To each his own! But I don't believe that composers always started with lyrics. I think the earliest melodies eons ago might have been sung to words, syllables, or vocables that were just interesting or rhythmic in themselves. Think how much children (ontogeny begets phylogeny?) like to sing nonsense tunes, like "zoom golly golly golly zoom golly gol-ly". Even effective poetry - without music - sometimes frequently emphasizes sheer sound over meaning, like Jabberwockey. The earliest composers in the Western Art tradition wrote for the church, so yes, they set lyrics with very definite meanings appropriate for their use. But they quickly, in a few hundred years, developed compositional techniques that sometimes render the lyrics secondary, at least to my ears. Okeghem and others of that time and ilk, whose music I love.
I sometimes don't know the words, such as when I hear a new piece on the radio or when I'm in a concert when I haven't had a chance to read a translation in the program, if there is one. I always prefer to know them, but enjoy music with non-English lyrics if they are not available. I can enjoy voices simply as the instruments they are, particularly when blended well. The lyrics of a tremendous amount of choral and vocal music, including great pieces, are banal at best anyway, even when the sentiments they express are worthy enough. If a composition is exciting and interesting, the choral performance top notch, and the words clear but express the same thing that's been expressed a thousand times before in a mundane way, what then? Has your need for meaning been met? I might truly love the piece. Might love it even more if the lyrics had been artfully written. I cannot agree with you at all that an audience can potentially understand lyrics in a language they don't know because of the way they are sung. That is a metaphysical proposition that could be easily disproved by someone with far less skill than the Amazing Randy! Unless your use of the word "meaning" in this sentence means something broader than what the words literally mean, in which case you would be starting to sound like me and I would be very confused. In any case, I think we agree that the best experience comes when the music is good, the performance is good, the lyrics are clearly heard and understood, and are well written. We do disagree on the bottom line, though: to me, if whatever it is is a musical composition, the sound is the point, not the meaning of the words. Hey, it's a big world! Cheers! Stu -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Delcour Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:26 PM Cc: Finale Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: conveying musical meaning You are entitled to what ever way you enjoy and make music, but in placing the notes before or over the lyrics you are forgetting that all composers started with the lyrics, were inspired by them and set their music according to the meaning of the words. You must always try and convey the meaning. Even if the lyrics cannot be understood by an audience, in the way you sing you can convey the meaning with just the sound, be it orchestral or choral. You mention that you do not know the meaning of the words. Surely you are missing the gist of every piece than. I find myself at a loss not knowing what it's all about. I've heard far too many choral performances where it was quite obvious hardly anyone knew what they were singing about. You may be surprised what you find out when you start to understand the lyrics. Even find out you're interpretation was quite wrong. Most audiences do not mind and feel they had a good time when everyone sang in pitch and the choir sounded fine. But the meaning is the point, not the sound. How ever much I am deeply in love with the sound of a choir, I cannot fall in love with a meaningless sound. I've had far too many instrumental performances too which conveyed very little meaning as well. And all of these were professional performances. All this was not my outset when I started conducting. It is my experience after 15 years of working with choral music. I often find amateur choirs to be more conveying than professionals. The pro choir sound is far too often only aimed at just sounding good. Also pro choirs are too often collections of solo singers. They do not blend, become one. I'm sorry to sound too firm or self minded, but it is because I have been disappointed so often in those 15 years. Imagine being deeply in love with something and not getting the best when you know and feel it could just as easily have been the very best. :-) Paul Delcour _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
