From a report that a Sacred Harp singer made about the September United Association weekend:
“Over the weekend I heard a lot of sacred harp politics and gossip, including some dissatisfaction over the revision process and consultation with composers. … Unsurprisingly there seems to be a small schism forming that intends to stick with the 1991 book, rejecting the 2025 due to all the non-Christians and queers who worked on the book or who have their music included. This is a laughable position if one has even superficial knowledge of Sacred Harp history.”
The above excerpt is from a report that one singer wrote about his experience at the singing of the United Association in Atlanta in September. (He rejoiced in “the presence of many transgender singers able to be themselves with such apparent confidence.”) Take note of a few things stated in the excerpt.
1. The “dissatisfaction over the revision process and consultation with composers” is quickly passed over to make it about “all the non-Christians and queers who worked on the book or who have their music included.” This takes the focus away from the discussion of ethics and makes it more of an emotional appeal to get people on the side of what might be made to seem like a minority. However, from the beginning the main objections concerned questionable ethics, a premeditated agenda, and the lack of promised impartiality in how the revision played out. Who knew what when? How many times did the committee know who submitted certain songs? Why did the committee revise songs without the permission of the composers? Why did some composers have opportunities to revise their songs, while others had their songs revised by someone on or working for the committee – with a “here it is, take it or leave it” option? Why do songs appear in the book dated after the submission deadline? None of these answers have been forthcoming. There is no transparency, but rather subterfuge in its place.
This is not to say we are not dissatisfied with leaders trying to normalize behaviour that is inconsistent with the historic practice of Sacred Harp, and outside of Christian worldview and morality. It is to say that leaders apparently want to put the focus on this and hope for a sympathetic reaction – because they cannot and will not answer the ethical questions.
2. “a small schism…” The author wishes to dismiss and downplay the “schism” as “small.” I do not doubt that more people are now using the new 2025 than are using the 1991 book. However, might does not make right. Additionally, that fact does not necessarily mean that all who are using the 2025 like everything about the new book or the way the revision process was conducted. It may mean that some singers have just accepted the book as what is now being printed and that they are willing to live with. It may mean that some singers are unwilling to stand against these things to the point of not using the new book. It may mean that a few people are in “la-la land” and have no idea what is going on. It is a known fact that some people who are using the new book have complained of some things about it. Eventually, the euphoria will wear off and time will test the quality of the work done for the 2025 revision.
3. “Unsurprisingly…” The author uses the word “unsurprisingly” when referencing a schism over the book. Why is it “unsurprising”? Because you knew this would lead to dissatisfaction, dissension, and division? Yes, this is a (perhaps unintended) admission that folks pushing the boundaries knew that they were moving things in a direction that would lead to schism. So, you now say that it is “unsurprising” when it occurs, and call the ones who you knew would object schismatics.
4. The author finds that those who are dissatisfied have a “laughable position if one has even superficial knowledge of Sacred Harp history.” This in itself is laughable from someone who has been involved in Sacred Harp less than 10 years, to think he has a firm grasp on Sacred Harp history while those from families that have been singing it for multiple generations are quite slow on the uptake! It is also a disrespectful dig at the living elders who have passed this Christian faith singing tradition down from the previous generation to the present generation. Such is the hubris of the new non-traditional singer. Considering that kind of attitude, I guess a schism is unsurprising after all!
No comments:
Post a Comment