Talk:Fuguing tune

Untitled

This article is bad. The definition to fuguing tunes is not given at the start of the article and there are quite a bit of opinionated words (like 'ill-informed musicologists' coming off as an ad hominem). It should be touched upon. 78.190.159.74 (talk)

You are certainly correct about the gratuitous expression "ill-informed" (though it is not exactly an ad hominem slur). This can easily be deleted without affecting the facts of the (referenced) statement in the slightest. I shall be happy to do this in the present case, but you should feel free to make changes in any other cases where you feel there is inappropriate wording. After all, open-to-all editing is what Wikipedia is all about.

About the "lack of definition", what do you find lacking in the present version: "Fuguing tunes are sacred music, specifically, Protestant hymns. They developed in England from around 1750. They are written for a usually four-part chorus singing initially a cappella"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The article used to explain perfectly well what a fuguing tune is, quoting at length an eminent authority, George Pullen Jackson. Then someone did a huge deletion, wiping out all the Jackson material. This is, I think, what led to Anon's complaint of incoherence. I've put it the lost material back in, adding the publication date to make it clear that it is was indeed sourced. I'll try to find the pages numbers soon. Opus33 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, that looks like a good move. However, have I just not looked closely enough, or have you restored some material with "citation needed" tags dating back to 2012? If those were deleted within, say, the past 18 months, they ought to have stayed deleted until and unless someone finds reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The "chart, which is based on the songs of The Sacred Harp, 1991 Edition" is both interesting and informative. It's also good to see the method of its creation described, at least in general terms. However, there is no source cited for any of this work, which leads one to suspect that it may be OR (Original Research), a Wikipedia no-no ... This is just the most glaring example of content which needs better – or indeed, any – references, so I'm marking the article with the RefImprove template.

Can anybody supply a source for this material? I'd hate to delete useful information! yoyo (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The data all come from the 1991 edition, and the sorting into eras was my own, which is OR. There were also a few judgment calls, also OR, about what exactly is a fuging tune (e.g., does it count if two voices come in at once?). I think it was nice to have the chart while it lasted, but alas, the rules are the rules. Opus33 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is good at least to have confirmation from the author that this is in fact OR. Too bad, but you are right: the rules are the rules.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, the Sacred Harp publishing world is small and generally quite interested in publishing factoids like this. @Opus33: I'd imagine you could probably get your chart published in the Sacred Harp Publishing Company Newsletter or The Trumpet, both reliable publications with editorship by reputable academics. Then it wouldn't be OR anymore. Ibadibam (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Opus33 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Earlier origins of fuging tune

The roots of the fuging tune given here are rather vague, referring generally to "England in the middle of the 18th century" and then going on to the itinerant singing masters, who were presumably American. It would be good to first of all specify what these earliest tunes or predecessors were and why they arose.

I think it might be possible to trace it back still further: to the mid 16th century, when Latin was forbidden in the English church along with excessive polyphony. English anthems, generally homophonic, were mandated instead. Andrew Gant writes (in O sing unto the Lord): "A brand-new musical form also made its appearance in Wanley and elsewhere: the ‘ABB’ anthem. The first part of the text, usually biblical, was sung to simple, restrained homophony (the ‘A’ section), then the voices diverge into modest polyphony (‘B’), then this second passage is repeated (‘B’)." (He then gives Tallis' If ye love me as an example.) This sounds an awful lot like a fuging tune, though Gant doesn't connect the dots. Sternhold's metrical psalms may also be relevant.

Anyway, I wonder if there's a way to flesh out the history in this article without doing OR.—Jchthys 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this is interesting and would be worth including if you can source it a little bit better. Opus33 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a promising connection, and seems to me to be consistent with the fact that many of the early British and American composers of fuguing tunes used the four-syllable solfege adopted in Renaissance England. When I'm in doubt of a connection but I think it's obvious, sometimes I'll simply put the information in the article and let the reader draw their own conclusions. So we could mention the ABB anthem in the context of a general background of the emergence of polyphony in English music, but not explicitly state that the ABB anthem was a direct influence on the fuguing tunes of the common singing masters. Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough (if it's not done in a way that strongly implies the conclusion). I am wondering, though: were there itinerant singing school masters in England in the 18th century?—Jchthys 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the English having itinerant singing schools in the American idiom, but the amateur composers and choir leaders of west gallery music were a direct influence on the New England school, including the use of fuguing tunes. I always had the sense that most west gallery composers worked locally, though I'm sure there had to have been a few who traveled. Ibadibam (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuguing tune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717033255/http://www.centre.edu/web/library/sc/special/music/ingalls.html to http://www.centre.edu/web/library/sc/special/music/ingalls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)