 |
 |
No, I'm not saying that they are the same thing, that would be ridiculous - the different combinations present different experiences, obviously. Talking about the effect of the combination does not nullify the existence of the originals which make it up. Perhaps you have misunderstood me, I am not saying that the addition of music doesn't change the reception of the words, because of course it does, but multiple things change the reception of the words. There is no such thing as pure words - there is no such thing as the unmediated, the unaccompanied poem - the words act within contexts of the accompanying world. To cut the words away from one particular form of accompaniment (music performance) in the belief that what is left is somehow cleaner or closer to an imagined 'real thing' presupposes a notion of autonomy which is impossible. It was jamie who used the word and as i tried to say in another post my notion of 'autonomy', as I practise it by writing poems for the page, is an artificial one, a choice. Cheers Tim On 25 Oct 2016, at 17:53, Robin Hamilton wrote: > Now, as far as I can make out as to what you're getting at, you seem to be telling me that there's no difference between watching a blind black blues pianist and a white folk guitarist play, and sing, for the first time, a song [sic] that they composed together, that, and the bare experience of reading a set of words on the page. > > That I'm simply experiencing the same thing ... That the two things, in this case, don't interact ... That the medium doesn't matter ... That it's just "playing with words" (and whose playing would that be referring to -- mine, or Ray Charles and Willie Nelson's?) ... > > All I can say is, Who am I supposed to believe -- you or my lying eyes? >