text:
Talk:Barbershop music

Belting?
what do you think do the lead singer use belting technique when he sings a tag? cause it sounds like and extreme forced note with superb power.

Cleanup
Why has the article been tagged for cleanup? Unless a reason is given, shouldn't the tag be removed? Gene Ward Smith 03:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * There seems to be no reason given by whoever suggested the cleanup (which wasn't me) - but my view is that the page is now much too large and cumbersome. I'd like to see it broken down. Certainly the beautyshop bit could be split off - I believe very few currently practising barbershop people have heard of this term. I'd like to see the history split off and considerably revised/expanded to reflect Averill's work. The organisations should still be listed here (but not discussed), with the BHS highlighted as the most significant (but not the only) group. The list of notable artists continues to grow, but is subjective and doesn't seem to me to be useful on the main page. Just my thoughts. Rrex 17 April 2006

 * May I suggest that older threads on this talk page are archived? Shall I do it? I have just added some titles to threads that did not have them. Rrex 20 April 2006

'Barbershop' name
if anyone happens to know where the name came from it would be interesting to know --Lezek

 * The story I always heard was that it started out as a way of passing the time in the barber's waiting room. Don't know how true that is, though. —Paul A

It's now generally accepted, as a result of scholarship by Lynn Abbott and Jim Henry, that barbershop singing originated in African-American communities in the U.S. around the turn of the century. Barbershops were social gathering-places for African-Americans.

The first uses of the term were associated with African-Americans. Henry notes that "The Mills Brothers learned to harmonize in their father's barber shop in Piqua, Ohio, and several well known black gospel quartets were founded in neighborhood barber shops, among them the New Orleans Humming Four, the Southern Stars and the Golden Gate Jubilee Quartette."

I've been brooding about what the Wikipedia entry should say about this and what it should say.

SPEBSQSA was founded in 1939 as a white organization, and did not admit blacks until 1963. The Sweet Adelines split over the same issue (the splinter group becoming Harmony, Incorporated).

In other words, as with rock 'n roll, barbershop harmony is a black cultural form that was adopted by whites.

—Dpbsmith

Editing notes
I removed the following talk:

Editing notes:
 * The Parliaments is not a Barbershop anything. It's a doo-wop group.  It should not be listed on this page
 * The Revelers are a 1920's acapella QUINTET, and should not be on this page either.
 * Is Chaz Weigel a notable Barbershop artist? I cannot find any information about him anywhere.  I am suspicious, since notable Barbershop artists tend to come in fours.  Perhaps if he is to be included on this page, someone should supply some sort of information about him.
 * The list of notable artists could go on for pages, since the society medals a new champion quartet every year, of which Acoustix is one. Is there some standard for notability here?

Tuf-Kat

The ranks of barbershoppers
I've made one minor edit to the last paragraph, which had claimed that the number of people worldwide who enjoy the hobby of barbershop singing is in the millions. As a lifelong barbershopper myself, I wish this were true; the society's own website puts U.S. membership at only 32,000, and even with subsidiary groups and Sweet Adelines, plus non-member hobbyists, I think "millions" is a bit lofty and reduced the credibility of the article more than "thousands". Perhaps the number isn't even all that important to include, since it can only be used to accurately measure society membership, which does not ultimately define everything about barbershop.

While I'm spouting off, I thought I'd second a previous comment about how "notable artists" make the list. After all, if I were formulating it with an eye toward the artists' overall significance to the style, I'd surely include the Boston Common and Bluegrass Student Union, or Keepsake, if technical merit is the main criterion. Arguably, any of these would be more representative of the style, since to the best of my knowledge, more recent albums by Acoustix and the Vocal Majority (impressive as they are) have featured backing instrumentation, non-standard arranging, six- and eight-part voicings, as well as later-period (e.g. jazz) songs that many barbershoppers would not generally regard as representational of the style.

I agree with your changes...
...although a real Society booster might say that "thousands" errs in the other direction.

At this point in time, I don't honestly believe that there is any large amount of barbershop singing activity going on outside the societies. The society was, in fact, founded because it was starting to die out as a independent, spontaneous phenomenon. In the fifties, when quartets were still a common feature e.g. in radio or televison commercials, the Mills Brothers were still cutting hit records, etc. the average person would have heard the style in "ordinary life" and one can imagine that at least some would have picked it up and started to sing it just from hearing it. The total number of people singing barbershop can't be very different from the total membership of SPEBSQSA + SAI + HI.

www.harmonize.com/region4/ MMNewsletter-September2003.PDF says:

In last month’s issue, we reported that from April 30, 2002 to April 30, 2003 Sweet Adelines International has seen a 2.5% decrease in total membership. Total members is currently 27,273. Within the last eight years, SAI membership peaked in 1997 to 30,092. It has declined steadily since.

Dpbsmith 10:26, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Membership figures; HI numbers...
Well, I found (and lost, darn it) a reference somewhere to a total membership of "about 80,000" for the combined three organizations, and since SPEBSQSA and SAI are about 30,000 each and HI is smaller than SAI, I think that will do.

It seemed to me that it was absolutely necessary to explain why SPEBSQSA has such a long initialism, which led to a brief explanation, which seemed to require noting the origins of SAI and HI as well, which seemed to require a plain statement (rather than the usual PR euphemism of saying that the SAI/HI split originated over "a by-law.")

Dpbsmith 11:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Notable Artists list needs some consideration, deliberation
I have noticed that one of the most volatile parts of this article seems to be the list of "Notable Artists", owing, I'm sure, to the fact that this is such a subjective designation. Indeed, I have started to wonder if the list ultimately adds any substance to the article, or whether it could just as easily be eliminated from it, or handled differently.

As long as it's preserved, however, these are my latest thoughts:

I agree that the doo-wop groups and others that have so far been removed are better categorized and written about under that category (or perhaps the more comprehensive "a cappella" section).

My opinion is that a limited, concise list of quartets and choruses is more valuable than everyone adding his or her favorite group(s) to the list, with the result being long, arbitrary, and ultimately not as useful for those not familiar with the style.

I would also point out that many of the quartets that might be included on the list are already accessible via other links in the article, such as the SPEBSQSA site, and for that reason are already well within reach of those wanting more information or conducting research, and therefore are unnecessary to include on this page. The Acoustix quartet is a good example of this, and one of my main reasons for taking them off the list when editing this article recently is because they appear on the websites of both the Vocal Majority chorus website and the SPEBSQSA website, both of which already appear as links in this article. The Vocal Majority themselves are a better candidate for the "Notable Artists" list, due to their unprecedented success and very high profile in the realm of barbershop *chorus* singing, although I note that the Louisville Thoroughbreds have won only one fewer SPQBSQSA chorus championship than they have. In other words, the list could go on and on...

As long as the "Notable Artists" list persists, though, the criteria I would suggest for barbershop singing groups being included (since the question has been raised several times) are that the artist be widely considered historically important (one measure of this might be if the group is otherwise documented in the Wikipedia), and that they be a good example of the barbershop style as defined in the article and as historically practiced (as opposed to certain more recent arrangements and repertoires that puch the barbershop envelope). This "Notable Artists" distinction is ultimately impossible to make objectively, so I expect (and hope) there to be much more lively debate regarding this section of the article.

 * Let's not get into the business of excluding things from the notable artists lists. Just as with stub articles, I suggest that the best way to write this section of the article collaboratively is for start by everyone adding his or her favorite group to the list—or, more properly, for everyone to add whatever groups they think should be added. I definitely think it helps if the entry gives both the name of the group and a sentence or two explaining why they're included. When the list gets to be more than a few scattered entries, then we can start to slice and dice it and organize it under subheads. As for whether they be "a good example of the barbershop style," the classification could deal with that.  Why don't you get the ball rolling by adding the groups that you think ought to belong?

 * One NPOV way of doing this is to add groups that have won SPEBSQSA /SAI/HI championships, since by definition these groups are regarded as good example of the style by the organizations that define the style.

Dpbsmith 19:00, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note: I moved this to Barbershop music because that's the typical method of disambiguating genres (e.g. heavy metal music, New Wave music). In any case, "Barbershop (musical style)" is a non-intuitive title. Tuf-Kat 19:41, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Samples

 * [[Media:MyBabyNeedsaNewPairofShoes.ogg|Download recording]] of "My Baby Needs a New Pair of Shoes", a barbershop quartet song from the Library of Congress' John and Ruby Lomax 1939 Southern States Recording Trip; performed by Ray Wood on April 13, 1939 in Houston, Texas

I moved this here from the main page. The idea of including samples is a great one, and the idea of including an historic one is great, but, darn it, this is a solo. It may be a barbershop song, but presenting a solo voice as a sample of barbershop, in my opinion, just isn't right.

Leaving it here for discussion. Dpbsmith 00:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. The thing that distinguishes barbershop is the close harmony. Without that, I don't think it can really be called barbershop at all. --Camembert

 * Might it be a good idea to contact the either the SPEBSQSA or some of the more high-profile modern quartets/choruses and request samples of their performances that could be used here instead of this old solo? I should think that they'd have at least something - one of the core Barbershop ballads, a piece of an Internationals performance, maybe?  I'm a little new to Wikipedia to feel comfortable taking that initiative without asking first, or even leaving it up to someone else, but - what say you? Smegalicious

 * I think it should be replaced by a more typical recording. Until there is a replacement, we should remove this, as it is not typical.

 * There are a number of public domain recordings of both original barbershop era professional quartets as well as more recent International caliber quartets available on the Barbershop Harmony Society's web page. Perhaps linking to some of those (or embedding them) would be a good idea. The basic problem, though, is that really old recordings don't represent the state of the musical hobby today and could damage the efforts of the Society to get more members and reverse the declining membership. Having both some historical examples as well as relatively recent, high quality, examples would be better. Zanzan42 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

barbershop links
Only the (links to the)U.S. organisations are mentioned. Here is another link: http://www.harmonize.ws/links/

This link shows that outside the U.S., there are numerous barbershop organisations. Not all of them are affiliated to one of the three mentioned U.S. barbershop organisations.

 * By all means, add information to the main article about barbershopping outside the U. S. There was no intention to restrict this article to the U. S., it (like much other U.S.-centrism in Wikipedia) just happens as a byproduct of the people who happen to contribute to it. The particular link you mention doesn't specifically deal with barbershopping outside the U.S., and I wasn't able to find outside-U.S. links in it quickly. You would be doing us all a service if you'd put specific links to non-U.S. barbershop organizations in the External Links of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beautyshop parts
I wrote Each of the four parts is assigned to female voice parts: the lead/tenor/bass/baritone is assigned accorging to women's voice parts. and this was edited out. First of all a barbershop is generally an all-male haircut establishment, whose etymology comes from barba which is comes from the indo-European root for beard. So if barbershopping started out in barber shops, then it was likely an all male endeavor. Furthermore, in singing parts, women have higher vocal range, and so there are usually different names for the parts they sing versus what men sing. (example: soprano is a female and Sopranist is a male singer in the same range.) I doubt that women in beautyshop quartets sing a true Basso, so I think wikipedia should state what the vocal ranges typcally are for each part in a beautyshop quartet. MPS 17:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Female barbershop quartets use the same naming convention for the parts that the men do, but they sing in a higher range. The quick and dirty way to take a men's barbershop arrangement and revoice it for women is to raise it a fourth and swap the baritone and tenor parts. That puts the women's voices in the right range while still maintaining the close harmony arrangement. Zanzan42 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It's also common to just raise the pitch without swapping those parts because swapping the Baritone and Tenor parts would result in the new Tenors frequently singing below the Leads and the new Baritones singing almost exclusively above the Leads. (And the side effects of the audience now actually hearing the Baris [gasp!]) Jon 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Do the parts in a "beautyshop quartets" sing in different vocal ranges from the corresponding parts in a women's "barbershop" quartet? Is it a slightly different style with different arrangers? Do "beautyshop" quartets buy their music from SAI or HI and is it labelled "barbershop" or is this a sort of independent movement outside and apart from the traditional women's barbershopping?

 * I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I still think "beautyshop" quartet is just a new name for a women's barbershop quartet.

 * Correct. But nobody that I know of in the hobby uses the phrase. Zanzan42 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The article currently says nothing about vocal ranges; it probably should, and should probably say something about differences between mens' and women's quartets. It currently only that "Each of the four parts has its own role: the lead sings the melody, with the tenor harmonizing above the melody, the bass singing the lowest harmonizing notes, and the baritone completing the chord." AFAIK this correctly describes the barbershop style as performed both by male and female quartets.

 * The history of barbershop harmony is complex and somewhat disputed (as its black origins were forgotten/suppressed). I've only just begun to read a book called "Four Parts, No Waiting" which is a new history of barbershopping, I'll have to see what it says about mens' vs. women's barbershopping. This is what I think is true but don't take it is gospel. In their origins, barbershop quartets were male, but were not specifically associated with barbershops; the name was applied simply because barbershops were social gathering places in the black community. They were originally also called streetcorner quartets, etc. It was a slightly disparaging term for unschooled and musically "incorrect" chord structures and progressions, i.e. what you might hear in a barbershop as opposed to a concert hall.

 * Great book. Pretty much the authoritative treatise on the subject. It takes a slightly different tack from Jim Henry's doctoral thesis: Where Jim's argument was for a somewhat exclusive origin in the African-American musical culture, Averill's argument is for both white and black origins that fed off each other over the period of the 1830's to the early 20th century. Given the documentation in the book, I tend to agree with Averill more than I do with Jim. Zanzan42 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think what we currently know as women's barbershopping was a sort of synthetic creation, as the women whose husbands were in SPEBSQSA wanted their own signing organization, and was thus an offshoot of the originally-all-white SPEBSQSA... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three issues here that we need to hammer out:

1 women don't sing basso, so the discusison of lead/tenor/bass/baritone needs to distinguish between part names (which may be labeled as such) and the ranges that female barbershop quartets sing in.

 * Men's barbershop parts don't have much correspondence to their similarly-named counterparts in classical music. The so-called "tenor" is a harmony part above the lead, singing mostly in falsetto, which is not exactly what Luciano Pavarotti does. (Reputedly Pavarotti does not read music, though, which if true would give him at least something in common with many barbershoppers).

 * In that barbershop is a close harmony style, most chord voicings are within a single octave or up to an octave and a fifth. Generally, that means that the singers usable range doesn't have to be that large; it's pretty easy to form a quartet with people that fall into the classical definition of "baritone". True basses aren't really useful in barbershop because most arrangements won't be written to take advantage the low range that is used by, for instance, Russian choruses. Zanzan42 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2 the history of calling groups beautyshop -- I just heard this phrase today (Full disclosure: I first heard the term on the Deep Run High School page) and a quick google search reveals that a number of university womens groups have taken to calling themselves "beautyshop." I felt that the barbershop article should mention this neologism.

 * I agree. (Sources need to be cited, though. How widespread is it?). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not. Nobody within the hobby refers to female barbershoppers or female barbershop quartets as "beautyshop". Zanzan42 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3 frequent mental associations are of barbershop groups being all-male. Whether this is true or not should be discussed, as well as the history/frequency of having all-womam groups and of mixing genders within a quartet. IF we don't know the history, we should say something about the lack of information on this subject MPS 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hammer away! Be bold.

 * There's no lack of information on the subject, I just don't know it off the top of my head, not being a female barbershopper nor having any close personal association with one... Try poking around www.sweetadelineintl.org and www.harmonyinc.org.

 * By all means, there could be more in this article, and it did slight women's barbershopping.

 * I'm not quite sure why you singled out the Cracker Jills... I think the Chordettes are more famous... and I think they should both probably go in the Notable Artists section, maybe with new subheads for men's/women's/mixed quartets. I notice that the Cracker Jills listing you cite calls them a "barbershop" quartet.

 * I gotta ask this... a Google site search of www.singers.com for "beautyshop" turns up only one group, the Kinsey Sicks, which is "America's favorite dragapella beautyshop quartet" (i.e. they're men in drag). Those school "beautyshop" quartets you've heard of... are you, uh, certain about their, um, gender identity? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * P. S. "frequent mental associations" are also of barbershop groups being all-white... e.g. Norman Rockwell's painting, the Dapper Dans of Disney World, The Music Man, etc. but that's another topic altogether. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know very little about barbershop / beautyshop so most of my expertise on this subject lies in googling. spam includes these ladies look female [Vangard university page 12 look female and [University of Mobile's starlight concert PR release mentioning beautyshop none of these starlight performers are in drag] Also I agree about the race issue... should be included as well. MPS 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The very fact it is called "beautyshop" indicates it was considered a counterpart to barbershop that would be symetrical in many ways. Call this article whatever you want, but I think the information about both barbershop and beautyshop would go in this article. Alternately, make an article for the general movement "barbershop movement?" and make barbershop music and beautyshop music the two principal sub-articles. — Donama 04:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger of section (Organization) into the Barbershop Harmony Society article
I saw this sugestion on the main page, but no discussion here, so I've added it.

 * SUPPORT: This section does indeed appear to be a duplication of the BHS article, and this article is getting long. Jon 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * STRONG OPPOSE. This is the appropriate, general article on the subject.  If anything, an article about a specific organization or society should be included here.  Barbershop music, after all, is not the province of a single organization, as such a merger would inappropriately suggest.  Any organization, mention of competitions, festivals, etc., should fall under this subject -- and not the other way around.  IMO, it's a no-brainer.   deeceevoice 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

must distinguish between the genre and the society
We need to be VERY careful about thinking of the Barbershop Harmony Society (or any other organization) as being synonymous with barbershop music. At the risk of oversimplifying, BHS/SAI/etc are just groups of people who enjoy the hobby (and therefore share sheet music, compete, attend coaching sessions, wear logo clothing, hold conventions, etc).

There's nothing wrong a barbershop quartet not being a member of BHS/SAI/etc.

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with someone who enjoys the music not being interested in BHS/SAI/etc or their activities.

That said, some of the content in this article needs to be separated. "Notable Artists" sounds like a nice section, but it's basically a list of BHS international champions. The section should be changed to "International Champions" and moved to the Barbershop_Harmony_Society article. This also removes the subjectivity of selecting who should and shouldn't be listed there. The Pop_music genre article has no notable artists; it's probably easist of Barbershop_music doesn't either.

Everything under "Organization" should also be moved to Barbershop_Harmony_Society. "Typical Barbershop Songs" has a place here, as long as there is no requirement that they be "officially" barbershop per any organization rules (i.e. BHS). Scott Crevier 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Ga
First of all, this snuck through the process because there's no review here, and second of all, although about the second half the article is "well-referenced", the first half isn't. And fulfilling half of one criteria just isn't enough folks. Also, the lead is really rather long, and you have a sentence just floating there, try to condense it. Homestarmy 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Consonant?
"... by consonant four-part chords for every melody note in a predominantly homophonic texture." Does Barbershop use a different definition of "consonant" than the rest of the Western music world? Dissonance and consonace are part and parcel of almost all tonal Western music, including Barbershop. The tension of a dissonance followed by the release of a consonace is an intergral characteristic of Western music. When a dominant seventh chord resolves to a tonic chord, a dissonance (the dominant seventh chord) resolves to a consonance. Barbershop music is full of dissonance, as well as consonance, which is one of the reasons that it sounds so nice. If it actually had a consonant four-part chord on every melody note, it would be very boring. The sentence should be revised to reflect the ubiquity of dissonance as well as consonance in Barbershop music.

 * I don't understand what you're getting at. Of course Barbershop harmony, like other Western music, covers the range from consonance to dissonance, by whatever definitions are used, but in comparison to other musical styles Barbershop harmony very definitely emphasizes the simpler and more consonant harmonies. Barbershop performances can and do include all sorts of material, but a barbershopper that went to a contest and sung Gershwin or Burt Bacharach music in an arrangement faithful to the composer's original harmonies would almost surely be downgraded for departure from the hallmarks of barbershop style.

 * Conversely, particularly in its early years, barbershop harmony was derided because. in order to favor ringing chords it used chord progressions which were "incorrect" according to music theory.

 * As for "being very boring," a common (and legitimate) critique of the style is that it is harmonically boring. It is the price that is paid for those "ringing" chords which are musically very exciting—not for their harmony, but for their timbre. It is fair to characterize the barbershop style as "harmonically boring..." and it is fair to characterize a Gene Krupa drum solo as "melodically boring." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * P. S. It turns out that the definition is that of the Barbershop Harmony Society, verbatim. It ought to have been properly attributed and now is. The people who wrote the definition are musically sophisticated and I doubt that their description is grotesquely inaccurate according to standard musical terminology. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * "I don't understand what you're getting at." Here's the quote: "... consonant four-part chords for every melody note." Barbershop music makes frequent use of dominant seventh chord. Dominant seventh chords are not consonant; they contain the interval of the tritone. Barbershop music is full of sonorities that are not consonant. Simple as that. I said the description was no accurate, but I never said or implied "grotesquely," so that argument may be dismissed as a "red herring". Someone's estmation that the definition comes from the "musically sophisticated" and saying "I doubt" are hardly a sound basis for an encylopedia entry. The dominant seventh chords in Barbershop music resolve, typically to chords with roots a fifth lower than the seventh chords' roots. The fact that they resolve is clear eveidence of their dissonance. Perhaps, as I suggested, the term "consonant" has a special Barbershop-specific meaning, in which case that should be clearly stated. By the normal generic definition of "consonant" in Western tonal music, the defintion that heads this article, simply put, is not correct.

 * You say that Barbershop "covers the range from consonance to dissonance" which clearly indicates that not all notes have consonant harmonies.

 * In short: dominant seventh chords are not consonant.

 * (Shrug) It's what the Barbershop Harmony Society says, and they're now identified as the source.

 * It is a correct quotation of the official definition of the style by the organization in the best situation to make that definition.

 * I think your definition of consonant may be overly strict. It's hard for me to believe that a dominant seventh, all of whose notes are actually present as overtones within the tonic note, is considered _very_ dissonant.

 * My dictionary says "1. Harsh and inharmonious in sound; discordant. 2. Being at variance; disagreeing. 3. Music Constituting or producing a dissonance." I suspect that to the modern Western lay ear, dominant sevenths are not "harsh and inharmonious" although they may require resolution and be dissonant by definition #3. I

 * But in any case, if you think it's important, then I suggest you add a sentence saying that the official definition is not using these terms in the standard musicological way, with a source citation to some good source that says, in so many words, that major chords are "consonant" and dominant sevenths are "dissonant."

 * The point is, you're not going to find much in the way of ninths, diminished or augmented chords, tritones, and in fact darn few minor chords (don't be confused by an old tradition in which barbershoppers referred to the dominant seventh as "minor!") in barbershop arrangements. Schubert's Ave Maria ain't barbershop. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "consonant" in this context means Just intonation, rather than the relatively more "dissonant" Equal temperment used in most music. Pfly 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of barbershop choruses and quartets
I think we need to stop adding names to the list of choruses and quartets. It seems more appropriate to be adding these names to the SPEBSQSA article, and leave this one to explain only what barbershop music is. Otherwise the names are going to be spread out all over the place, with duplication of links, etc. Let's just keep this article focused on the music aspect itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dullfig (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Woops, sorry about that. Dullfig 02:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Saltaires
Why was the link taken out? what is the criteria for inclusion of choruses, and why are we still listing them on this page, when the proper page is the Barbershop Harmony Society page? Dullfig 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

White Gospel Quartets
Whenever I listen to the classic white male gospel quartets, like The Blackwood Brothers or The Statesmen Quartet, I can't help thinking "Barbershop!" Don't white or Southern gospel quartets use the same voices and rules, like dominant sevenths, as Barbershop? Of course, they usually sing accompanied, though they often do a cappella, too. I was thinking of adding mention of them, maybe in a short section. What do you think? — J M Rice 16:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable. Barbershop has tended to be self-defined by SPEBSQSA (now the Barbershop Harmony Society), which has tended to have a rather selective view of the musical style. My first thought was "Barbershop!" when I first heard Ladysmith Black Mombasa. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

African American topics
I didn't put the navigation box there, but I don't see why it is "extraneous" or "inappropriate" and I think it should remain. The black origins of the barbershop style are well established, and black quartets regularly competed in the barbershop singing contests popular in New York City just prior to the establishment of SPEBSQSA. SPEBSQSA's exclusion of blacks for the first decade or so of its history is an embarrassment to SPEBSQSA. SPEBSQSA did succeed in creating a association of barbershop with white quartets in the public mind, but that is not a reason for perpetuating this misconception in our article about the style.

Barbershop, like jazz, is not necessarily thought of as "African-American," but both historically had origins in black folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Only people who don't know any better don't associate jazz or barbershop music with African Americans -- despite their obvious and incontrovertible origins. That, Dpbsmith, is precisely why I affixed the tag. In fact, Jazz and Blues also would have an African American template affixed to them -- but, IMO, it would clutter the page too much. People need to know barbershop music came from. The tag is wholly appropriate, and it should stay. deeceevoice 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course, I do wonder if there might be some way to make the point without taking up quite as much space on the page. It seems to me that it would be better to have a much smaller navigation box that connects barbershop with other African-American musical styles. I'm not sure readers of the barbershop article necessarily want to read about African American military history or Father Divine. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They might if they're interested in African American-related topics, generally. The same might be said about other such boxes on the site. deeceevoice 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbershop seventh and tuning terms
Reading this article has left me a bit confused. It is clear that a distinguishing quality of barbershop music is the use of Just intonation, the "barbershop seventh", and "ringing sound". But the page seems to contradict itself, or at least confuse, over what the terms barbershop seventh and ringing sound mean.

First, the barbershop seventh. There is a long quote from the Barbershop Harmony Society near the top of the page, which includes the statement: "justly tuned otonal tetrads; where for example the voices are at frequencies in the proportion 4:5:6:7". I just browsed the Barbershop Harmony Society's website and saw this quote, but this specific statement wasn't there. In fact I couldn't find any technically precise definition of what a barbershop seventh actually is, other than being in just intonation. I suspect it is just what the Otonality page and the 4:5:6:7 statement indicates -- that it is the 7:4 interval, sometimes called the "harmonic seventh" or the "blue seventh". W.A. Mathieu, in the book "Harmonic Experience", points out a well-known use of it -- in the extra bit added onto the song "Happy Birthday to You" with the line "And many more!" The word "more" is, he writes, typically sung as a 7:4 ("harmonic") seventh.

Later in the article there are more comments about the barbershop seventh -- how 35-60 percent of the chords in barbershop music use it -- "Oh Lord play that Barber shop chord!" -- and how the dominant seventh barbershop chord is so important that "it is called the "barbershop seventh".

To confuse matters more, the page List of musical intervals lists 7:4 (but called it 4:7, a mistake I think) and calls it the "septimal minor seventh, seventh harmonic". I think the name ought to be "harmonic seventh" instead of "seventh harmonic", but in any case it doesn't say anything about barbershop. It does say that "some assert" that 7:4 is a blue note used in jazz though. The page Septimal comma also mentions 7:4, calling it the "harmonic seventh". Finally, the tuning software "Scala" calls 7:4 "harmonic seventh".

On this page the bit about Otonality and 4:5:6:7 chords seem to indicate that the barbershop seventh is the same as what is elsewhere called the harmonic seventh or blue seventh -- the just intonation interval of 7:4. But it is not very clear. Is it the same interval or not? If not, what is it? If it is the same, it doesn't seem to be "known as the barbershop seventh" outside of the world of barbershop.

Second, the "ringing sound". I'm confused by the seemingly contradictory statements about how the ringing sound is not the same as the acoustic physicist's overtone and more like heterodyning -- having to do with some kind of non-linear response to sound within the human ear -- but also how the ringing sound depends on singing in just intonation "to maximize the overlap of common overtones". Then there is the stuff about the "fifth voice" effect. It's all very confusing.

If I understand it right, to create the ringing sound the singers need to sing in just intonation such that the overtones/partials/harmonics of their voices line up well and reinforce each other. See Harmonic series (music) for the meaning of overtone, partial, and harmonics in music theory (and note that page even mentions Barbershop music, but seems to (errorneously?) say it merely means "close harmony" in barbershop). This reinforcing of justly-tuned partials would be able to make a combination tone, but as that page says, combinations tones are "thought to sometimes" be made by the non-linear inner ear response. They are also, apparently, created through simple harmonic sums and differences. The heterodyning page linked to is about the "beating" of slightly out of tune frequencies, which doesn't sound much like how the barbershop "ringing sound" is described here -- and certainly not about combination tones and "fifth voice" effects, unless we're talking about binaural beats or the frequency of the beating of out of tune harmonies, which seems highly unlikely. Such things should make tones far lower, rather than "above the blended sound" as this page puts it.

Even if there is some strange non-linear effect inside the ear, the page says a few times that barbershop singers produce the ringing sound by singing in just intonation. If so, this overtone effect may not be strictly the same as the scientific meaning of overtone, but it seems to be the common meaning of overtone, partial, harmonic, etc, in music theory and the study of tunings and harmony. So this leaves me confused. Is the ringing sound about singing in just intonation with the resulting alignments of the harmonics/partials of the voices, or is it about singing slightly out of tune to create heterodyning beating frequencies? Could it be both? My guess is that it is the former -- just intonation -- and the stuff about non-linear heterodyning is either wrong or a minor factor. But I don't know. Can anyone enlighten me? I find the barbershop sound intriguing and would like to understand it better. Thanks! (and sorry for the rambling) Pfly 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I would say that the article as it stands focuses more than necessary on the use of just intonation, giving the false impression that just intonation is peculiar to barbershop in particular. This is nonsense: it's a perfectly natural tendency in almost all music (with the notable exceptions of much Western classical music in the 20th century, and any music influenced by equal-tempered keyboard instruments) to strive for just intervals, and the stuff about the fifth voice seems to me like a needlessly expansive, and occasionally incorrect, explanation of why we like just intervals. Considering especially the lack of sources I'm inclined to remove much of this stuff. Thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Certainly just intonation is used in other forms, especially a cappella and string quartets, but it is without question one hallmark of barbershop. The emphasis is absolutely appropriate.  With a tempered scale, the "lock and ring" just wouldn't happen.  This is often one of the first adaptations for trained singers new to barbershop.  They have to learn to trust their ears, not their memory of a piano.

 * The relevance of the beat frequencies is that when correctly tuned they vanish (hence the "lock"). Some vibrato in one voice part can be admitted without ill effect, but in excess it will prevent the singers from achieving the lock.

 * The best place to gain a theoretical understanding the physics is with Jim Richards Physics of Barbershop Sound text. It's been evolved over 25+ years of Harmony College (and other) courses. LeadSongDog 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The "ringing chord" of barbershop is produced when the singers match the overtones of the bass note, and thus "justly" tune the chord.

Merger proposal
Strong disagree rather the reverse. Much of the content in the Barbershop music article belongs in the quartet article. COI acknowledged.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the nastygram. Anyway..I think when someone types in Barbershop Quartet, they would be looking for information on the history and style of Barbershop Music...not the particular history of some specific quartet that only members of Harmoney International or Sweet Adelines have ever heard of. I think that there is way too much overlap between the three articles and maybe, at some point in the future, the three articles can stand on their own, but for now it seems they would best be served by one. Wikipedia is not written for those of us that *know* about a topic, it is written for the people that are looking to learn and I think that the information people will be looking for is here and the other articles would best be merged. Legotech (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree to merge. Don't see any reason to keep it separate. Udonknome (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge.... obviously! Redheylin (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"STRONGLY Disagree". We should have a clear distinction between the structure of the music and "who sings it." We need someplace where people can clearly see what distinguishes barbershop harmony from other four part harmony a capella music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.87.182 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I have merged and redirected them both. As they stand the articles didn't added much and they may always be splitt out should anyone be willing to expend. - Nabla (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

History section
Umm, is that part a joke by somebody? Barbershop singers mentioned in Don Quixote and mysterious 'musical publications' without any citations to back it up? --193.118.251.61 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did some serious clean up to the History section. It was disjointed, un-encyclopedic in tone, and full of superfluous redundant material. There was also an entire paragraph about the Mills Brothers that I removed as it had nothing to do with the origins and history of Barbershop music. Steve Lowther (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed
The article says:

I added a fact tag to the last sentence. Which episode? Do you mean the episode Homer's Barbershop Quartet? Because http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0501.htm says this parodies The Beatles, not the S.P.E.B.S.Q.S.A., singing on a rooftop. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the baritone ever have the melody?
In the intro, the article doesn't even mention if baritones ever have the melody. It reads like this: "The melody is not usually sung by the tenor or bass, except for an infrequent note or two to avoid awkward voice leading, in tags or codas, or when some appropriate embellishment can be created."

Will someone tell me whether or not baritones ever sing the melody? If they do, don't you think it would be nice to incorporate that in the intro (or at least somewhere in the article)? Thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that whole sentence should be prefaced by adding "In traditional barbershop songs" I think. Because, in a given song, any part could be singing the melody. Baritone probably sings the melody least, at least in my experience. In the barbershop arrangement of 'Cruella DeVille', the melody travels up through the bass to baritone and then to tenor. And later on the bass sings the melody for almost a whole page.

So yes, the baritone can sometimes sing the melody. Just like every other part. Hiro 42 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Style of Dress
Shouldn't there be a section on clothing style? While not a specific requirement for the music style, the close association of a distinctive style of dress is very much associated with the genre and one can't get a complete understanding of the genre without understanding the unique clothing style. Skeptonomicon (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to add link to external web page
I would like to request that a link be added to the section 6.3.3 Sweet Adelines International with the wording below: Viva Acappella Chorus2012 Sweet Adelines Region 31 Gold Medal chorus from Kent, United Kingdom

Thank you

Nittynats (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins
The origins of "Barbershop" simply did not originate with the African American, due to the historical fact, that he was still a slave and had no ability of owning a "Barbershop" at the time of the "Barbershop Quartet" and it's beginnings, which were sometime in the early 1800's. White men have gathered to harmonize dating back to Europe and Catholic Monk, at a time when the African, in Africa, had no idea of what vocal harmony was. The American black simply learned from what he saw around him, but did not originate. I would like the proof of the African American having originated this musical form, if not, the history currently being told should be changed. — Preceding text originally posted on Barbershop music ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbershop_music&diff=prev&oldid=553353735 diff]) by MrRJDB (talk⋅contribs) 14:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone suggested that barbershops were then owned by African Americans. As for "proof", the article has several sources identified for its "Historical origins" section, one of which is available here. You're welcome to identify any reliable sources you have in support of your statements. —ADavidB 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the chord shown in the figure correct?
There is a figure of a "Barbershop chord" which I believe to be incorrect. First, it is a five-tone chord; Barbershop music has only four parts. Second, the voicing of the chord seem far from typical for barbershop harmony, to me. Bass notes are typically low (the C4 shown is toward the very top of the usual Bass range) to maximize the volume of the lowest-pitched ringing tones. The I-V interval for Bass-Baritone is very common because it is so consonant and rings so loudly (on G4 in this case).

If knowledgeable arrangers verify my suspicions, perhaps someone with the technical ability could post a more accurate figure; however, even eliminating the figure would be an improvement, in my view.

Mcamp@cinci.rr.com (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The "barbershop chord" as a harmonic concept refers to the harmonic seventh chord, irrespective of voicing or orchestration, so in that sense, it's correct. That said, it's confusing to show voicing and notation that's not common in the genre. I'll remove the image and leave the audio in place. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup on paragraph re "Ringing chords"
I made a number of small changes to the referenced paragraph.

There were a number of synonyms for the "defining characteristic" of barbershop music. I eliminated them in the interest of brevity.

Some, such as "angel voice", I had never heard of in my sixty years as a musician and enthusiast, so I thought that not too much would be lost by editing them out (even though they would be interesting in a more specialized article specifically about harmony and overtones!)

One was simply wrong: seventh chords are certainly favored in barbershop, but a (diminished or "dominant") seventh chord in the technical sense, without regard to voicing or intonation, is not a uniquely "ringing" chord. As voiced by barbershop arrangers or singers, it rings pretty well, but not because of the tone that makes it a seventh! Elsewhere, the importance of the seventh chord is correctly ascribed to barbershop music as very important, without implying that it is important because it rings particularly well.

One proposed synonym ("overtone") was not quite technically correct. Voices have overtones, regardless of what style is being sung. The thing that barbershop lovers love about overtones is how they amplify each other in the harmony, not just that they exist.

There were also some technically incorrect references to undertones. I eliminated all references related to undertones. Barbershop music is characterized in part by the effects (chords "ringing') of certain intervals sung perfectly in just intonation. Since undertones are always a result of intervals that are not in just intonation, they have no place in barbershop music.  (Perhaps there are some moments where a normally "barbershop" quartet of unusual skill and eclectic tastes creates an undertone for special effect, but I've never heard of it and there is no possibility that anyone would consider it a characteristic of the style.  I've heard once or twice of ensembles intentionally using undertones, but I don't recall specifically of them being barbershop quartets.)

Mcamp@cinci.rr.com (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcamp@cinci.rr.com (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Barbershop music. 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/20140114010509/http://barbershop.org/about/who-is-the-barbershop-harmony-society.html to http://www.barbershop.org/about/who-is-the-barbershop-harmony-society.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612181505/http://www.barbershop.org/history/HeritageofHarmony_50Years.pdf to http://barbershop.org/history/HeritageofHarmony_50Years.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319004258/http://barbershop.org/news-a-events-main/208-roots-of-barbershop-harmony-article.html to http://barbershop.org/news-a-events-main/208-roots-of-barbershop-harmony-article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution
from Barbershop music to Barber's pole 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbershop music. 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/20070607170531/http://www.barbershop.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_cb_00016.hcsp to http://www.barbershop.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_cb_00016.hcsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbershop music. 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/20070702125012/http://www.choralresearch.org/volumetwo/ijrcs2_1_ayling.pdf to http://www.choralresearch.org/volumetwo/ijrcs2_1_ayling.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Origins of Barbershop Harmony
The article purports that Baarbershop harmony had at least part of its origins in American Black music. Though it may be true that some early barbershop singers were Black, the style itself had no early start in Black music. Rather, looking at its harmonic structure, it is quite obvious that both the music and the harmony were straight out of the 19th century European diatonic harmonic tradition.

Moroever, in the late 18th century up to the 1930's (perhaps) popular muusic of the time included so-called "Coon songs," which highly negatively stereotyped American Blacks. Much of that music was arranged for and sung by barbershop quartets of that time. Flylooper (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Sources for verification? —ADavidB 08:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barbershop music


text:
Hydroxylysine

Hydroxylysine (Hyl) is an amino acid with the molecular formula C6H14N2O3. It was first discovered in 1921 by Donald Van Slyke as the 5-hydroxylysine form. It arises from a post-translational hydroxy modification of lysine. It is most widely known as a component of collagen.

It is biosynthesized from lysine via oxidation by lysyl hydroxylase enzymes. The most common form is the (5R) stereoisomer found in collagen. However, the enzyme JMJD6 has recently been shown to be a lysyl hydroxylase which modifies an RNA splicing factor producing the (5S) stereoisomer. Additionally, in E. coli, there has been at least one lysine N-hydroxylase enzyme identified, named IucD.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hydroxylysine


text:
Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 7

Slrubenstein invited me to mitigate the debate between Stevertigo and JTD over what an encyclopedia article should or should not include with regard to the genocide claims. I’m not alone in noticing a tone redolent of a polemic in Stevertigo’s radioactive aside, but I do agree in principle that those claims need to be addressed.

To reconcile the need to address the genocide claims, albeit the claims of those scholars in the minority, and the need to balance the tone of Stevertigo’s controversial section, I’ve tried to weave together other relevant Wikipedia articles, Stevertigo’s polemic, and my own information, hoping to form an article on the origins of the potato famine. This new section tries to trace Britain’s role and briefly introduces Stevertigo’s claims.

I hope this new section can reconcile the debate.

172

Social, Political, and Economic Origins of the Famine
The Union Act stipulated that Ireland would have in the United Kingdom one-fifth the representation of Great Britain with 100 members in the House of Commons. The union of the churches of England and Ireland also cemented British rule, strengthening the preeminent position in Ireland of the Protestant Episcopalians by securing the continuation of the British Test Act, which virtually excluded Nonconformists (both Catholic and Protestant) from Parliament and from membership of municipal corporations.

Part of the agreement that led to the Union Act stipulated that the Penal Laws were to be repealed and Catholic Emancipation granted. King George III, however, blocked emancipation, arguing that to grant it would break his coronation oath to defend the Anglican Church. A campaign under lawyer and politician Daniel O& led to the conceding of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, so allowing Catholics to sit in parliament. O'Connell mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the “Repeal” of the Act of Union.

Not until 1828-29 did the repeal of the Test Act and the concession of Catholic Emancipation provide political equality for most purpose, including free trade between the British Isles that Irish merchandise would be admitted to British colonies on the same terms as British merchandise.

Political equality and laissez-faire were mixed blessings though. These advantages were not enough to offset the full impact of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. The time of the Potato Famine coincided with the era of Pax Britannica between the Congress of Vienna (after the defeat of Napoleon) and the Franco-Prussian War. Britain then reaped the benefits of being the world’s sole modern, industrial nation. Following the defeat of Napoleon, Britain was the "workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could usually undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in other markets.

Within half a century agricultural produce dropped in value, estate rentals declined, while the rural population increased substantially. When the potato, the staple food of rural Ireland, rotted in the ground through the onset of blight in the mid-1840s, thousands died of starvation of fever in the Great Famine that ensued, and thousands more fled abroad. Unfortunately this coincided with a fashionable economic policy of laissez-faire, which argued against state intervention of any sort. While no one knows how many died (state registration of deaths, even if was possible given the vast numbers dying, did not exist, while the major religion, Catholicism, only just freed from the Penal Laws was poor at keeping records) best calculations suggest somewhere in the region of 500,000 died. One entire class, the cottiers or farm laborers, was wiped out.

Part of the problem was also the small size of Irish landholdings, a result of excessive family size (due in part to the disappearance of traditional methods of contraception and growing sexual activity outside marital relationships), among the poorer segments of society least able to provide for their children. In particular, both the law and social tradition provided for subdivision of land, all sons inherited equal shared in a farm, meaning that farms became so small that only crop, potatoes, could be grown in sufficient amounts to feed a family. Furthermore many estates, from whom these rented, were poorly run by absentee landlords and in many cases heavily mortgaged.

That the Famine "amounted to genocide" by the British against the Irish, is a divisive issue, and largely representative of the difference in perspective and attitudes among the Amercan Irish from Irish nationals. Few Irish historians accept outright such a definition, as "genocide" implies a deliberate policy of extermination. All are agreed that the British policies during the Famine, particularly those applied under Lord John Russell, were misguided, ill-informed and disastrous. Professor Joe Lee once called what happened a holocaust.

There is little or no conflict on the facts; the records are incomplete, for whatever cause, and thus the "debate" is largely a moral one; attempting to ascertain, whether within the policies of the British Empire, lay a racist, forgetful, or simply inconsiderate mentality that, despite its power, was impotent to handle a humanitarian crisis in its own backyard. To British historians, this is so rudimentary and axiomatic, as to be forgotten: Imperial rule was cruel, just as was America's 'Conquering of the West', which America does not, in any sincere way, admit guilt for either, simply because it would raise political issues now.

Irish, British and American historians F.S.L. Lyons, John A. Murphy, Joe Lee, Roy Foster, and James S. Donnelly, Jr., as well as historians Cecil Woodham-Smith, Peter Gray, Ruth Dudley Edwards and many others have long dismissed claims of a deliberate policy of genocide. This dismissal usually does not preclude any assessment of British Imperial rule as inadequate, or ill-mannered to handle the task.

Hope this helps.

172

 * Thanks 172 -- I'd like to know what Sv and JTD think about this. I am not an expert in Irish or British history.  For what it is worth, I think the above reads well.  I am not sure, thought, how much of it should be incorporated into the IPF article, or into a general article on Irish history.  As for the IPF article -- I still think there would be value to separating a historical narrative (what everyone agrees happened) from a review of different interpretations (why it happened, what the events reveal about the world at that time).  172's text is clear, but weaves the two together rather tightly -- and it isn't easy for me to figure out how to incorporate it into the article.  What do others think?  I want to emphasize that I am commenting only on the style, not on the content. Slrubenstein

-

Not on the genocide aspect (on purpose - but Nassau Senior does have a bearing on that debate).

I want to make some comments on parts of a recent version, to get feedback before incorporating the changes. They are mostly to try to give wider context, but in some cases that context reveals a flawed insight (e.g. about the need for outworking "proving" farms had failed). Even if the insights are useful, there's a risk that they might prove too much of a digression and so they are bound to need editing to keep their value without straying too far from the main thrust. So here goes, looking for feedback.

"Other lands were used for cash crops like flax." It's a characteristic of the potato that it doesn't work well as a liquid reserve of capital. Rice and potatoes need minimal equipment, so they can start from a low base (though they end up with capital in the form of land improvements), but corn needs special tools to grow it and use it for food; you have to start with some separate source of capital. Rice and corn can however be readily stored and transported to distant markets, whereas potatoes have limited value in this respect - in the "Communist Manifesto" Marx even commented on the Prussian Junkers' dependency on potato spirit as a source of cash. So potatoes could only plug into the cash economy indirectly, by enabling those other activities, and they didn't help much with climbing into greater corn production (N.B., corn is NOT maize) - I'll come back to flax later.

"...the traditional Irish practice of sub-dividing plots among the male children of a family, though reducing was still widely practiced in the poorer areas of the country." Two things:-

- This rested easily on Celtic systems of land tenure, which reflected a bottleneck in the ownership of capital etc. and not of agricultural land as such (Ireland was predominantly pastoral rather than agricultural until it was pacified, and indeed forcing the Irish into a settled agricultural existence was one tactic in repressing endemic resistance). In fact, the provisions in the penal laws enforcing subdivision except where a protestant heir turned up rested on misapplying customs that were already there.

- Nevertheless, many cultures have adopted the subdivision approach when circumstances warranted, even when that was not their tradition, most notably the poor white Boers in the South Africa of a few generations ago. Their ancestors had eventually picked up on customs suited to extensive use of land, even though (as shown by the New York patroon system) the ancestors of those ancestors had customs relating to intensive use.

The point here is that the customs were not uniquely Irish, and also that wherever there were customs relating to intensive or extensive uses, they tended to have a time lag and survive past their best fitness.

The tradition of electing monarchs from among a limited group is merely an analogy with subdivision of inheritances, not an extension of it. It can be found in many cultures, for instance the Yoruba of West Africa, the Accession Council of the United Kingdom, the Cardinals of Rome, the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire and indeed those of the United States of America. It is in fact a flexible mechanism that can be adapted in many different directions - but this in turn shows that it is NOT an instance of personal property. The nearest that the Crown of England ever came to this was probably how it was dealt with under the will of Henry VIII. But even that Crown was indeed reserved by a legal fiction from Philip of Spain when he married Mary Tudor, an exemption in favour of King Arthur should he come again - which shows that this mechanism does NOT handle a crown as property.

"A British Government report carried out shortly before the Famine noted that the scale of the poverty was such that one third of all small holdings in Ireland were presumed to be unable to support their families, after paying their rent, other than through the earnings of seasonal migrant labour in England and Scotland." This is highly misleading. It suggests that the need for outworking was itself equivalent to poverty. It is in fact something that occurs before that, with poverty only coming in when it is not enough even so. There are roughly three stages, though agriculture in Ireland did not pass through the first (for Ireland, as with many countries, the first stage happened with less settled and more pastoral forms of activity):-

- Smallholdings are enough to live off, and lifestyles have not changed to generate demands for outside goods and services. It is very hard for outsiders to mobilise local resources, and colonialists in these situations have tried various expedients. The price of labour is high, but the labour market clears.

- Smallholdings are not quite enough, either from taxes or rents or from the best land being somehow taken, or from simple increase of population past the first hints of Malthusian problems, or from some small requirements for things which need to be bought for cash. Then outworking becomes necessary to earn a top up, which is vital but need not be much so competition bids the price of labour down; outworking can be putting out/taking in of commercial work to be done in place, or migrant labour, or whatever. Things like flax become practical, since it can most conveniently be produced with intermittent work in the agricultural year and the passage of time for some stages (e.g. "retting"); it is not well suited to industrial scale regular production. The price of labour is low, but the labour market clears (since wages can fall enough for cutting wages to do this - even below a minimum for subsistence).

- Even with all the expedients, there is still not enough. Workers are now in a developed economy, and cash becomes a good proxy for standard of living. There is more cash but less substance (which is why Dollar and Kraay's work is nonsense, when it is used to claim that globalisation has helped poor countries). Unfortunately, this means that people have to hold out for higher cash wages, so the price of labour is high and the labour market cannot clear (wages have an effective bottom higher than the market clearing rate).

Ireland had long been in the second stage, which is merely a cash oriented extension of the mixed crofting lifestyle known to the Scots, with different seasonal activities none of which were enough to live off in isolation. Only the third stage amounted to poverty. The evidence in the British Government report merely pointed to this second stage, but the faulty inference was drawn that the third stage had been reached. So it had, but that evidence didn't go to show it.

"...Irish emigrated in notorious coffin ships..." It should be noted that while folk memory associates these ships with dangerous emigrations (also including Scots), this is misleading. Coffin ships were ANY ships with high risk of death, and in their day the ships that Samuel Plimsoll campaigned to regulate were also known as coffin ships. These were unseaworthy vessels loaded or overloaded with high risk/high premium cargo, and with unfit (even octogenarian) sailors desperate for a living, and often set up for insurance fraud. Coffin ships were ANY death ships.

It was the work of economists like Nassau Senior in that era - working BEFORE the famine hit - that first brought out a formal understanding of what is or is not harmful about the economics of situations like these. He was in fact involved with setting up laissez faire and workhouses - yet he understood the nature of the problem of exporting staples from Ireland, despite being one of the most notoriously hard hearted in applying stringent remedies that he saw as cures. But the thing is, he and his like were NOT recommending simplistic and harmful measures. The mistakes were not made by the economists but by the statesmen who misunderstood them. Oh, and right now the IMF is REPEATING the screw ups in places like Malawi, and with generic advice that developing countries would be better off if only they could export freely (not if they exported their staples, they wouldn't be).

"...local relief was paid for through the Poor Law Union, which was funded by rates (local taxes) paid by landlords, on the basis of an estate's tenant numbers." A lesser mistake is that there was "a" Union; actually, there were several Unions. There is also a greater mistake, which is repeated under tithes. Since we are dealing with technical matters, it is important to be precise; while rates are LIKE taxes, they are not taxes (see below for the difference between tithes and taxes). The crucial distinction is that rates are not based on the tax approach of "the formula says someone in your position owes this much" - in fact "tax" means "assess", as found in (say) taxing legal fees. Rates are based on "the formula says you should pay this proportion of our budgetary need". It's a proportion, not an amount - and the burden will swing wildly depending on what is hitting the budget. The difference really shows up when numbers of indigent dependent on the rates suddenly blow out; it's another cause of variation like the one that lowers the rate when people get evicted. It produces yet another wrong incentive, in extreme cases - yet it works far better than a straight tax system when the actual local revenue burden is less. The whole area can be analysed by game theory, which shows up how you can get market imperfections that make laissez faire not work, from mechanisms like the "Prisoners' Dilemma". This also shows how to improve the formula (base rates on POTENTIAL capacity to hold tenants, not actual occupancy, and offset the amount levied according to numbers of actual tenants who do not hit the poor relief rolls) - and Nassau Senior's work shows that that only helps with keeping everything working efficiently, and that it does NOT guarantee that doing one's best is good enough. "Fixing" the system would have staved off collapse but made it more widespread when it hit, which it probably still would have. (That was what creating these "Unions" ended up doing, though not on such a huge scale.) That actually means that "Only central funding of Poor Law Unions from the exchequer could solve this conundrum..." is dead wrong. It would NOT have solved it, just ensured everything sank on an even keel with one of two possible outcomes: things get better before disaster hits and people wrongly tell themselves they found the solution; or, everything collapses and the whole state is full of roaming, starving hordes. Emigration was the only known, available, reliable and short term solution, if only by buying time and resources for other measures - and this, too, was brought out by Nassau Senior.

In the matter of tithes, these too were not a tax in the precise sense. Rather, tithes were a proportion of produce (and also, were not precisely paid to the state - though an established church may be regarded as part of the state, and tithes were bound up with this). This again looks like a quibble, and turns out to have profound effects. In particular, whenever and wherever tithes were abolished this was done not straightforwardly but by commutation for cash; when there were continuing cash payments, these were creating a tax where there had been none, with all its economic, administrative and political differences. The main one was an increase in the "transaction demand for cash"; it is one reason why an influx of Zionist funds into Palestine did not coincide with measured inflation - the economy needed more cash in it, since tithes had been commuted. An increase in the "transaction demand for cash", needless to say, makes it harder for independent subsistence lifestyles to continue and often forces smallholders to sell up (as in Palestine).

"Some landlords evicted... to 'clear' their lands to allow cattle grazing." This was not a new effect, but a chronic and endemic one that Nassau Senior had already looked at - and was noted by later observers such as Marx and Henry George (who however had axes to grind).

"From 1846 a disastrous application of the laissez faire economic theory and ignorance in London of the scale of the problem, coupled with the lack of the 'Three Fs' to protect tenants, turned a crisis into a catastrophe." Yes to the first, emphatically no to the second. All the second would have done was shift food from mouth to mouth (in the short term). In the long term, of course, it was a desirable measure in that it would have increased both capacity and access to that capacity - but in the teeth of the storm it was worthless. Possibly this just means "the lack of the 'Three Fs'... before the famine", which would be accurate.

"Native Americans" in these days is a euphemism for what used to be called Indians; though in those days, of course, "natives" didn't mean that.

The argument that grain exports should have been kept up can only be at best a sound long term argument. It conspicuously fails in the short term. This begs the question of whether barring exports of staples would have led to a non-survivable long term, and the question of whether relief arrangements could have diverted staples to those who would have been displaced by the flow on effects in the short term. Nevertheless, a sound system of rates and relief (which they didn't have), and the chance of a lower and manageable pattern of emigration to cope with long term flow on problems, would have made barring the export of staples work. See also Solon's reforms in Athens.

"The growth in the numbers of railways made the importation of foodstuffs easier..." - irrelevant, in Irish circumstances. Communications were quite good enough to bring people and supplies together, by sea and by land. The difficulty only relates to costs of resources - and there were workers to be had, while there were no fundamental geographical problems (which is why geography had always favoured invaders strategically and logistically).

"The 1870s agricultural economy [had] access to new farm machinery..." - this is irrelevant to the food problem; it only affects financial issues and productivity issues in terms of proportions of product to input, not issues of total capacity to produce. Productivity measures like improving land, those mattered - not ways of getting the same amount of food produced for less money (unless, of course, the displaced workers were separately given places to go - which should be accounted to those changes, not to the machinery).

"...state intervention was quicker, more effective, and more directed than had been the case in the 1840s." True and irrelevant. This only relates to moving food from mouth to mouth; had there been no improvements in access to total supplies, this would not have helped. This reasoning is the same sinking-on-an-even-keel-is-safe fallacy mentioned before. The actual improvements are ably described in the introductory part of Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace".

For "Emcumbered" read "Encumbered".

Population drops for Ireland are very similar to ones recorded for the Scottish Highlands after their changes of economics and lifestyle. They should probably not be ascribed simply to post famine changes; after all, for these things that was more a precipitating event than a cause proper.

I hope these comments can be incorporated usefully. PML.

ok. Thanks PML... SLRUb, Two16, Mav, 172, et al.. Im not going to respond here, as im refraining from it, except to say: the discussion has no doubt taken a turn for the better, not in terms of POV, but for NPOV. PML has no doubt included insights that go far beyond the level were were stuck at, and I appreciate his observance that its important not to lose the thrust of the article. Be well, all. -Stevert

-

Stevertigo:

Are you satisfied with my section on the origins as a replacement to your contentious section on the genocide claim? It mentions the claim, but doesn’t take negate or accept the genocide position.

Besides, it addresses significant factors pertaining to British rule not considered in the current version.

172

no im not - it seems to be repetitive - but perhaps it would serve better as a first part of the whole article, since it better summarises a lot of things, which later Jay goes into depth on. you seem to have a much better overall balance, though not for limited use in the 'contentious section'. Lets do as mav suggests and find consensus on the use of genocide/democide, then return here...-Stevert

--- Stevertigo:

I’m suggesting that this section on the origins could go at the beginning, rendering the contentious genocide section toward the end unnecessary. The genocide perspective deserves BRIEF mentioning, but the article should not take a stance either way.

172

I uberunderstand.-Stevert

Would anyone mind if I posted the section on the origins at the beginning of the actual article? I’m not inclined to do so yet, but fear that this compromise section could go unedited while lingering on the talk page.

172

 * Let's see what Jt thinks first. I read your version seems to be well-balanced and could perhaps serve as summary for the detail in the rest of the article. BTW, thank you 172 for doing this. :) --mav

______________________

-

I am going to move all the comment to the archive if nobody objects. Continuing with the same process of fillinng talk pages will get us nowhere. The Wikipedian Ethos has found that npov can come through a process of refactoring the arguements presented. By learning to present a fair, best statement of the current debate without regard to ones own opinion the capacity to think in npov. Encyclopedia are a genre of English literature: in order to speak in that voice practice is required. If one has strong opinions or a rigid world veiw there can be a temption not to do the work nessessary to properly refactor the text.

As a participant of the talk page ,but not an edit warrior, I have a very different perspective on what went on here. I am a Canadain ; I Stood on Guard. Knowing that I could not reason with anyone I made posts for the future. When nobody responded, it didn't matter. I didn't have to get angry at the abuse that was thrown at me. I knew that eventually there would have to be a refactoring Then my words would live. :-) It is very like Susan Blackmore's meme.(see talk: susan blackmore). If the full archive list was ported to each archive top and bottom functionality would be improved. I won't be around to refactor it. I'm not really interested or vested in IPF. I stood on guard for the Ethos. Lockdown Sv Rule. I am interested in helping with the whole discussion about genocide generally.I have added quotes and links from the wikipedia that are in the archive (?).

Find somebody trustworthy to help you find your way.

 * learn NPOV cold
 * learn logical fallacies so you won't make them
 * pay attention to the posts you'll be amazed by all the logical fallacy.

Peace out User:Two16

 * We are currently looking over 172's section so it and the discussion about it, needs to stay. --mav

Good work, 172. It is nice to see constructive work here. There are a couple of names, etc that need changing; eg anglican for episcopalian, Irish-American for American Irish. The mention of Irish representation in the UK parliament is slighty uneven. Ireland was in terms of population over-represented. The trouble was not Irish representation in the UK parliament but that the UK parliament, by definition was less in tune with the needs of Ireland, given that the 95% of non Irish MPs and probably 70% of ministers had never set foot in Ireland and so had no sensitivity to what was happening in Ireland, which is why we had demands for Repeal and Home Rule, ie to give a governmental structure that was in tune with Irish needs. An Irish parliament full of Irish MPs would have known of the impact of the famine from their constituencies, whereas British MPs relied for info on the likes of the (London) Times and the Telegraph that had little knowledge of the reality of Ireland, and all too often a bitter anti-Irish agenda.

Also the beginning religion mention makes it sound that the establishment of the Church of Ireland was part of the Union, whereas it predated it by centuries. We can all work on a wording that solves these issues. But I'd be happy to work with you on this. And I'm sure Sv has ideas too. Thanks for the contribution. JTD 02:47 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC

It seems to go well, but 172, I hesitated to answer you, because you seem to be overlooking Mav's crucial point: the consensus on the genocide article: is genocide ok to use as a colloquial referent (as it usually is) for is democide. This should come before getting too ahead of ourselves. Good work all. ---Stevert

- After correcting the above errors and flaws noticed by JTD, I added the origins section to the beginning of the article.

That section should bypass the debate by only referring to charges of genocide.

172

At a glance- it looks much better structured - dont forget the thrust. Im not sure if haste is a factor here, though. Were not trying to just sidestep the issue, as a fix, but rather to give it proper context. Good work.--Stevert

Unless someone beats me to it or gives sound reasons otherwise, tomorrow morning (Australian time - just under 18 hours from now) I'm going to adjust some of the comments about absenteeism to take out the "poorly run" as the main harmful side (though still mentioning it), and put in some economic stuff about the general harmfulness of absenteeism in cases like the Irish one where it flows through to exporting staples. These problems were already known at the time (Nassau Senior again), and there are later counterarguments that don't apply in this case (foreign ownership comes in with compensating boosts to local production so there is a net gain - true even in Ireland, actually, but it had washed out by the time of the famine). PML.

 * I tried to correct a mis-spelling (Daniel O'Connel to Daniel O'Connell) but my browser lopped off the end of the article when I saved. When I go to the previous version to do a revert, it does the same. Could someone else whose browser does not do this revert to the previous version and change the spelling of O'Connell and make sure the link works. (It should. there is a page on O'Connell there.) Thanks. JTD 05:11 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Mainly to JTD (i think) - I've just scanned through this discussion stuff having read the article. My initial impression was that this was going very kindly on the British indeed. It is admitted at some point in the discussion that there is a move among Irish historians away from previous over-simplifications of the matter - but isn't this move itself perhpas reactionary? I mean, Irish historians of this or any generation speak for their times, and, for lay readers like myself, the CONTEXT of this estimation of the role of the British imperial adventure in the famine is lost to those who have not studied so carefully the history of the history of the famine. This is, afterall, a general encyclopedia. So please twist the screws a bit. I won't go editing the article, but some feedback would be appreciated in this regard, Basically, you're all better historians than myself, but maybe some of your nuances are therefore misplaced here, (a bit less d'Alembert and more Diderot as it were) Cheers, Simon

As a further thought, maybe precisley a short history of the history would make a suitable introduction, to allow for the controversiality of the issue to be made fully apparent from the outset? Simon

title: Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 7