From the plethora of posts from you since your declared 'exit', I take it
that you are now back in the discussion. Fine by me.
Can we establish a few ground rules? (All I believe are in the spirit of
the list's 'rules'.) We don't attribute words and ideas to each other that
have not been said. We try not to misrepresent the other's arguments for the
sake of scoring points. We attempt not just to rebut a single partial point
extracted from a larger context but try to see the whole argument. And
finally try to keep it reasonably respectful.
Otherwise this exchange between us will deteriorate even further which
will be acrimonious for the two of us, and tedious, if it isn't already so,
for everyone else.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much
You may not have seen my reply to the same point you made earlier. My reply
was:
"I agree with this, as it merely states the fact that the techniques of page
poetry could be “suppressed” when sung, but does that matter overmuch, and
as such, does it demonstrate that a poem is different form a song? I think
not. It merely says that poems sound different when sung. It has no bearing
on how the poem/song is semantically received."
---------------------Original Message------------------------
Jamie Mckendrick wrote:
Still, see my last reply to you. Rather than get bogged down in
nomenclature, categories etc. which is a boring argument, it might be useful
to look at how singing suppresses or disfavours certain essential elements
of a poem - though there'll be a disagreement about what is essential
|