* Loss of lyrical beauty and uplifting mood: The song-like quality of the original poem creates a sense of hope, optimism, and unity. Speaking would lose this inherent musicality, potentially making the tone more matter-of-fact, perhaps even mundane or even slightly cynical.
* Emphasis on the mundane and everyday: While the poem celebrates diverse work, the singing in the original gives it a sense of grandeur and importance. If people were speaking, the poem could focus more on the day-to-day realities of their work, highlighting its challenges and mundanity.
* A more conversational and informal tone: The use of "singing" implies a shared, public expression of pride and unity. Speaking would make the tone more conversational and intimate, revealing individual voices and perspectives rather than a collective one.
* Potential for discord: If people were speaking instead of singing, the potential for disagreements or conflicting voices would be more prominent. Instead of a harmonious chorus, the poem might feature individual voices with different opinions and concerns.
Overall, the tone would likely be more grounded in reality and less idealized. It could become a more realistic portrayal of the diverse voices and experiences of the American people, showcasing both their struggles and triumphs.
The shift from singing to speaking would also alter the symbolic power of the poem. Singing is associated with joy, unity, and shared values, while speaking can be more complex and reflect a range of emotions and perspectives. The poem might become a more nuanced exploration of the American experience, showcasing both its beauty and its complexities.