What I mean is: if there are obvious lyrics with a clear meaning, this meaning has to be conveyed, ie used in the expression of the piece. But even children using nonsense lyrics show an intention. And it's this intention I mean. So meaning is a wrong word I admit.
But doesn't knowing the meaning of the words add so much more to your already great enjoyment and thrill? Many lyrics may be banal,but so is most of the music I hear... I write lyrics myself and always try to compose them as carefully as I do my music: taking care of sound, metre, rhythm. I feel I am obliged to do so, even if audiences may not appreciate this. Most of life's things have been said in words and expressed in sounds millions of times over and over again. Still, we long for 'new' lyrics and sounds on and on. Looking at musical history there's not much really new going on. Some aspects go back 1000's of years. Yet somehow that is what we want: over and over again 'new' lyrics and sounds. I mean that the sound of a piece conveys a meaning, an intention, an atmosphere. Therefore you can deduce something of the meaning of the lyrics, can't you? The choir won't sound jumping for joy when singing a requiem, will they? And please forget Randy. He's can easily be caught himself for following far too generalised and not well researched methods. I know. I've spoken with him on issues. He wants to disbelief just as hard as some people want to believe. The blindness is on both sides. Sorry for this far too much OT... My essential point: what's the point of singing if you have no words? You can bla bla and la la all you want, but you cannot build many compositions on that for long. A Finale point to end with: I still hate it that when copying notes with lyrics, those lyrics end up in different verses than they were originally. I still solve this, when I need to, by erasing all lyrics and typing them in again. Why? Because when changing the height of the line of lyrics I don't have to search in what verse they are. Thanks for all your remarks. It helps me to become more conscious of what I do as a conductor and composer/arranger and what I want to achieve. All the best! :-) Paul Delcour Stu McIntire wrote: >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
