Judy your reference to "the complex, intricate event called a poem. I'm trying to imagine any (other than a super-simple, super-short) poem keeping up with the all of those inherent poetic elements" is really what I've been trying to argue for, the autonomy of the form.
Jamie
> On 24 Oct 2016, at 13:33, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Jamie, you say: "My whole argument has been that for poetry, musical accompaniment is not an addition but a diminution, for reasons to do with what's inherent to poetry - rhythm, enjambment etc."
>
> That sounds about right. I believe that, in addition to the 'inherent' qualities of poetry you suggest (rhythm, enjambment) are the inherent poetic qualities of complexity in verbal structures (extended and varied figures, for example). Your truly amusing example of not really wanting to hear 'My galley charged with forgetfulness' reminds us that (what you call the 'dilution' of musicked poetry) matching music to (most) poetry would result in a ludicrous smush (yes, 'smush') which is attempting to imitate the complex, intricate event called a poem. I'm trying to imagine any (other than a super-simple, super-short) poem keeping up with the all of those inherent poetic elements. Whether we refer to Peter's 'high' or 'low' song labels or not, ANY musical form matched to a poem will need to simplify itself -- or evoke laughter. Hence, the choirs or guitarists echoing brief words/lines.
>
> Perhaps the 'revered friend' can jump in here.
>
>
|