David, you keep prohibiting the use of words which are inevitably involved
in the discussion, or cancelling them by saying they refer to something
'superficial'. And here, yet again, you seem not to have understood what
Michael has said.
Look again at his sentence and then at what you've made of it. There is no
relation at all.
By the way, I have never used the word 'innate' in this connection -
perhaps you're thinking of 'inherent' which has a different meaning, from
the Latin inhaerare - to stick to. It doesn't seem to me especially vague.
Perhaps this will seem nit-picking to you - I'd call it trying to be
accurate, and mistakenly attributing words to people so as to shoot them
down inaccurate and unhelpful.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much
I think it confuses matters to mention “music” in relation to all of this,
as it is accepted here (and I accept it) that one of the superficial
differences between poetry and song is the musical backing used for the
latter. It’s the inadequacy of such superficial differences being used to
argue that because of them poetry is different in “essence” (Jamie would use
the word “innate”— both words essentially are too vague to hang any cogent
argument on) from song. Again, I think all of this is merely a category
problem.
------------------Original Message---------------
Michael Peverett wrote:
I've missed most of the topic, but I think I'm agreeing with Jamie and Judy
in thinking that the meter of spoken poetry has long developed its own
effects and artistry, which can't be put back into music.
|