Yes no, but I introduced the concept of "high" and "low"song, which
even if you don't like it has been current for centuries.
I think it is necessary to acknowledge that there are strong
subjective forces at work in these discussions which cause a lot of
the misunderstandings and disagreements. Like OK maybe songs by B,
Dylan and J. Mitchell can rival the St Matthew Passion for profundity,
but I wouldn't myself be able to hear that. As soon as I hear a guitar
going chug-a-lug chug-a-lug I think this isn't what I want.
PR
On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:12, David Lace wrote:
Jamie, in another thread you quote Peter as saying:
"It's unlikely that a "song" as generally understood can reach to the
extended seriousness or sublimity that poetry can. The sing-song
quality of songs, the closely repeated rhythmic units and rhyme tend
to make songs small-scale. Small-scale is fine but not everything."
"The point, then, (Tim) about the kind of music is that I don't see
how we can deny Jamie's point that the spoken/read poem offers much
greater opportunities for subtle emphases and re-emphases, delicate
sub-textual phasing, disturbances such as enjambement etc. A song
setting of the same poem cannot possibly retrieve all this, it is too
fixed to the temporal dictates of the tune."
But I mentioned earlier how many songs by Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell
belie this statement. If it is true then what Peter is saying is that
all songs are shallower than poetry. That's the only conclusion I can
come to from this statement.
Also, Mitchell performs enjambment on some of her longer lines.
--------Original Message----------
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
I should say that Peter's argument is different from my own. This at
least is how I understand him (and apologies if I'm wrong). He treats
song and poem as two aspects of the same impulse, not only
historically entwined but also inherently joined, and I believe he
sees no useful purpose in a separation. I'll give three extended
quotes, as I think he knows more about the technical aspects of song
than I do, and his argument may also offer the kind of summary that
Kent was asking for.
"A song, strictly and traditionally speaking, offer less opportunity
for shifting the meaning in performance. The words follow a syllabic
and rhythmic pattern dictated by the music, and each verse has to
conform to that pattern or it would not fit the music. Extra
unstressed syllables etc. can be slipped in but that's about all. If
you speak the lyrics of a song without the music this difference
becomes immediately apparent."
"I'm definitely of the opinion, Tim, that the skill required to write
song lyrics is basically the same as that which is needed to write
poems. This doesn't mean that songs can always be judged by the same
standards -- it's a technical skill in handling words and form. Songs
can certainly be as effective as poems, when sung or not. And
possibly as subtle or ambiguous , though some of that might depend on
the performance. It's unlikely that a "song" as generally understood
can reach to the extended seriousness or sublimity that poetry can.
The sing-song quality of songs, the closely repeated rhythmic units
and rhyme tend to make songs small-scale. Small-scale is fine but not
everything."
|