Performance Practice of Early American Hymnody: Tempo and the “Moods of Time”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern time signatures indicate metrical organization in notated music. However, in most American hymnals and psalters published between 1721 and 1809, time signatures also signify very specific tempi. This notational practice, further removed from modern usage than any other element of this music, derives from proportional notations abandoned in art music in the seventeenth century. As technically complex music was published using this notation in the 1760s, these time signatures began to be used more subtly. In combination, they provide metrical effects unlike those possible with modern time signatures: doubling or halving tempo, or maintaining the pulse while altering its division or larger metric organization. Viewed from the perspective of modern notation, these functions diverge from their appearance. This article clarifies the correlation between time signature and tempo indicated in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century American tunebooks (hymnals), arguing for its inclusion in modern performances of this repertoire. Internal evidence and related pedagogical practices suggest these tempi were intended to be observed; most early American theorists, composers, and compilers advocated adherence. Any revival of repertoire first published in this notation, including the works of such composers as William Billings, Daniel Read, and Supply Belcher, would profit by observing these tempi. In a repertoire frequently devoid of interpretive markings, time signatures provide invaluable clues to performers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".