We made a side trip to Minneapolis this evening. I went to a Sacred Harp singing at the University Baptist Church next to the University of Minnesota campus, while Carol explored that neighborhood, which is called “Dinkytown.”<\/p>\n
Each local Sacred Harp singing is a little different, with different customs and singing styles; a sociologist or anthropologist could probably do an interesting study, if there were one who cared. This local singing<\/a> was louder than the one at Berkeley, there are more of them, and they don’t take turns leading songs as we do but anyone jumps up when the spirit moves them.<\/p>\n During the break, I talked with a man who apparently had been one of the founding members of the group. He told me they had a strong connection with traditional Sacred Harp singers from the South. “The South is the real tradition,” said another man, and the first man nodded. It’s the old argument in folk music circles: are traditional musicians the only true interpreters of a tradition, or can urban revivalists sing genuine folk music? –should folk traditions remain fairly static, or should they evolve? –can new regional styles be considered legitimate, or are they merely poor imitations of the older regional styles? The two Minnesota signers I talked with clearly felt that traditional signers are the true interpreters of a tradition, that urban revivalists should imitate traditional singers closely, and that folk traditions should remain fairly static. I listened and didn’t say anything; but I’m never comfortable with arguments about “correct” forms of folk music; it sounds too much like doctrines and creeds, and I’m a determined non-creedalist.<\/p>\n