mentioned shape note music. The 19th cent. shape note books kept alive the New England psalm singing of the previous century after it lost popularity there. The 19th century singing school movement was transatlantic. The British analog is usually called West Gallery or Georgian Psalmody. Both New England & British included instruments. I was only as it was preserved by those opposed to instruments (or just not having them) in church that the US versions became unaccompanied. Read Hardy's "Under the Greenwood Tree" or go to Bruce Randall's workshop at NOMAD for the connections.

I've read a little of some early 19th century music debates. The interesting thing to me was that organs were being introduced then & were not universally approved. Up until then, there were a variety of instruments, especially strings, used in churches. They seem to have lost out to the organ or been banned all together.

On the whole use of terms, unaccompanied is actually older & more accurate. Here's the Grove entry explaining the confusion that gave rise to the current usage of the term a cappella.


A cappella
(It.: 'in the style of the church [chapel]').

Normally, choral music sung without instrumental accompaniment. Originally (c1600) the term was used to distinguish works composed in the older polyphonic style of the Renaissance from those written in the newer concertato style of the early Baroque. During the 19th century the Roman Catholic Church idealized 16th-century polyphony and the works of Palestrina in particular. Noting that no instrumental parts were included in the sources containing this music, and unaware that instruments were often used during the Renaissance to double or substitute for vocal parts, musicians came to believe that a cappella referred to unaccompanied choral singing. Since that time, the term has become synonymous with 'unaccompanied singing', both religious and secular.
Holmes, William C.: 'A cappella', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 11 Nov. 2003),

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:22 PM

Not a lot of pump organs out in the cotton fields. As black gospel grew out of the spirituals, it must have seemed odd at first to add instruments.

Don't forget Sacred Harp and other shapenote singing... also, some churches believed instruments were sinful.

~S~

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:43 PM

"a capella" implies a certain kind of formality which unaccompanied does not. To call some kinds of singing and some kinds of songs "a capella" just because they don't have instrumental accompaniment borders on the ridiculous.

I agree. But some songs, particularly some versions of ballads, have the kind of dignity and formality that, at least to me, make the term "a capella" seem perfectly appropriate.

I have a hard time thinking of sea chanteys, for example, or a whole bunch of other songs sung without accompaniment as being sung "a capella." In fact, a sea chantey sung without accompaniment is closer to its natural habitat than it is when it's accompanied by an instrument (with the possible exception of a fo'c'sle chantey accompanied by, say, a concertina). The deck of a ship when raising sail, for example, is not exactly a chapel. But there are certain similarities: in a monastery chapel service there was often a line sung by a single monk or a group of monks, followed by another line sung by the rest of the monks. Call and response, or "antiphony," sung "a capella." With no instrumental accompaniment and literally "in the chapel." No harmony early on, however. Polyphony gradually evolved step by step over the centuries and morphed into what we now call "harmony."

For more than anyone could ever possibly want to know on the subject of liturgical singing and chant, check HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 08:24 PM

LOL! McGrath you remind me of one evening when I was jamming with a couple of friends. We had one guitar, a pennywhistle and I was on the bones. While we were playing I casually picked up my beer and took a swig at which the pennywhistle faltered. Later he noted the advantage a bones player had over nearly every other instrumentalist, i.e., you can drink while playing.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Georgina Boyes
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 08:36 PM

Thank you very much Harvey - I know the chaps enjoyed singing there too. And you'll be glad to know, we got home without too many hold ups.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: alanww
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 09:53 PM

Hi again, Jerry
I just loved the song session we had at your house and thanks again for your wonderful hospitality.
My knowledge of gospel singing is very limited, so I will not make any comment on that.
However, on the general issue of whether to have accompaniment or not, I enjoy singing unaccompanied most of all, particulary chorus songs when there is a good collection of singers in the audience.
But I do now play the English concertina and have learnt to accompany myself on a few songs. I tend to choose to accompany myself for certain songs when I am performing to a predominantly listening audience, as it does add a bit more colour and variety.
However, when I accompany myself I do not use my instrument to keep regular time (its not a guitar!). Instead I play at the rhythm I would normally sing unaccompanied, going along with the ebb and flow of the song.
I have recently tended to sing more frequently in mixed sessions of music and song (with unaccompanied and accompanied singers and non-singing musicians) and therefore I often find my songs being accompanied by someone else. But, unfortunately, not all (non-singing?) musicians are able to let the timing of their accompaniment be anything other than strict. That can result in a bit of a problem if the person does not follow one's lead on timing! Oh well, that's the price I pay for the pleasure of being able to play and sing at the same session ...
"Joys are flowing like a river ...!"
Alan

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:00 PM

Last night my (acapella) chorus director commented that one of the reasons we don't use a piano even for rehearsal is that it has an 'even-tempered' scale and when we fine tune a chord using just the human voice we use a slightly different scale which doesn't quite 'match' the piano. Maybe one of our musicologists could elaborate.   I heard a young quartet sing recently where one child had a bad voice day and their teacher 'helped' by playing a keyboard. The teacher RUINED an otherwise great song, didn't seem to be able to hear that they were tuning without her.

You are correct about 'freedom', I think. You feel freer singing. Without instruments the vocalists can control all the elements: rhythm can be more irregular, improvising leads can wander the melody around at will, and as above, the harmonizers can sound chords their own way.

My own pet theory however, is the folk (as today) liked to form new splinter churches all the time and if they were poor there was no piano at first and by the time they could afford one their music was so together they don't need one.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Ferrara
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:20 PM

Jerry, I don't know much about the connection/derivation of black Gospel from spirituals, maybe there are some insights to be gained from someone who does.

But listening to the Georgia Sea Island singers, for example, I get the idea that the black singing tradition during slavery was very likely to include some kind of percussion, even if it was hand clapping or "hambone music" played by slapping out rhythms on one's own body.

I still think of them as "unaccompanied singers" though. Oh well.

PoppaGator, I loved your comments on work songs and the fact that they were sung in rhythms that were determined by the work. It's maddening sometimes to hear shanties or work songs sung out of rhythm or sung way too fast for anyone to work to. The songs lose so much that way.

I once heard Peggy Seeger say that the Revival loses a lot when singers leave out the traditional ornamentation. She said, "They don't realize that the ornamentation is part of the song." I often feel that revival singers "homogenize" their singing. It loses all the traditional stylistic ornaments and subtleties. Singing unaccompanied give you a chance to listen to, and try to control, the subtleties. If you're playing an instrument, or even accompanied by one, it's harder to pay close attention to using your voice as an instrument.

It also does make it harder to stay on pitch. I once phoned a professional singer, a friend of a friend, looking for the verse to "Glocca Morra." She couldn't get her phone close to her piano and had to sing it unaccompanied and she could NOT stay on pitch. That made me realize how much of a challenge it is to sing unaccompanied, and how much of an accomplishment it is to do it well.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:22 PM

'Course when it comes to liturgical music, sometimes there's nothing quite like a bloody-great pipe organ that can make the building vibrate and that registers on the Richter Scale. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: karen k
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 12:58 AM

Jerry,
Great session at your house. I was so pleased to be there. The only thing was that it didn't last long enough! One reason I love unaccompanied singing is that I don't have to lug instruments around although I love singing with accompaniment as well, just not usually gospel. With any kind of gospel I love to hear the harmonies and I can really do that better when there are no instruments. With ballads, for me it is out of respect for the tradition. I prefer singing and listening to most ballads unaccompanied because that was how the original source singers sang them. I guess it is all a matter of preference - no right or wrong. Ferrara is right when she comments that it is easier to stay on pitch when you are using instruments.

Jerry, I hope to be able to get to the Gospel In Black and White workshop on Sat. I have some pictures from the gathering at your house for you and Ruth.

karen kobela

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 02:01 AM

Something I don't know! What is "shapenote" singing?


GUEST - 11 Nov 03 - 10:00 PM above
"12 note Tempered Intonation" is an artifical mathematical creation - post medieval time, designed to allow instruments such as a piano or woodwind, guitar or other instrument where evry note is available as a fixed pitch (as in modern electric/electronic instruments) - unlike instruments such as the violin, unfretted banjo, human voice where most pitches are "tuned" by ear - to play in every one of the 24 major and minor keys without creating horrendous dissonances - see "The Well Tempered Klavier" as the first published example. We have had more detailed discussion of this elsewhere in Mudcat so I won't repeat it all here.

"Just Intonation" is based on "natural" overtones of fifths - on work documented by Pythagorus - and is natural for the human ear - which is controlling the human voice by means of feedback if there is no external tone reference source, such as an instrument.

Incidentally, as explained above - Church "a cappella" - i.e. monks singing in the Middle Ages without instruments was in "Just Intonation" - something I unconciously assume when that term is used - unlike "unaccompanied" which could easily be (to my mind!) in either intonation!

So perhaps your music tutor did have some very reasonable theory behind that idea...

Incidentally, and this has been gone into elsewhere in more detail, Medieval music (with its inherenbt "Just Intonation") was more "horizontally melodic" in structure: with the arrival of "Tempered Intonation" music began to move towards a more "vertical" chordal harmony - which is what is taught as the basis of "Classical Music" Training, with its insistence on "resolutions" of 7ths etc.

Now, you _can_ get instruments made with "Just Intonation"...

Ferrarra,
It's only "harder to stay on pitch" with instrumental accompaniment, if that is the only way you have been taught to sing - although one does need more training on aural feedback control of the voice to perform unaacompanied.

Robin


Robin

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: fiddler
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:57 AM

How about accepting Accapella as without instrument accompaniment -

Our Dancers (Appalachian) Dance acapella and their dear little voices don't utter a sound other than to gasp for breath!

The rythms they can create with their feet are phenomenal - you don't need the fidlee - cello big bass drum or any other!!!!

A

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 07:36 AM

I enjoy singing both with and without accompaniment. I do find that as I (usually with Linda these days) do quite a lot of singing in pubs, to non-folk audiences, that a guitar can act as a "bridge". We will nearly always start off with the guitar, but once we've got the audience's attention/confidence, we will sing a fair amount of unaccompanied material. We often find that some audiences seem to think that unaccompanied harmony singing is quite a clever accomplishment. I also find that it's much easier to act and move around without a guitar, when I'm singing some of my comic music hall material.

There is a fair amount of tradition gospel material available over here in the UK - much of it rather akin to the american "Sacred Harp" tradition and these days we tend to call it "West Gallery Music". It was not always unaccompanied because there was usually a band (often consisting of a very strange assortment of instruments) as well as the choir. The band and choir would usually be accommodated on the gallery behind the congregation - a much better place from which to encourage them to sing, than the modern day choir stalls out at the front. When the choir were about to sing an anthem on their own, the congregation would be invited to "Stand and face the music" - a phrase we still use today. There are "West Gallery" choirs, bands and consorts all over the country these days and "The Mellstock Band" give an idea of some of the sorts of music (and background stories).
Incidently the melody of "On Ilkley Moor baht 'at" comes from a West Gallery tune (Cranbrook by Thomas Clark of Canterbury) and was originally used for "While Shepherds Watched".

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Snuffy
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 09:10 AM

How about accepting Accapella as without instrument accompaniment?

How about accepting "Guitar" as any musical instrument? A capella is a particular sort of unaccompanied singing by a group.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,JohnB
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 11:11 AM

Ecuse me, "Incidently the melody of "On Ilkley Moor baht 'at" comes from a West Gallery tune (Cranbrook by Thomas Clark of Canterbury) and was originally used for "While Shepherds Watched". Whaat is the word WAS doing in this sentence. It still IS, even in the frozen wastes of Canada, never mind in Yorkshire.
A capella must have been translated in correctly surely is means "without set pitch" either that or "dropped like a stone" :)
JohnB

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 11:37 AM

I sleep better a cappella. A capella, too. Without goats. Words will be the death of us all! :-)

As often happens, words in the English language mean different things in England than they do in America (maybe Australia, too.) I had never though of a cappella as literally meaning, in a chapel, or church. Then you get people who consider the voice as an instrument.
In which case, I guess you could never sing without an instrument..

I'm really enjoying this thread. I suppose I might as well comment on singing without accompaniment in old black or white gospel, and even in the rhtyhm and blues vocal groups they now label "Doo Wop," as they are so "church" in style. And then We'll demonstrate the difference in the workshop we're doing this Saturday. Allan, Colin, Noreen and Sussex Carole all know the difference, first hand. And what a glorious time it was to bring maritime, unaccompanied British Isles music together with black gospel when the Shellbacks were here!

When I sing the old style of white gospel unaccompanied, no one joins in on the verses (unless they know them) and then everyone comes in full blast on the chorus. In black gospel, while the lead singer is singing the verses, the other singers are either filling in with "oohs", "Aahs" "Oh Yeah's" or "Doo wopps", "ratta tatta toos" or "dip dips".. in doo wop, or sections of the lines in the verses.   On the choruses, the harmonies may actually sing all the words of the chorus, while the lead improvises above them, or just sings parts of each line, to lead the harmonies into the next line. It can be a very complicated interweaving of voices, rhythms and words which is definitely not British Isles in origin.

It's hard to describe on paper.

The next time we see you, we'll sing it so that you can hear it..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 12:10 PM

Thomas Clark lived in Canterbury, Kent, not Yorkshire, and the tune's title "Cranbrook" is the name of a Kentish village. My actual words were "was originally" this was not meant to imply that the tune is not still used for "While Shepherds Watched" these days. The setting of what were thought to be rather bawdy words to it though, probable hastened it's replacement. In Clark's original manuscript, the melody is in the tenor line (as was usual at the time), but there are several differences in the tune from that of the yorkish imposter. The tune was used for several other sets of lyrics including the anthem "Love 'tis a charming sound, melodious to the ear". You can find a MIDI of the original manuscript here.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Ferrara
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 01:52 PM

Robin, is there more you can say about "aural feedback control of the voice" or does it require being there and hearing it demonstrated? Your discussion of "Just Intonation" is very interesting.

Jerry, wish we could get to NOMAD this year. Would love to hear your workshop! (among others....)

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 06:30 PM

Ferrara: Sorry you won't be at NOMAD this year. If we ever get down to Washington again, maybe we can get a group of folks to sing old white southern gospel, and do it down your way.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Burke
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 07:03 PM

Dave, I believe you will find that Cranbrook was originally written to go with "Grace 'tis a Charming Sound." Being of the same meter it was also very commonly used with "While Shepherds." The old thread on the topic is HERE.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Gloredhel
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 08:25 PM

A cappella does mean "in manner of the chapel." But not just any chapel: it refers to the chapel, the Sistine Chapel. This is where Palestrina and many other famous singers and composers of the Middle Ages and Renaissance performed for papal Masses. There is no room for instruments in the chapel, at least not in the small space where the very small choir performs.
It can refer to solo singing as well as choral, because, yes, there are pieces in that repertoire which call for solo music and which would have been performed in the chapel. I'd be much more likely to restrict its usage to religious music than to say it can't refer to solo singing.

I think that gospel music without instrumental accompaniment is beautiful. It can be very freeing for the singers, and no one notices if you go flat just as long as you all go flat (or sharp, as my sight-singing class manages every week). If you're making up your harmonies as you go along, though, instrumental accompaniment of the chordal variety can help if your mind goes blank while searching for a note.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 10:18 PM

Ferrara,

"Your discussion of "Just Intonation" is very interesting."

Thanks - use the Mudcat search engine to dig around on those terms - you will unearth heaps of threads with much more detail...

"Robin, is there more you can say about "aural feedback control of the voice" or does it require being there and hearing it demonstrated?"

Ahhhmmm... to be succint is the problem...

It would seem to be difficult to demonstrate it to someone else, as the whole point of it is that it is internal to oneself ....

I have a friend who could not hold a tune. She was told from very young that she could not sing and so believed it! Her idiotic singing teacher had never showed her how to listen to her voice, so I showed her with a simple physical trick, and with a little practice, she was amazed that not only could she now hear how just out of tune she was when singing along to her favourite CD's, but with some practice, she was improving - although she was fighting nearly 20 years of self perputuating brain washing that she was "tone deaf"!

The simple physical trick is this:

Put the palm of one hand to touch one ear, perhpas bending it forward slightly.

Instead of your voice normally being heard internally through your skull, your brain can now detect through your ear a far greater percentage more of the reflected external sound.

You must have seen singers doing this - it is often used as a source of humour anyway...

This does really assist oneself in "aural feedback control of the voice", something which is happening subconcousily all the time anyway.

Robin

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 05:00 AM

Burke - whoops I should have said "Grace" not "Love" in my posting - it's a while since I sang with the Thomas Clark Quire and I didn't have the words with me.

The main problem with the singing of "While Shepherds Watched" these days is that it is usually sung to the "Ilkley Moor" version of the tune rather than the original. I like going down to the bottom E for the 2nd "Lord came down". The ascending repeats of "Watched their flocks by night" etc are not in the original which carries straight on with "All seated on the ground".

If anyone wants a copy of the 4-part score (as a PDF file) I'd be glad to e-mail it. You can download a matching MIDI from the link which I gave previously. If people would like me to post the full tune, I could do it as 4 separate MIDI-TEXT files.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joybell
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 05:41 PM

Here in Australia unnaccompanied singing has fairly recently come to be called "a capella" as a fashionable term at folk festivals and folk clubs.
We played at a festival where a lady asked me if we did "archipelago singing". I liked the term so much, (after gently correcting her so that she wouldn't feel folish next time she said it,) that we often introduce an unaccompanied song using that name.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 06:47 PM

"archipelago siging" - I think that should be officially adopted as the ter, tp replavce both "a cape

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 06:49 PM

"archipelago siging" - I think that should be officially adopted as the term to replace both "a capella" and "unaccompanied" in the folk context.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joybell
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 06:52 PM

Yes! Glad you liked it McGrath. We'll do our best down here.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 13 Nov 03 - 07:30 PM

Cranbrook. The story goes that a boys choir from Canterbury were invited to Yorkshire to sing. During a walk over the moors they invented the scurrilous words of Ilkley Moor bar t'at to amuse them selves.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: 8_Pints
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 02:26 PM

When my Sue or Noreen sing unaccompanied I'm continually amazed at how quickly people stop talking and settle down to listen intently.

Those who accompany thenselves with guitars, etc seem to have to battle it out far longer to assert their authority!

Bob & Sue vG (the Shellbacks that stayed at home!)

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,KentuckyPat
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 05:50 PM

I think you're right. In several churches, any instrument except the "Sacred Harp" (the voice) is forbidden. I believe several sects in the German Baptist Brethern and Moravian tradition still hold to the old ways of a cappella singing.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Carly
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 07:38 PM

I am another who will have to be at NOMAD in spirit only this year. Next year...My earliest religious musical experiences were in synagogues, where the cantor or the congregation sang, without accompaniment. There was no separate choir, and everyone sang in unison or in octaves. Christian spiritual music was someting of a shock (though a pleasant one!) at first. Personally, although I started out with a guitar and a dulcimer, over the years I have done less and less playing; I now almost always sing without instruments. I find myself more and more in the role of storyteller when I sing and an instrument seems to get in my way. Of course, it may have something to do with lack of practice...

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Kent
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 11:43 PM

The churches of Christ, in general, sing a cappela in worship. The reason is NOT that we think musical instruments are "of the devil". The reason is that the original church (in the New Testament) sang a cappela.
If you want a compaison, consider the communion loaf. You don't put peanut butter on it, do you? Why not? Is peanut butter "of the devil". No, it is not. Peanut butter is fine in its place - but it would tend to turn holy communion into a mere sandwich.
When the church sings together, we are all worshipping together. Adding instruments would perhaps make for a better performance, but a better performance isn't necessarily better worship. Not everyone can play an instrument, but everyone who can talk can sing (even if they are only "making a joyful noise").

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 12:48 AM

Hey, Kent:

That's an interesting point... although I wonder what scriptural text the church of God bases their practice on. There are certainly many references in the bible of making music on instruments, even being as specific as mentioning particular instruments. My gospel quartet has sung in all kinds of places... including a Jewish Memorial service.
We've sung in Houses of prayer with New Orleans style trombone bands, community churches that are non denominational, and I have friends who are members of the C.O.G.I.C, who love gospel. I don't know if the COGIC church is the same as the Church of God, or even for sure, whether they use instruments in the COGIC church. I'm not questioning what you're stating... just wondering what scriptural basis the Church of God is referring to, and whether the Church of God is the same as the COGIC church.

Friendly question.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 01:55 AM

You are absolutely right that there are a LOT of references in the Bible to instrumental music, especially to their use in connection with the Temple (i.e., Old Testament) worship. There are also references to instrumental worship in Heaven. Instruments were apparently not used in the synagogues. There are no Biblical references to instrumental worship in New Testament worship. This, I believe, is why we use the term "a cappela" (meaning "in the manner appropriate for the chapel") to refer to unaccompanied singing.
Think of it this way: If I order a hamburger, should the waiter bring me a cheeseburger? I don't NEED to say "Thou shalt not serve me cheese". If I had wanted cheese, I would have asked for it.
Check out Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 05:39 PM

Hi Jerry,

>For starters, anybody have any thoughts about unaccompanied gospel >singing? Do you think it was more common in black or white gospel?
>Why was gospel sung unaccompanied? Any opinions?

There is a tradition of so-called White Spirituals. "Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child" is one although it's often taken as a Black Spiritual. (George Pullen Jackson's book is helpful.) There is probably a tendency to adhere to the "sacredness" of acapella singing. In early music history, during the Ars Nova period, musical instruments were felt to be unholy. This is true of the early Southern "Hardshell" Baptist tradition as well since the folk instruments were associated with the wild hoedowns and "set runnin's" where fights would break out and corn liquor ruled. There was a religious reaction. Hence, Play-Party songs.

Many of the traditional religious songs might not well be transferred to conventional chordal harmony. Many retain a modality that is archaic. The level of musicianship harmonically amoung the traditional folk gospel musicians was not well-developed. Even now, many who play guitar can't find the "right" changes to some of the songs they accompany because they don't understand the harmonic implications of the melodic lines.

There is more harmonic fluidty when chords are left out. For exampole in Barbershop style, to add an accompanying guitar would make for a chop-chop style and destroy the continuity of the vocal harmony. Also, the availability of good instruments was not found in many rural churches particularly in the Black South. Meetings on John's Island and Georgia Sea Islands relied heavilly on rhythmic handclapping in lieu of folk instruments.

Also, since much of Acapella ballad singing is concerned with text, an inauspicious accompaniment would detract rather than add.

My two cents.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 07:22 PM

"...the original church (in the New Testament) sang a cappela" - how on Earth do you know that?

They also probably used to walk to church and wore togas and such like. So what?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 10:05 PM

I don't know, Kevin... is it required that we ride a camel to church?

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 11:57 PM

I know the early chuch didn't use musical instruments in worship because I've researched very early church history. I'm no expert in it, but it's not a terribly difficult thing to research if you are interested in it. There are English translations available of the writings of early 2nd century church members. There are also "outsider" accounts of Christianity from the 1st and 2nd centuries (Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius), as well as the New Testament accounts. Musical instruments just weren't used in worship. I have not seen any account of their use earlier than the 600s. If you know of earlier accounts, I would very interested in them.
As to wearing togas and riding camels, perhaps I didn't communicate well. I did not mean to imply that we do everything that 1st century Christians did. First century Christians did some things because they were 1st century (for example, wear togas) and other things because they were Christians (for example, worship God). We are trying to imitate the things which they did because they were Christians. We don't particularly care about imitating the things they did merely because they lived in the 1st century.
Again, I am NOT implying that there is anything sinful about musical instruments themselves. I don't know whether or not the Primitive Baptists think musical instruments are sinful. I know that the Old Regular Baptists, like the churches of Christ, sing a cappella in worship for the reasons stated in my posts above, NOT because of any objections to instrumental music in general.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 06:21 AM

I'd love to see the zeal, courage and powerful faith of first century churches in contemporary churches. Banjos would be nice, too.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 08:10 AM

I'm sure they'd have used banjos if they'd been invented then.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 06:50 AM

Joybell, a variation on "archipelago" singing as a name has already been thought of, by this group - "Acapellago". This womens' group was performing at a festival I have just come back from. In fact I stayed at the home of one of the women.

Jenny

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 08:09 AM

Guest - I heard that it was actually a Yorkshire choir who wrote "Ilkley Moor" while they were out on a picnic - after a couple of members has wandered off for a while.

If anyone is in the vicinity of Orpington, Kent, UK on Sat 29th Nov, they can hear the Thomas Clark Quire performing at the Liberal Club - the same venue as the Friday Folk Club. At this time of year, I'm sure they'll be including Cranbrook in the program.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: IanC
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 08:52 AM

Kent

I think it's possible that your reading may have missed something somewhere.

It's fairly well established in the history of the early church that the organ (invented by Ctesibius of Alexandria around 246 BC) was used in church services from around 200 AD.

:-)

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,BUTTERFLY
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 09:14 AM

I always sing accompanied - as soon as I open my mouth the audience gets up and leaves.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 09:31 AM

There was a prejudice about using musical instruments in the primitive Baptist church in the South. That's where "play parties" come from. The banjo and the fiddle were considered to be "instruments of the devil".

In early music, churches used medieval instruments until the time of Ars Nova. Instruments such as the Sackbut, Krumhorn, Recorder (block flute) and viols were used and are documented today in recreation of musical compositions collected from museums and performed by modern day pro musical antiqua consorts.

The voice would be a way of conveying religious content through lyric texts and probably would assume for theological reasons an important role.

The ballad (generally unaccompanied) would be a kind of morality play for isolated Appalachian communities. The text was the most important aspect.

Singing is the most personal of all the musical performances. The voice may be one of the few instruments that doesnt require accompaniment unless you refer to Bach preludes using solo single-line melodic instruments.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 08:00 PM

Ian C,

You are correct that in my reading I may have missed something. I am no expert in music history. Do you have references? I would love to see them.

By the way, in addition to my earlier reading, I entered "Ctesibius" and "church" into Google and found a number of sources which seem to agree that the organ was introduced into Christian worship by Pope Vitalian around the year 666. A google search on "Pope Vitalian" seems to confirm what my earlier research showed.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 09:23 PM

Some unaccompanied singing is wonderful, The Shellbacks, for instance. But, when someone in a song circle drones on and on in an egotistical fog taking up the time of two or three others, that fries me.And, when it is in a foreign language, I leave. BORING!!

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 09:30 PM

It's a rare singer in my not so humble opinion (IMNSHO) who can carry an evening of unaccompanied singing. Roy Harris is one, as are Helen Schneyer, Jean Redpath and Lou Killen. In gospel, The Fairfield Four and Doyle Lawson and Quicksilver(0n the many songs they do unaccompanied) are so full and rich that you don't even think about adding instruments.

As for people who sing in an "egotesticle fog", I'm, not sure an instrument would help..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: kendall
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 09:58 PM

Here again, it depends on the talent and delivery.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 10:09 PM

So far as I know, no Amish church has ever used musical instruments, certainly not those in which I grew up. My grandparents didn't even approve of harmonicas in the home and any larger instrument was strictly verboten. (I never had access to a guitar until I was 17 and had left the church.)

That said, the rise and fall and swell and fade of unison singing in church always sent me into a spine-tingling trance. There were certain voices I always listened for, especially that of a friend of my mother's. She had a silvery, clear voice that was wonderful. I don't know of any person in the congregations who couldn't stay on pitch, although I remember an occasional comment made about a certain man who, they said, did not have a nice voice.

The usual mode was for a lead singer to sing one or two syllables of each line unaccompanied, which set the pitch and the pace, and then everyone would join in. (How they knew the proper pitch, I don't know- there were no pitch pipes.) I understand the melodies were much like Gregorian chant; the words, of course, were German, from the clothbound 'little black book'- 'der kleine schwartze buche'. I still have one of them.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 11:09 PM

You have to have a lot of balls to sing in an "egotesticle fog" :-)

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Abuwood
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 04:08 AM

We have just come back from South Yorkshire for the carols. I sing with a West Gallery Choir and understood that the West Gallery style of the carols was taken out of the churches to be replaced by the church organ. I was amazed to find that an organ had been placed in the Dungworth pub for the carols???Fortunately the organist had to go early to play in Sunday school so we did get some unaccompanied singing. I find it much easier, when searching for harmonies as I go along, to do this without an instument present. There were not so many people joining in however when it was unaccompanied. Thinking about it in this way perhaps you have to have a really good ear to sing tune or harmonies without instruments, and so instuments make it more acessible to everyone.
Like many here, I can't play 2 instruments at once, and as far as I can see the voice is an instrument.
On the Gospel note - the BBC are taking 24 singers and turning them in to a Gospel Choir the first weekend in December, to be played on Sunday morning 28th December Heaven & Earth show. It will be interesting to see how they get on.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 04:22 AM

Is that like a sort of ecclesaistical "Pop Idols", Abuwood?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Abuwood
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 06:36 AM

Exactly right Steve, they are going to film through meals and everything and do it in a big house in Watford.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joybell
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 06:56 AM

Yes JennyO, A friend told me about the group using the name "Acapellago". It's a clever idea.
This title reminds me of the cheap guitar my true-love once had which he called his "Flamingo Guitar". He painted pink flamingoes on it and told people that it was for playing "Spanish Flamingo" music.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 07:08 AM

Flamingo Flamenco

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joybell
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 07:21 AM

OOOOOOH! I love them!! Thank you McGrath. Oh Joy

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: kendall
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 08:52 AM

Well Jenny O, you could be right. I've never seen a woman do that.
What do you call it when the local "Star" shows up at a folk music club, does his thing and leaves? I saw that in Yorkshire, and the others were not pleased. Certainly he has an ego problem, and he must be in a fog to not know he is an asshole?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 09:07 AM

Now I wonder who that'd be?

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,JOHN FROM ELSIE`S BAND
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 09:20 AM

Jerry,
      Correct me if I`m mistaken but did you ever do an evening for us at "Elsie`s" in Cowden, Kent, as a result of contact through George Hamilton 1V??

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 10:27 AM

Hey, John:

It weren't me,.. sorry... Although I do know A Rose And A Baby Ruth...
I haven't been to England, YET. But, I wouldn't sing it unaccompanied. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 10:36 AM

Kendall, I can think of lots of singers who can carry an evening of unaccompanied singing. I would agree with you about Roy Harris (Burl on Mudcat) who I haven't seen for some years now, but I should see him this Saturday at the "Remembering Fred" event.

Although some of these do/did use accompaniments on the odd song, they are all capable of working without instruments. Of course some of these are now sadly deceased or no longer performing.

The Watersons
Johnny Collins
Graeme Knights
Dave Webber and Annie Fentiman
Artisan (Superb harmony singing)
Tom and Barbara Brown
Ian Woods
John Foreman
Mervyn Vincent
Charlie Yarwood (esp with Dave & Annie and his ex-wife as "Beggar's Velvet")
The Young Tradition
English Tapestry
The Dead Sea Surfers
The Songwainers

This is only a very small selection, but perhaps our UK folk audiences are more used to the concept than US ones.

I will be running part of the singaround at "Remembering Fred" at CSH this Saturday, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of singers will be unaccompanied.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,JOHN of ELSIE`S BAND
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:11 AM

Dave B.
       You missed the opportunity to see Roy Harris at "ELSIE`S" last Saturday (Nov.15). He was in the usual good form and with some sutable humour. He confirmed 2004 would definitely be the last year he would be travelling to clubs although he may be doing some local work in Cardiff where he now lives or the odd festival that may come his way.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: sweetfire
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 02:16 PM

...is bloody scary!

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joybell
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 04:34 PM

Here in Australia the unnaccompanied singers sing-a-round is part of many of our festivals. Sunday mornings at festivals bring out the unaccompanied Gospel singers. We have many fine singers who regularly sing unnaccompanied.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: kendall
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:49 PM

Definition of "acappela" a song without music. (Jean Redpath)

There is plenty of unaccompanied singing. The key is hope well it is done, just like any other music.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Tootler
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:27 AM

I came across this interesting thread while looking for something else. It seems worth reviving given some of the other current discussions.

Some observations.

There was some discussion about "a cappella" vs "unaccompanied" I wonder if it is just a matter of different usage on opposite sides of the pond? US usage seems to be generally "a cappella" whereas in the UK we normally say "unaccompanied" reserving "a cappella" for more formal singing by choirs.

Someone said something about singing unaccompanied being more difficult than singing with instruments. Surely singing unaccompanied is actually a natural thing to do. My Mother and my Grandmother both used to sing round the house and never sounded out of tune to me. I only wish I had taken more notice of what they were singing as there were a lot of traditional songs in their repertoires :-(

I was at a carol singing workshop this weekend. Almost all the participants, including myself, had at some time been told to be quiet because they could not sing, yet we sang perfectly well unaccompanied all weekend. I had a brief discussion with the tutor and we concluded that some of the problem about singing was that it has become "mystified" and thought of as something special rather than something natural that everyone can do.

Just some thoughts

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:04 AM

I don't think anybody in this thread quite identified the real historical origin of unaccompanied singing in American gospel, though Kent nearly got there. It came out of Calvinism, which rejected instruments in worship (while generally being neutral about their use in secular music). This was the dominant religion in the whole of Britain for a while, and remained so in Scotland.

Whatever theological reasons there may have been for rejecting instruments, much of the impetus was political. Instrumental church music was seen as an expensive pastime for the rich, and radical Christian groups like the Covenanters, other groupings that led to the present-day Baptists, and many of the sectlets that colonized America identified low-budget democratized worship with resistance to King and State, sometimes to the point of proto-socialism.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:34 PM

Jack-
Add to the above that instruments cost money.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Rowan
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 05:57 PM

The thread's first question concerned origins of gospel singing in America, about which I know little that I didn't glean from subsesquent postings, but the thread's title got me in. Apart from the obligatory singing in school (accompanied by a piano) and at church (accompanied by an organ), almost all of my singing was with others on bushwalks and around campfires, where no instruments were to be found. Like a vast number of Australian families, my family had a piano; nobody could play it but the bloke next door would often visit and we'd sing the pop songs of our parents' youth. But most of my singing was unaccompanied by instruments and that was the term most widely used.

Even when I got involved with harmony singing in the folk scene, the term "a capella" (or "a cappella; I've been criticised for both spellings and, whenever I see it I always am reminded that Caprella is a genus of shrimp in Victoria) was never used; it was always described as "unaccompanied harmony singing". The three best known Australian groups in the late 60s and 70s (Canterbury Fair in Melbourne, Pageant in Sydney and Rumbylowe in Brisbane) were all described as singing unaccompanied harmonies. Considering that Pageant started with a repertoire that was mostly carols, the lack of use of "a cappella" to describe them now seems interesting.

My recollection is that "a cappella" (or "a capella") didn't enter popular usage for folk music in Australia until that music was "noted" by people whose background had originally been "serious art music"; from memory, this occurred in the late 70s or early 80s. They were copied by the popradio jocks whenever they wanted to describe singing without instruments and now, as Joybell says, the term is now fashionable even among the folkies.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: GUEST,Dea.Raymond Barber
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:33 PM

I don't know much about mid-evil times, but I do know that one form of this metered music was and still is practice in the baptist church. When the deacons would lead those hyms, they sang from their hearts, with sincere praises. It is a moving experience when they get to moaning and groaning mixing those long and short notes ushering in the HOLY SPRIT, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN AT A BAPTIST DEVOTIONAL SERVICE,I RECOMEND YOU DO SOON, IT's a life changing experience to hear meter music and see the effect it has on his own.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:17 PM

mid-evil??....surely you mean....oh, never mind.

I HAVE been at a Southern Baptist service. It was very impressive, but life changing?...not exactly

ummmm...100

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Col K
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:22 PM

100 up.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Rowan
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 10:34 PM

And I've been reminded that Pageant was really a Canberra based group (Mike, Lynne, Libby & Phil lived in Camberra, while Tony lived in Sydney and I lived at Steiglitz in Victoria) that did a lot of singing in Sydney.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:03 AM

Gee, I missed this thread the first two times around. I guess my major experience with a cappella singing is with camp songs and
Gregorian chant (and a bit with sea chanteys, but I have no expertise there).

Yeah, sometimes there are guitars at campfires, but I don't really think they fit. Camp songs generally seem to work best unacompanied.

I prefer singing Gregorian chant a cappella, but I've sometimes done it with organ accompaniment, and it can be good - but it's best with a quiet organ using only one or two ranks. A loud organ just doesn't work with chant. We did a chant Sanctus and Agnus Dei for Christmas Eve with a piano accompaniment, and my opinion was that it was a travesty. I did not put myself in good stead with the choir director for expressing my opinion, despite the fact that I was singing chant before she was born. My opinion is that chant should be light and airy, like lace or a snowfall, but people who didn't grow up with chant tend to make it heavy and dirgelike. Oh, and Rita, chant is one kind of singing that sounds better without ornamentation, I think. Ornamented chant is pretentious.

I guess I do most of my singing a cappella, since I'm guitar-challenged. It works quite well for me, although it's always nice to have a great guitarist like DADGBE to sing with. Sometimes it's annoying when a guitarist give me an uninvited accompaniment - it certainly limits what I can do with a song sometimes. It really bugs me when a guitarist starts playing when I'm leading a sea chantey or a round.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Hrothgar
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM

Rowan, I still have and treasure the tape that Pageant released, as well as the LPs by Rumbylowe and Canterbury Fair.

The modern fashion for a capella groups to indulge more in musical gymnastics than in the singing of songs is much to be deplored.

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: Rowan
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:19 PM

Nice to hear that people still think it's good. Thanks Hrothgar!

Cheer, Rowan

Subject: RE: Unaccompanied Singing
From: JohnB
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 10:01 AM

I'm with you on the last bit Joe, I quit going to one place because of the total JERK with a mondolin who joined in on everything, whether he knew it or not. There's nothing worse than trying to sing a tune a capella, against an instrument that continually goes off into different keys.
JohnB