Questions for the Revision Committee

The following thoughts and questions about the latest Sacred Harp Publishing Company songbook revision were addressed to two members of the 2025 Sacred Harp Revision Committee. First, after the October 2025 Board meeting, the committee’s music editor offered to answer questions about the revision committee music selection and editing process. However, after receiving the specific questions, he declined to answer but instead directed me to listen to remarks made at the symposium in Atlanta in September 2025 – none of which videos that are available directly address my questions. Some of the videos (even if they do answer the questions) are still not even available online over nine months after the fact. Failing in that effort, I next addressed the questions to the revision committee chair. His reply offered no answers. After reading the reply four times, I came away with the feeling that – written between every line was the mantra “we could care less about the singers who have concerns about the new book.”

So, here are the questions (as asked) presented for public viewing. I have changed the formatting somewhat in order to make it easier viewing for the reader. If there was nothing done unethically in or wrong during the process, why are the questions so hard to answer?

Submissions. The committee reported to the Sacred Harp community that 1155 song were submitted for consideration. 

• How many of the 1155 were new compositions and how many were previously published/old songs?
• Are there any statistics on how many songs were submitted per composer – that is, not how many did each individual submit, but perhaps an upper number (the largest amount submitted by a composer), a lower number (presumably one), and an average?
• Of these 1155 songs submitted, how did the committee arrive at the 113 chosen?
• Did the committee select songs based on what the song itself was, or what they envisioned it could be (considering the kind of editing that was done to some of them)?

Blind selection process. The Sacred Harp community and composers were assured that only the committee chairman knew the names of the songs and their composers. I have no doubt that the chair sincerely envisioned it that way. But perhaps such an ideal was a pipe dream from the start, considering the digital age in which we live. There were so many variables -- such as songs being printed in The Trumpet, submitted to FaSoLa Songwriters, the New Harmony Facebook group, YouTube, SoundCloud, composiums, other songbooks, on various websites, and such like. With all this, managing to keep the process “blind” not only to the committee but even to others singing at trial singings must have been an impossible challenge. Songs written by the committee members were obviously known to themselves.

• I have found 75 tunes that are publicly available and that could possibly have been known by the revision committee through various means (twenty-five are on Jesse’s site, SacredHarpTunes.com, so obviously  he knew those). 
• Considering the disconnect between what we were told and what was the situation, what assurances do we have against the appearance of conflict-of-interest, and that all composers were treated equally and respectfully?

Editing process. One of the more shocking revelations to some of us outsiders is the heavy editing of the songs that were selected for the new edition. I know you are aware of the situation with Linda Sides’s song, and you may be aware that she has demonstrated how her song was edited without her collaboration, then sent to her with a week’s notice to sign off on for inclusion in the book. This is when I first began to take close notice of the process. Other credible reports have surfaced of songs receiving the same or similar treatment, and of possibly one other composer refusing to sign off on the edited product. 

• Who decided that songs should be edited? (Not talking about fixing errant notes and typos, but changing the songs themselves.)
• Who decided which songs would be edited? Who did the editing? Did the entire committee approve the process both before and after editing?
• Of these 1155 songs submitted, were there not more songs that were deemed good enough substantially “as is” without having to edit possibly 50% (per Mike Hinton) or more of the songs to make them worthy to include in the book?
• What was the time frame of editing the songs?
• Were all composers given only one week to accept the edits proposed for their songs (in a process that overall covered nearly seven years)?
• Or did some receive preferential treatment? (For example, on a recent podcast, one composer said that after he submitted his songs, the revision committee reached out to him to say one of them had potential. So, he worked on it, and eventually his song made the cut.)
• I also noticed there are three songs in the 2025 edition whose composition dates are after the time for submitting songs was over.

Removal of songs. 

• What method or methods were used for removing songs that were not among the bottom 77 songs?
• For example:
• The song FEDERAL STREET ranked 187th overall, out of 554 songs. It was sung more than 367 other songs over the course of 30 years. It was removed.  
• The song CHARLTON ranked 552nd overall, out of 554 songs, over the course of 30 years. That is, this song was down near the very bottom among the least used songs. It was not removed.
• The old B. F. White arrangement SOFT MUSIC (ranked 293) was removed, while the weird THE BRIDE’S FAREWELL (ranked 545) was kept.
• How do you explain these kinds of choices?

I realize that the revision committee took on an enormous task beyond the scope of previous revisions, and can appreciate that fact. However, I think that fact actually calls for all the more transparency, not less.