Ethics and Sacred Harp 1

unethical, adjective. Not adhering to proper rules of conduct or standards of a profession.

In past posts I have considered unethical practices that occurred in the 2025 revision process of the 1991 Sacred Harp. (For examples, see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.) This brings up the questions, “What are the proper rules of conduct in revising a traditional shape note songbook” and “Have they been followed in the past?” We might question whether, in addition to the present, some things in the past were handled unethically.[i]

Three examples.

There are examples of past odd and/or unethical behavior that perhaps laid the groundwork for present excuse of unethical behavior. These seem to fall in a category of misattribution or false attributions.

A well-known and oft-repeated history of The Sacred Harp is the alto misattributions in the 1911 J. S. James Original Sacred Harp. This book adds alto to some 300 to 400 songs, and attributes them to someone other than the actual composers of these altos.[ii] Ironically, this long-standing affront was finally addressed in the 2025 edition by adding the correct names of alto composers.[iii] 

Another practice of misattribution was the arrangement of songs by old New England composers (such as Abraham Maxim, Samuel Holyoke, and others) either without acknowledgment of the composer or even attribution to Sacred Harp composers/singers.[iv]  

The third oddity is a deliberate misdirection or misattribution by the composer to some other person who did not write the song. This practice has been styled by some as “dedicatory attributions” – that is (evidently) that another person is credited as the composer as honor or dedication. In Makers of The Sacred Harp (p. 82), Warren Steel writes: “There is one additional form of authorship that I have rarely encountered outside the Sacred Harp tradition. A few songs are credited to an individual as a form of tribute or dedication, but are actually composed by another person, perhaps a well-known Sacred Harp composer who already has many tunes to his credit. This has the effect of recognizing a person for his or her service to the cause of Sacred Harp singing by transferring credit for a given song, while modestly reducing the share of songs credited to any one author.”[v]

In consideration.

Perhaps in the past some questionable situations were handled with “kid gloves” (at best, explained discreetly) because of respect for the tradition and respect for those persons who acted unethically.[vi] Into the early 21st-century the standard explanation for the 1911 alto misattributions was how easily two people might write the same alto for a song that already had three parts.[vii] To not straightforwardly deal with issues allows them to fester and get worse – which we see in the latest revision.

Also, we must carefully consider one thing that has changed dramatically in recent times. That one thing is the explosion of the number of people who composed and submitted what they believed were songs in the Sacred Harp style. In the past, to a great degree, the revisers of Sacred Harps have been composers who were adding their new songs to the book. “Our book, our songs,” so to speak. In the 20th century, the nature of the beast, so to speak, was that people who composed and submitted songs were small in number and somewhat limited in a tight circle. That changed a bit with the 1991 revision of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company. Then (I think) there were around 100 songs submitted, according to committee member Raymond Hamrick – from what was probably a pool of about two dozen composers. Contrast this with the 2025 edition, which had 1155 songs submitted that were written by over 200 composers (a large portion of those living composers). Because of this difference, the 2025 revision committee placed a great emphasis on the idea that none of the composers were known to anyone but the committee chairman.[vi]

Thoughts.

I do not think having a book and having a procedure of “it is our book and we will put our songs in it” is unethical. However, to make a pretense of neutrality, equality, and fairness but then actually proceed with “it is our book and we will put our songs in it, and do whatever we want” is unethical. To pretend that one’s agenda is not one’s agenda is unethical. To project that someone who did not write a song wrote the song is unethical. To steal someone else’s song or song idea and then claim it as one’s own is unethical. It is possible that how to revise a Sacred Harp has not been properly marinated in ethical thought.

• Past unethical practices should not provide a pattern for current, ongoing, or future unethical practices.
• Ethical guidelines should be thought out, agreed on, understood, and followed.

To be concluded, Part 2 tomorrow.

---

[i] If so, it does not excuse or erase what recently happened.
[ii] A large portion of the alto came especially from the 1902 Revised Sacred Harp by W. M. Cooper. Cooper sued James over the theft, but lost the suit. The loss seems to come over a bad technicality imposed by the judge – yes, James did take altos from Cooper, but the alto part is not so important as to matter legally. Also, the trial was carried out on what might be considered James’s “home turf.”
[iii] In 1991, the revision deleted the references to names of alto composers. Warren Steel acknowledged some of this and recognized some of the composers in Makers of the Sacred Harp.
[iv] Some of the 19th-century cases – particularly the writing down of melodies that were passed along orally – exhibit a different concept of authorship (that is, the person who was capable of putting it in music on paper was considered the author). A few cases seem to be an accidental attribution to the person who submitted (rather than composed) the song. Most of these historical misattributions have been corrected.
[v] Steel notes a few of those in the “Biographical Sketches of the Composers” section of his book (pp. 119, 141, 171). David Wright discusses some of this in “The Variety of Influence: Forms of Craftsmanship in the 1960 Edition,” as does Jesse Karlsberg in “Raymond C. Hamrick’s Contributions to Sacred Harp Singing and Scholarship.”

[vi] None of us are guiltless, generally. The best of men are men at best. All have sinned

[vii] A few close calls, yea. Hundreds of times? No way, Jose! Only the wide-eyed enthusiasts could actually believe that. Or perhaps the ostrich with head buried in the sand.
[viii] Until 1991 there was no pretention of neutrality (as far as I am aware, in other words, “our book, our songs”). In 1991, at the public singing and recording of the songs, all reference to the names of composers was removed. However, it is clear that only the public and not the committee were operating under this constraint, since a committee member mentioned the deliberate intent “to give our northern and western singers an interest in the book to be published.” Additionally, a composer shared with me that one of the committee members told him (at the public singing) that he recognized his songs by his writing style.