David, I don't wish it to be unproblematical, nearly everything I've said has argued for the problematical status and closeness of the two arts. That something is 'harder to determine' doesn't mean that no difference exists nor that it's too insignificant to bother with.
My references to Dylan Thomas and Dante (misquoted) are entirely relevant to Peter's argument about the poet's referencing music and so not a red herring at all. Have a look at the argument again.
Just a joke about singing in social situations - the parentheses were meant to indicate this.
These really are minuscule objections. We don't agree so let's leave it there.
Jamie
> On 24 Oct 2016, at 15:42, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Jamie, I respect your belief that “although the two forms can operate very closely, that a poem causes a different response, even when spoken aloud, than a song ... it's something inherent in the development of the art.” It’s the “inherent something” I can’t accept. I think a part of you accepts this too as you also say “It's far harder to determine with poetry and song because they are both temporal arts that rely on the voice.” So obviously the matter isn’t as unproblematical as you may wish it to be.
>
> You say that “Peter's post explains, again and again reforge that connection with music - even Dante's Commedia is filled with musical references...” but this is merely referencing the content of such poetical works, and is a bit of a red herring. Though I accept you offered it sincerely.
>
> Yes, it’s true that “we react differently when someone sings to us than we do when someone speaks to us. (For me in the first case usually with alarm.)” Presumably you mean if these things happened in real life, and not when listening to a CD or hearing a poem read out at a reading. If you mean the former, I agree, if you mean the latter I don’t agree. The two “performance modes” are entirely different. The former being a social peculiarity, the latter being accepted practice.
>
>
>
> ----------------Original Message-------------
>
>
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
> David, though I've been getting frustrated with this exchange, this last question seems to me well framed and absolutely valid. It's really the nub of the issue - which, as elsewhere, I was trying to touch on by using the (counter-?) example of Serrat's Machado.
> It really is a difficult question to answer.
> Though I've been arguing for a poetry that declares its independence from, rather than aspiring to the condition of, music, of course I can understand your position as well as the impressive case made in Peter's last message.
> So let me try to answer. Yes, I do believe, although the two forms can operate very closely, that a poem causes a different response, even when spoken aloud, than a song. This is not a category error nor something caused by Caxton, it's something inherent in the development of the art.
> Merely by analogy, sculpture, even if painted, causes a very different response from painting. This is perhaps easier to accept as sculpture is operating in 3 dimensions while painting, apart from some impasto and scraping, largely in 2. It's far harder to determine with poetry and song because they are both temporal arts that rely on the voice. Many poets, as Peter's post explains, again and again reforge that connection with music - even Dante's Commedia is filled with musical references, and nearer to us the original Dylan often works between the two modes: just think of Fern Hill's insistent references to 'lilting house', 'singing as the house was home', the calves / Sang', 'such morning songs', 'And I sang in my chains like the sea' and so on. But the very insistence is evidence of the distance from, in some cases the nostalgia in the poet for, that earlier confluence of forms. It doesn't make them identical nor does it make them act on us by way of the same 'psychological mechanisms'. To put this in the most simple way, we react differently when someone sings to us than we do when someone speaks to us. (For me in the first case usually with alarm.)
> I doubt you are going to agree with this, nor I think will Tim or Peter, but I doubt I'll be able to explain it much better without writing a book.
> Jamie
|