Talk:A cappella

Rather than concentrating on how to improve the "A capella" page, these interactions seem more a debate over the use of instruments in worship. While I have no problem with your engaging in such a debate, I question the appropriateness of doing so here. Please return the focus of discussion to this Wikipedia page. (See WP:TALK.) Otherwise, email or a blog environment may be better for general debate on the issue. If a disagreement won't be settled here, I'd advise including a summary of both viewpoints in the article, aiming for neutrality. —ADavidB 14:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Adavidb, wise words. --Trackn (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ADavidB and Trackn, for my part, I will see how it plays out. I may let Wiki go on without me. I had thought that the purpose of an alternate point of view was to cite scholars on the other side of an issue without having to debate and choose one side or the other. I have spent too much of my time responding to charges that the scholars supporting the alternate point of view do not say what I quote them as saying. I do not know how Wiki resolves that, but it has driven the debate, and I am weary of defending it.

In the short term, I will shorten the pro-accompaniment section. I would suggest that we rethink what is most central to the debate and narrow the church section down to that. The Jewish section needs the same discussion. Hopefully at some point we can clear out much of these comments on this talk page. 4unity (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did not intend for either of you, 4unity or Trackn, to give up Wikipedia editing or discussion. Other than a debate on external issues, I'm sure there are other parts of this project that can benefit from your time and effort, with as much or as little time as you're able to provide.

When I've encountered other disagreements which iterative discussion alone hasn't resolved, a more determined effort to reach consensus is applied. If that cannot be achieved by the editors themselves, there are ways to bring in arbitration to help decide (though I haven't been involved with that myself). I like the idea of examining other sections of the article and improving them as well. —ADavidB 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scattershooting on how can we return this talk page to talk without the debate… May we delete the existing interaction between Trackn and myself, since almost all of it is debate? If not, it seems to me that this Wiki talk page remains as bait for the unwanted debate, frozen in time when the music stopped, er, the whistle blew, a snapshot holding charges beckoning answers. We could tag the deletion with a summary line so that anyone interested in the deleted snapshot could look in the history. Is there a better alternative? 'Any objections? 4unity (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of talk page content is generally discouraged unless it's vandalism or has absolutely no bearing on article improvement. You make a good point that leaving the discussion as it is may encourage an unwanted later debate by others. Other talk pages with lots of content use "archive" pages to contain the older writing. A box at the top of the page then includes links to these pages. Such archiving can either be done manually or automatically. My own preference would be to set it up automatically, such that any discussion topics left unchanged for so many days – I think 90 is a typical default, though it can be shorter – are moved to an archive page. If it's agreed to do this, I'll be glad to set it up. —ADavidB 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to believe that the information shared in the discussion over the last few months between 4unity and I provided a wealth of knowledge to the average person studying the issue. I enjoyed it and never took any personal offense. Though there is allot of information posted, it does pertain to the statements and authors cited in the main article. Given that there is the potential for people to debate the topic at anytime, I would prefer to leave what is posted in the talk page until a problem arises. If such becomes a problem, action/archiving can be taken/performed at that time. Looking at the past posts, apart from 4unity, AdavidB, and I, I don’t think this is the most popular topic on Wikipedia (smile). --Trackn (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with "deleting" the discussion, though long chat sections are typically archived, especially when no longer updated for a period of time (WP:ARCHIVE). A link to the archive page would be at the top of the talk page. Anyway, as you wrote, this talk page hasn't shown a lot of popularity. I'm not in any particular hurry.  :-) —ADavidB 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Archiving done. --Kslotte (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about the archiving last July. Rereading this "Focus of Discussion" section, I’m curious why the “acceptance of instruments in worship” section seems to have been singled out for exclusion from the archive designed for it. Except for the question from October and its answer, may we archive the "Christian 'acceptance of instruments in worship' viewpoint" section along with the others? 4unity (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I finished the archiving begun in July 2010, which had only archived one side of a debate from that time. 4unity (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The instrument upon which Christians are told to play is the human heart! The is: making melody "in your heart to the Lord".74.37.109.123 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The question you raise is addressed in the archive. You may search for the phrase “heart is not the musical instrument.” As noted in the section “Focus of this discussion" (below), the goal of this section is not a forum to debate instrumental music in worship. 4unity (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

How do you call the opposite of A capella? When an instrument sounds like a human voice. I once heard the word "voccata" but I'm not sure whether I remember it right and the spelling is surely wrong.--TeakHoken193.187.211.118 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• See the Vox humana article for information about an organ stop that supposedly sounds like a human voice. The opposite of a cappella singing is accompanied singing, however. 68.20.21.33 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know the correct spelling is "a cappella," but I rarely see it printed that way in modern popular culture. Are "a capella" or "acapella" considered correct alternate spellings, or are they simply misspellings of the term? Can anyone address this? Davidgra (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's outside our scope. Who decides what's "considered correct"? Not Wikipedia editors. Both of those spellings redirect to this page, so it doesn't really matter for us.
—Wahoofive (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

   I found the article carrying a HatNote Dab

"A Capella" and "Acapella" redirect here. For other uses, see A cappella (disambiguation).

but there were approximately 30 redirects to the accompanying article, some of which differed only by spacing and/or casing. About half differ at least as to spelling, including names that are correct spellings of groups or works. Arguably, those should go directly to articles really spelled that way, with HatNote Dabs, and i'm violating MoSDab by putting Dab pages at those titles. The situation i found, where users who took the trouble to copy down the exact spelling, or memorize which misspelling of a cappella was used, grossly mistreats them by making them search thru a morass of other misspellings (and perhaps worse, correct spellings of things with a name different from that of the article being sought). If someone wants to make a case for primary-topic Dab'n of some of these titles, i've done part of the leg work for them, so i hope they'll not complain based on their opinion that i've left the job incomplete, rather than make the case.
   (However, i'm unlikely to finish all of that in one sitting, so don't panic that it's not done yet.)
--Jerzy•t 06:58 &10:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

   Quick inspection suggests that i'm finished, but i want to look again and at more leisure. Many eyes will be welcome in any case.
--Jerzy•t 10:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

"a capella" is the Latin spelling of the term. "a cappella" is the Italian spelling of the term. Since most music is notated with the Italian phases for direction, the second spelling is "most correct". As one word, "Acappella" either refers to the music group Acappella, or is a butchered spelling, in my opinion anyway. See: http://www.singers.com/a-cappella.html .
--Bytemaster (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to my Langenscheidt Latin-English dictionary, 'capella' is the Latin for 'she-goat'. There is no entry for 'cappella'. In the English-Latin section, it gives the Latin for 'chapel' as 'aedicula' or 'sacellum'. According to my Pocket Oxford English dictionary, the word 'chapel' derives via French from the medieval Latin diminutive of 'cappa', meaning cloak. I can find nothing to suggest that in Latin 'capella' (with one p) ever meant 'chapel'. I speculate that the English spelling of 'chapel' with one p is the source of the confusion: people know that 'a cappella' means 'in the chapel', and they assume that the correct spelling has one p. Unfortunately, in this case the word dropped a letter in the transition from Latin 'cappella' to French 'chapelle', and English followed the French spelling.109.158.41.48 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Most or all of the "Recording Artists" section is really off topic, should be pulled in its entirety. Does "a cappella" mean the unaccompanied voice or not? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This does not make since to me, thousands of "a cappella" artists/singers are recorded and have released CDs/DVDS world wide. Yes it is "just" voice. But they are still "Recording Artists" as they sing and are recorded. Tricia Ziemer (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 19 July 2013Reply

The inclusion of a section with only a list of European groups has been questioned. I agree that it isn't appropriate in its current form. Is there any opposition to moving the section content to a new List of European a cappella groups article and linking to it from this article, perhaps in the 'See also' section? —ADavidB 10:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

An admin took it upon herself to delete the section without comment; seeing no urgency, I've restored it for now. —ADavidB 03:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Instruments have divided Christendom since their introduction into worship. They were considered a Catholic innovation, not widely practiced until the 18th century, and were opposed vigorously in worship by a number of Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther (1483–1546),

What about A Mighty Fortress Is Our God?174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be removing the Martin Luther reference in about a week (unless given a reason not to).174.137.237.65 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Both references to Luther are sourced (though I don't have access to the sources). What in the "Mighty Fortress" article suggests Luther supported instrumental music in worship? —ADavidB 07:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and I don't know the WP policy off-hand on the not-so-accessible sources--online ones would help.
I've never heard the hymn without music. This Youtube dynamic url indicates as much.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so this Steve Green does it a cappella, but it's solo.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if it would be okay to post this in the A Mighty Fortress talk page.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Offline sources are acceptable; of course they're much easier to verify if freely available online. If the source content is questioned, a "{{Verify source}}" or "{{Request quotation}}" template can be added to encourage anyone with access to check on it. As you suggested, introducing the concern on the 'Mighty Fortress' talk page may be helpful. —ADavidB 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess I'm not questioning the veracity or accuracy of the quote as much as the (online) accessibility. In this archived section (quick search on my part), the editor wrote “There is no requirement that sources be online, but we do require them to be cited in such a way that a reader of the article could, if they so wished, find the hard copy sources, say in a library, and verify what they say.” I did a cursory Google check using the reference, “^ Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762,” for the search and got Bible Topics In The Christian Library. I'll leave the credibility debate for others (it's definately POV on instrumental music on church without much Biblical backing cited), but it had an interesting (alleged at least) quote from Luther: "The organ in the worship of God is an ensign of Baal. The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Not being Jewish, I didn't even know that Jews were really into church organs).

Very well, I will leave it well enough alone (at least for a good long time), and will go to the A Mighty Fortress article and maybe Wikiquotes. Thank you for your help.174.137.237.65 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I put postings on this Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, Talk:Martin Luther, and in WQ Talk:Martin Luther. FYI: no mention of Luther in the German version of this article. I'll be back in several days. Cheers.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

For those that are watching, I updated all of the references on this article and verified accuracy. The discussed reference...Mcclintock's and Strong was slightly incorrect as Martin Luther was not an author which was the impression I got by my reading of it, regardless, it as well as the rest of the references have all been verified (or deleted if they were bad links to commerical websites), and standardized. I hope no one minds that I did this. On another note, I enjoyed the read and believe this needs to be re-assessed because there is no way this is merely a "Start". speednat (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lately there are quite a few videos on Youtube of people singing a cappella with themselves. They record themselves singing one particular part of the song, and then layer the different parts on top of each other. This is only possible with modern technology, and the individual/small-scale nature of the internet is probably making it more popular/feasible as well. I think some mention could be made in the article about this, at least. CodeCat (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree that this deserves a mention, but it goes back further than you might think. See History of multitrack recording. Didn't find any a cappella examples there, but I'm sure there were some. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In addition to finalized songs, many a cappella musicians use solo multitrack recordings for training purposes, which may be worthy of inclusion. An example site with links to sources of such "learning tracks" is http://www.barbershopconnections.com/learning/. —ADavidB 08:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A cappella. 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/20101002004145/http://www.take40.com/news/20335/2010-aria-nominations-announced---full-list-here%21 to http://www.take40.com/news/20335/2010-ARIA-Nominations-Announced---Full-List-Here%21
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2224354?q=beatboxing&search=quick&pos=2&_start=1

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A cappella. 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/20121120214247/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/08/29/mon50.asp to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/08/29/mon50.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327191113/http://barbershop.org/history.html to http://barbershop.org/history.html

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

As part of #1lib1ref, I am adding references. I checked the liner notes of the album for that "Norman Normal" song, because I couldn't find any other information about the fact that it was entirely a cappella. In the listing of the songs on each side of the record album, it does say "Norman Normal : Paul Crowd, crowd; Paul Esophagus, electric bass; Paul Larynx, second guitar; Paul Mouth, percussion; Paul Stookey, lead voice; Paul Stookey, second voice; Paul Throat, lead guitar". So, it is indeed a fact that all sounds are created by Paul Stookey, even though it is only there in a punny and non-explicit way. I hope this citation is okay/ helpful. LibraryVoices (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A cappella. 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/20120124121724/http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/entertainment/8071132-421/chicago-a-cappella-sings-music-of-high-holidays.html to http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/entertainment/8071132-421/chicago-a-cappella-sings-music-of-high-holidays.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201084421/http://shircago.com/jewish-a-cappella-omer.php to http://www.shircago.com/jewish-a-cappella-omer.php

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! To any and all interested: I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella—ranging from professional groups like the Pentatonix to collegiate groups like the Whiffenpoofs, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off—please check out the proposal and share your thoughts!

Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.

If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like this one), please consider joining!

—Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I find a contradiction in the article regarding when the opposition began. It first says in the late 2nd century. Later in the 5th century. So which one is it now? Now, I believe John Chrysostom was the first one to do so. What leads to the idea that the opposition already began in the late 2nd century could be supported by a quote from Clement of Alexandria which states:

"If people spend their time with auloi, psalteria, dancing and leaping, clapping hands like Egyptians, and in other similar dissolute activities, they become altogether immodest and unrestrained, senselessly beating on cymbals and drums, and making noise on all the instruments of deception. Obviously, it seems to me, such a banquet has become a theater of drunkenness." (How To Behave Oneselves at Banquets)

Now, this can also be interpreted that St. Clement did not oppose the instruments, rather the dancing and "clapping hands like Egyptians". Therefore this cannot be counted as an oppostion against instruments in the church, and neither can Tertullian's quote from The Shows:

"That immodesty of movement and dress which especially characterizes the theater is consecrated to Venus and Bacchus, both of whom are wanton, the one by her sex, the other by his robes. What is taking place in voice and song, and by instruments and lyres, is at the service of Apollos and Muses and Minervas and Mercuries. You must hate, oh Christian, those objects whose authors you execrate."

I believe with that St. Tertullian was going against the theaters, not the fact that they involved instruments and sang (singing was present after all in the church, just not in form of instruments, but prior to Chrystostom I see no evidence that they would have disallowed them to be taken into the church). So I am a bit surprised that they were not quoted into the article, but from my understand they do not support what some think they did. Actual opposition of instruments in general, connecting them to the Mosaic Law, came way later, as Nicetas of Remesiana made this conclusion in the late 4th century, when Christianity already was state religion in Rome:

"Only what is material [from the Old Testament] has been rejected, such as circumcision, the sabbath, sacrifices, discrimination in foods; and also trumpets, kitharas, cymbals, and tympana, which now understood as the limbs of a man resound with a more perfect music. Daily ablutions, new moon observances, the meticulous inspection of leprosy, along with anything else which was temporarily necessary for the immature are past and over with. But whatever is spiritual [from the Old Testament), such as faith, devotion, prayer, fasting, patience, chastity, and psalm-singing has been increased rather than diminished.

Whether this is right or wrong is disputable, however, what I can say that even in the Old Testament, there is a reference of God disapproving of the use of instruments:

Take from me the noise of thy songs, and let me not hear the melody of musical instruments (Amos 5:23, Thomson's Translation)

Here too we read not the condemnation of the instruments themselves, but rather because they were living in rebellion against Yahweh (Verses 10 & 11). Such is merely my interpretation and doesn't belong into the article, but we need to be more accurate indeed regarding when the written opposition against instruments began. Blessings. MrLW97 (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply