Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Image:Alabama Sacred Harp Singers - Sherburne.ogg

Sacred Harp Sherburne
Created by the Alabama Sacred Harp Singers and released for anyone to use, appears in Sacred Harp. Please see Sacred_Harp if it sounds a bit strange at first.


 * Nominate and support. - Nunciacion 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not in fact included on the page Sacred Harp, and is thus currently ineligible for Featured Sound - if you need help adding it, let me know where exactly you want it and what the caption should be. Mak (talk)  22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, this is an excellent example of the Sacred Harp tradition, under a free license, from a free source. Mak (talk)  00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the unpleasant chopped ending is faded down over a second or two (later comment: it's not as bad on the ogg file). The duration of the file appears neither in the caption nor the info page, as required (1:33). In other respects, I would remain neutral, since there are a tuning problems and strained voices at the top of the register, most noticeably among the lead male singers. I like the air of spontaneity. Tony 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I have a problem with the balance of the recording. Some voices are much too prominent.  I suspect that the mic was not in the center of the room (usually sacred harp singers arrange themselves in a square), but instead the mic was being held by or near one of the performers.  Also agree that the ending is very abrupt.  I don't have a problem with the strained voices or the tuning, as this common for the genre.  BTW, I remember hearing a version of this done on Prairie Home Companion about 25 years ago, using the lyrics from "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer". --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support the original version that was uploaded, as the balance is not an issue. I don't know where the other version (which includes a voice saying the number 186 at the beginning) came from but it's not as good in my opinion. Luatha 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoah, those are completely different files, not just sound edits. Nunciacion, were these just two different takes? I agree with Luatha that the first one you uploaded was much better than the last one, especially in terms of balance. Is there a reason you replaced it with the other one? Just curious. I agree overall with Sam. Mak (talk)  22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to be a stickler, but I'm worried about the source/license. It is labelled as public domain (the lyrics certainly are, but not necessarily the performance). What is the source of this claim? Raul654 04:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This probably doesn't mean anything copyright-wise, but this site claims the recording is from the 1940s, which (if this is the same recording - I'd need to do some more research) means the quality factor is great. It's freely available here where it sounds like they intended for people to enjoy it freely (also here, here and here) FWIW. It sounded like the person who posted it may have some connection to the group? Luatha 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll withdraw my support unless the person comes forward about the source of both recordings. After hearing the "alternate" version, I agree it's definitely not a simple edit of the same file, which leads me to agree with Raul's concern. Luatha 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

