Printable View
Music and literature were born together.
The ancient greek poems (lyrics) were written to be sung, not read, and that's literature (ex: hymn, ode, ecloga...)
In Middle Age, the rondo, the song, the cantiga, the madrigal, the ballad were written to be sung, not read, and that is literature.
The minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers, and that is literature too.
So, what about the opera? It was based uppon literature, but it's sung.
Could we define opera as a kind of literature?
It is, but very few Librettos are good. The ones Wagner Wrote are excellent, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal's are great (he wrote many for Richard Strauss). However, Puccini's libretti all seem to be mediocre at best (he had a love of taking popular pulp fiction and turning it into an opera) and Verdi's are hit miss (the one he used for Otello I find to be a work of art). The La Ponte libretti Mozart used weren't bad, but I would not go as far as to say they deserve reading on their own.
Opera is essentially a musical play, but all the bad ones have been sifted out over the years, and the music and not the play are central (with the exception perhaps of Wagner). Because of this, opera tends to be melodramatic, and doesn't work the same way as literature. It is a narrative told in many voices, hypothetically, and therefore doesn't really work the same way as other sung poetry.
Lieder perhaps is the better counterpart to what you are looking for. That is actually sung poetry.
Music and Literature didn't born together at all. Literature was only born when the written word was invented and the oral world (those of the oral storytellers and musicians) existed for a considerable amount of time before the first written word.
Some oral narratives are the source of the first artistic texts and poetry are written so they could also be read but they are not the same thing (otherwise why giving it a new name). When a text is created for paper they obey rules and have an structure that is different from music, even if they are similar. You may call the libretos and all the other writen support of music of literature, since they are written text, but Opera is music. It is not the libretos.
For JBI
Hamlet is theatre.
Theatre must to be played and seen, not read.
Opera is sung theatre.
So, if Hamlet is literature,
Opera is sung literature.
I love Verdi, Mozart and Bizet. I don't think any libretto is mediocre.
It's a personal taste thing. Very easy say "this is good or this is bad"
You must analyse not to judge.
That's my oppinion.
Thanks for sharing yours.
No, what is literature is the script of Hamlet. Hamlet the play is not literature at all. There is a difference here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
...some British university, in a Literature course, was studing the words of a Lennon/McCartney song (Norwegian Wood by the Beatles).
I don't remember exactly where it was, I read about this a long time ago.
I found that great, cause a love the Beatles.
So, if a popular song can be taken as literature, why not opera?
The best aria for me is Vesti la Giubba by Ruggiero Leoncavallo, from the opera I Pagliacci. I prefer this one sung by Pavarotti.
Originally Posted by JCamilo:
"what is literature is the script of Hamlet. Hamlet the play is not literature"
Correct!
Follow me:
The script (of Hamlet) is literature, but the play is theatre.
So, the libretto (of a music) is literature, but the act is opera.
So, the word (of a song) is literature, but the song is music.
It is logic! There is no difference, at all.
The written text of the song is literature. The Song is Music. This is the difference. Opera is the music, not the text that is just a support for the show. Any text is literature, you can consider your paycheck literature, your super-market list literature, the phone list literature. Almost all arts have supports from other arts.
Wow, that isn't ignorant. Of course some libretti are mediocre, even the writers themselves have admitted as much. It is irrelevant however if the composer is excellent. Puccini's music is amazing, and he is one of the most preformed opera composes in the world. That doesn't stop his libretti from being mediocre. It just means his music is beautiful.
Many Hamlet operas surfaced, many even with changed endings to make them "happy". Some of them are still preformed today, as are other opera adaptations. As literature, they are mediocre in comparison to Shakespeare's version. As operas they perhaps are beautiful for their musicality.
We are talking about evaluating opera as literature, not as music here. In which case, we learn from examining the libretti (which I have done for many at length, and am still doing, since I am trying to learn Italian and it is somewhat a good way) and I can attest to the fact, that as poetry, or drama, if read and not listened to, those libretti are rubbish. If you want me to quote, I have about 50 of them in front of me and would gladly back it up.
I agree, Brasil, that Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed - but it can be read, appreciated, enjoyed and studied as text, without a performance. It may lose a certain something in the process but all that is essentially Hamlet is there in the reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
An opera on the other hand loses a great deal in just being read - you can read the words and, if your musicianship is good, you can 'hear' the music in your inner ear. However I doubt if you can 'hear' the full musical effect of soloists, chorus and orchestra just by reading the score. For that, you need a full production. I was never more aware of this than when I saw Eugene Onegin recently - Tchaikovsky makes the orchestra another character, not just accompanying the singers but underlining, echoing and expanding the emotional content of their singing.
Also I feel that when an operatic composer takes an existing literary work as the basis for an opera, all he is really doing is plundering it for its plot and characters, rarely for its language. I saw Falstaff recently (the day after Eugene Onegin in fact - I had a little opera fest!) and saw The Merry Wives of Windsor recently as well and it seemed to me that only the characters and the barest outline of plot had been transferred from one to the other.
As to whether a libretto is good or bad, I think it is possible to say 'This libretto could be better - it does not do the story or characters justice, it is not of the same calibre as the music.' Also, I think very few libretti stand alone - they need the music to give them any sort of stature.
Literature is the written word.Whether one sings it or reads it silently doesn't change that. But literature was not born at the same time as song. The oldest known work of literature is from 2100 BCE, and it is thought to have been originally written a few centuries earlier. It is not unlikely that people have been singing in some form for several hundred thousand years, almost as long as people have been speaking.
Yes or No, i am not sure what you mean, but there is difference between music and literature and all the rest (maybe you mean there is no difference between opera and theatre, and it should not since Opera is a form of dramatization as well) . Even when we got oral storytellers - even the modern storytellers - they need to adapt the text for an oral performance. Sometimes the difference is considerable, sometime it is just subtle. Try to get an oral storyteller using his expression to convey pain while presenting a writen comedy - the perception of the public will change with that. The same goes for music and text, a one can see in the movie and the manipulation of the music in the scenes. The tunes will change the perception of the audience and all artwork is about manifestation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Heck, even Marshall McLurham will tell you that the difference of media can change the message.
Kasie:
"An opera loses a great deal in just being read" - Yes, I agree.
"Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed, but it can be read" - Yes, it can be read, but it is not to be read.
Hamlet loses a great deal in just being read (ask an actor or director)
You can read, it is possible and a good thing to do. But loses the "magic" of the permormig act.
JBI,
You're very kind, but...
I disagree, I think it is your oppinion saying "it is rubbish... it's mediocre"
I not share the same oppinion and I'm talking about literature too.
JCamilo:
"The written text of the song is literature" - Yes, that's what I've been tell you at the thread "Brazilian Literature".
Now I've convinced you that Cazuza and Renato Russo are literature too?
Even you do not apreciate them, but they are composers, they write words and songs, they make rhymes and metres, etc... so they are poets.
Lennon is poet, Jim Morrison is poet, why not Russo?
A libretto or a poem set to music, if taken by itself, may be called literature, even great literature. But these words, when paired with music, take on a completely different existence, and are transformed by the immediate communication of the music itself. One has only to think of Beethoven's Ninth, or Das Lied von der Erde, or the end of Rosenkavalier, or Handel's Amen in the Messiah to realise that what we have is not sung literature, but an entirely different and transcending experience.
Opera is opera, and thank heaven it is.
[QUOTE=Brasil;569531]Kasie:
"Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed, but it can be read" - Yes, it can be read, but it is not to be read.
Why should you not read it? A performance is a rare occasion, over in a matter of a few hours, reading the text can take place whenever you want it. By all means aspire to see a performance, it will enrich your life and live in your memory for ever, but don't cut yourself off from the drama by refusing to read it because it is 'not the real thing'.
Hamlet loses a great deal in just being read (ask an actor or director)
Yes, of course, but in reading the text, you can go back and re-read, study and ponder, which you can't do in a performance which is taking place in real time. And this familiarity will enhance your enjoyment of the next performance you are fortunate enough to see.
You can read, it is possible and a good thing to do. But loses the "magic" of the permormig act.
Can't argue with that, Brasil! But I still want to read the text - before and after a play, if it's something as meaty and thought-provoking as the Bard!
You could say that a recording of an opera is not as good as 'the real thing' - I'd have to agree but I want to know more about (for example) Eugene Onegin which I am very unlikely to be lucky enough to see again, at least not in the near future, so I will be looking out for a recording of it so that I can absorb more of its essentials - the fusion of words and music - over several re-playings.
Lennon is not a poet, Jim Morrison, except for the few books when he tried to be a poet, was not a poet. Cazuza and Renato Russo neither (that have nothing to do with status). They are musicians. Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung. Sometimes the music was even before the lyrics. (Reckonizing then as poets have nothing to do with saying they are good or not - Lou Reed, Lennon, Buarque all are good musicians but not poets.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
But you are wrong - I never said the words of their music is not literature, I said they are not poets. They are musicians and I think you not being fair with them - They fought hard to be good musicians and yet you are trying to say they did something else (being poets). Almost like calling Hitchcook a comic illustrator just because you can see his movies in the storyboards.
They write songs (and not songs and words, just songs) that use devices used by poetry, but what they do is something else (in fact, rythim and metric is something poems borrowed from music).
"...storytellers need to adapt the text for an oral performance. Sometimes the difference is considerable, sometime it is just subtle" - yes, I agree
but the written language born (comes) from the oral language, never the opposite.
Written language is just a part of the oral language.
When you speak you can say every word we have in written language.
Therefore, oral language can be literature.
And it really was at the past, the madrigal, the cantiga, etc... so why not today? I don't see any difference!
People recite poems. To recite a poem is a literary performance. Does it need to be read? No!
jgweed,
"Opera is opera" - I agree.
And theatre is theatre!
But what is opera?
A musical and theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the libretto, it's literature.
What is Hamlet?
A theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the script, it's literature.
What is "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"?
A musical rock album by the Beatles.
If you decide to read the words from the songs, it's literature.
Furthermore, literature can be oral.
Camilo, you've said:
"Cazuza and Russo...Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung"
This is your own personal oppinion. Don't put millions of fans against you.
Although you do not like, they are poets (they write words).
Words of a song is literature, it is poem with rhyme and metre, it does not make difference if it is sung, spoken, recited or read.
Hitchcook does not make his own storyboards. So, he is not a comic ilustrator.
Renato Russo makes the words of his songs. He writes the words, his own words, sometimes before it becomes song. It makes him a poet.
Literature can be performed, read, told or sung.
kasie
Do not worry, you can read the text and you must to read, it is a good thing.
But it "loses the deal" as you said.
Try to see the act, but keep reading as well.
I am just trying to say: the same you think about Hamlet (theatre) is for opera.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that written language is part of the same communication system as spoken language, but that is a common misunderstanding. In fact, spoken and written languages are two different semiotic systems. While people commonly translate directly from one to the other, that isn't always true and is not really possible for hieroglyphic and pictographic writing systems, because the symbols in such languages do not represent the sounds or syllables of the spoken language; they represent things. I don't believe that anyone has really investigated the mater yet, but some people even think that the experience of reading a pictographic language operates in a different part of the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Exactly, there is many alphabets that are not just representation of sounds and not every symbol we use in the western alphabet belongs to writen language (you do not use -,:,etc).
Scientifically speaking the change of media (oral to writen) will produce a different form of communication, the similarities cann't trick you.
Brasil:
That is also not true. There is a good ammount of words, expressions and products were born in the writen word and moved to the oral word. The languages are dynamic system not enclosed by media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
That is a non-sense. Writen can not be oral. Any serious research of the matter will put apart the two universes even because the cultures they represent are very different. By the way, the audio-visual language is different, the cyber language is different, etc.Quote:
Written language is just a part of the oral language.
Not really. Some alphabets are so graphic that they are not even "words" and they are a writing system.Quote:
When you speak you can say every word we have in written language.
It is almost a matter of honor for researches of oral culture to be separated from literature because Oral Language can have their own life and predated the writen word.Quote:
Therefore, oral language can be literature.
They are different, different system, different cultures, different forms of preservation. You also study them apart because a text is different from an oral preservation.
Since you are brazilian I invite you to (i hope it is not against this site rules), visit the homepage of the cultural institute where I work :www.aletria.com.br devoted to study and preservation of oral culture. I am not talking from otter space, the study of the difference between both is part of my daily work.
Do you see the difference between Cinema and Painting?Quote:
And it really was at the past, the madrigal, the cantiga, etc... so why not today? I don't see any difference!
Anyways, between Virgil (a total written world poet) and Homer (a transitory poet)?
That is the difference, minor but it is: A Song is writen to work with sounds, so it is whole is when it is sung. A poem is full just with the graphics in the paper. Some poems (concrete poems or Mallarme) can not even be recited without losing the graphic power. It is live primary in the text; that does not mean a song does not have poetic vallue. Many songs have. But they are different. (I think you confund the fact that I find little vallue on Russo and Cazuza as if I do not see vallue in any text of a song. I do. Aguas de Março is almost perfect, but it is a music, not a poem)Quote:
People recite poems. To recite a poem is a literary performance. Does it need to be read? No!
No, read what you said, man. In all examples you had to "read" to make them literature. Reading is not an oral act. I suppose what you are trying to say is that something that is expressed in the Orality can also be expressed in the writen world.Quote:
Furthermore, literature can be oral.
The wisdow of the many... ai, ai. It is not my opinion - They released songs with those works, not books. They called themselves musicians. That is their opinion.Quote:
Camilo, you've said:
"Cazuza and Russo...Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung"
This is your own personal oppinion. Don't put millions of fans against you.
That is a stubborn opinion. Poets are not those who write words. Words of a song writen may be literature but not a poem, it still the song's words.Quote:
Although you do not like, they are poets (they write words).
Words of a song is literature, it is poem with rhyme and metre, it does not make difference if it is sung, spoken, recited or read.
Poem is not something with rhyme and metre and music is something with rhyme and metric. It does make a difference. If someone writes music, you do not call him a poet, you call him a musician. Just like you do not call a policeman, lawyer, although both work with law.
Hitch did some of his storyboards. Who do you want next, Kubrick? Fellini?Quote:
Hitchcook does not make his own storyboards. So, he is not a comic ilustrator.
Dude, Poet - something who write poems. Let me quote you: words of his songs. Who write songs? open a dictionary and see: musicians.Quote:
Renato Russo makes the words of his songs. He writes the words, his own words, sometimes before it becomes song. It makes him a poet.
Yes, so? Music can be read, but still music. An Art on her own. What is the problem of having the merit to be a musician? Why do you need to seek a merit that he never conquered? Do you understand that even a superior music writer like Chico Buarque if reduced to a poet status will be a minor poet? While as musician he is one of the greatest? Do you understand that having to consider - like Russo did - that his words are going to be followed by a guitar, drummer, etc changed his options while writing, because a word that would fit a poem could sound clumsy when sung? Do you understand that while you can recite a poem, this is not the same a singing and there is musical notes, different that you can use in every word ?Renato Russo considered it while writing because he was a musician and you insist and reduce his work to be something you he was not.Quote:
Literature can be performed, read, told or sung.
- PeterL: "I don't believe that anyone has really investigated the mater yet, but some people even think that the experience of reading a pictographic language operates in a different part of the brain."
- True! I've read about semiotic
But literature is the verbal communication, we must not consider pictographic language as literature.
What is art: any human expression with the purpose of telling a message and bring feelings, any kind of feelings. There are 6 arts.
music: is a constant sound with melody and rhythm variations making harmony. To be music does not need words, just sounds. A musical alarm can bring feelings to you, but the purpose is not it.
Music do not need to tell a message, just feelings
literature: any kind of verbal communication with the purpose of telling a message and bring feelings. An autobiography can bring feelings, but it is not the main purpose.
The book is not art, actually, art is the thing that the book tells and the feelings that it brings. Letters (a, b, c, d) is not literature, actually, literature is the thing that the letters tells and the feelings that it brings.
Literature can be narrated (epic), sung (lyric) or performed (dramatic) and also read.
theatre: is acting to everyone who knows it is acting. To tell lies is not theatre cause the one who listen do not know you are acting. Don't need words to be theatre, it can be just mime.
painting: any drawing with the purpose of telling a message. The cavermen's painting is art, do not need to bring feelings, just tell a message. But it must be purposital.
sculpture: any material maniputalion (res extensa) with the purpose of art when can not be used as a tool.
architecture: any building maniputalion with the purpose of art when can not be used as a tool but only to give beauty to the building.
Mix of arts
dance: can be art when it has the purpose to be it. So, it is acting with music. But sometimes can be just for fun and not for art.
song: is music with literature
opera: song (music and literature), theatre and achitecture.
photography: painting made by a modern instrument, the camera. When the photoghaphy has the purpose of art, it is art. The technique (oil, sand, etc) and the method (brush or camera) does not matter to be art.
cinema: photography with movement, song (music and literature), theatre and achitecture
Sciences (not art):
Grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, etc...
Dude I have no idea where you got those but we have more than 6,7,8 arts... (And not as much science as you claim).
1 - We have pictographic writing systems. Not all writing systems are composed by "words".
2 - Even the old greeks reckonized more than 7 arts. Dance is an art on their won and Opera and Song are products of Music, not something apart. You are refusing to notice that the various art trade among themselves techiniques and systems. So, Dance use music, Cinema use photography and music, etc.
3 - Not every verbal system is Literature. The word means "writen letter", vocal systems are an art apart and older than literature.
4 - Lyric is not "sung" in literature. Epic poetry also was meant in the past to be recited, philosophic texts as well. Your deffinition defy the fact that moderm poets also wrote lyric poetry that was not meant to be "sung" at all.
5 - Science have a broader meaning that you must define with care. Your list seems to belong to the first milenium.
6 - The main purpose of an autobiography is bring feelings or information. You pick.
Art is not any human expression to bring a message and feelings (you should symplify and consider feelings as part of any message). Watch any telejournal, they transmit a message and bring feelings. Any propangada and they are not art. You forget the main difference that make art, art, which is not the feeling or the message, but beauty, in other word : it is what uses aesthetical approach. You can not define art properly without making the reference to the need to have an aesthetical merit.
"The languages are dynamic system not enclosed by media".
- So why you make critics when some writer use a different system. Just because he does not know the grammar as well as you, it does not means he is awful writer.
Literature can also be reading, but not necessarily must to be written thing. Since past times till today that is the way it is.
audio-visual language is a mix of arts. Cyber language can be literature, but not necessarily literature must to be a written thing. Not only written things are literature. Do not need a book to be literature. Cordel is literature. Do not need to be written to be literature. Cantiga is literature.
I agree with the most things you say, actually oral and written are different things, but we can not deny that the writtings are a necessity born from the oral language.
Some literature are necessarily in the paper and can not exist outside the paper. Brazilian Concretismo, for example, depends of the graphics to be a poem. But literature is not just Concrestismo, that style is only one style.
Song: the sound is not literature, it is music. But the words yes it is literature.
Any musician who writes words is poet too. It does not need to be in a book.
Renato Russo was a musician, he played guitar, bass, piano, etc, and he wrote musics. I know what is a musician, I am musician too. And I am poet too, cause I write words. Some words become songs, some just remain as poetry. Some has rhymes, some not.
The same thing is Russo. He wrote poems to be sung while the music was played. So, he was a poet too. What if he published a book with the words that not became a song? Do not need to publish to be a poet.
I know, poem can have metre or not. Music as well. But the words of a song is literature, so he was a poet (and also musician cause he wrote music too).
Music is just the sound, but the words is not music.
If Hitchcook did his own storyboards he is an ilustrator.
He directed movies too, so he is director as well.
What if he wrote the scrypts? How can we call him? I tell you, it is called writer.
Camilo, about you last post I say:
Telejornal, propaganda, etc... can bring feelings but the purpose is different from the art. I was advertising student. Propaganda use art, but the purpose is different, so it is not art. Dance does not exist without music. And autobiography can bring feelings, but it is a consequence, not a purpose. You are making confusion (this is my oppinion) however you have the right to have your oppinion, as I have my right to have my oppinion. So I can define, by the way, that is a traditional definition (how you didn't know it?). Imagine the sacrifice of post references of all I write! This is a forum, not a scientific article. I say references if I judge it necessery.
Define art is a difficult thing to do and now I am exaust, tired, hungry...
Now I ask you a curious thing, please answer it:
In your oppinion, who is the best singer? I am not talking about poetry, literature, etc. I am talking about music now.
In your oppinion, who is the best singer, who has the stronger voice and best interpretation? Between (there are opitions):
Renato Russo
Vinicius de Moraes
Chico Buarque
Tom Jobim
João Gilberto
For everyone in this forum.
Know more about Brazilians musicians (and poets):
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4
Tom and Chico:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ota5tKjuijo&feature=related
Sometimes JBI can be far too opinionated... but I must admit I agree with him completely in this instance. If anything, it is a unique form of theater, combining numerous arts: the spoken and sung word, music, acting, theatrical staging (costume, stage sets, etc...)... To reduce it merely to a branch of literature makes as much sense as to suggest that we might reduce film to a branch of music because it employs music and sound. Like film... or the "book arts" (think Book of Kells) or a Gothic cathedral, opera employs several art forms in a unique mix that is far better appreciated as a whole than taken in parts. The librettos for most operas are mediocre at best... much like the screen plays for most films... and taken as a separate entity rarely suggest the splendor of the work as a whole. Yes, Wagner's libretto's hold up as literature... as do Hofmannsthal... and to a far lesser degree, da Ponte's... but Puccini was notorious for choosing the most sappy pulp fiction as the sources for his operas and Mozart's Magic Flute ranks among the most retarded libretto's ever. In spite of this, The Magic Flute is an exquisite work of art, as are most of Puccini's operas. In most instances operas or songs do not work well as literature or poetry in their own rite, but demand to be taken in the intended context as a whole work of art. This is equally true of songs as of opera. Schubert's grand masterpiece, Die Winterreise is actually build upon a rather mediocre collection of German poetry... but the composer is able to pull out far more depth and complexity and profundity in his settings of these poems than the works even begin to suggest alone.
We are "talking" about the differences between Portuguese grammar and English grammar.
I think you would like to join:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...687#post569687
Certainly you can be helpful there.
Here, in this very forum, the invitation is for every one.
Oh, for god's sake. You are such Coelho's fanboy. He was not using a different system or anything. There is a difference between proposing the use of coloquial portuguese as he did and doing mistakes and between Rosa's experience with regional language. Plus, I am not against Coelho doing watever he does I just analysed the artistic quality of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
oh, jesus, stop being stuborn,literature was invented with the writing. The best you get is oral literature, a term that is combated since it is an inversion of vallue and a non-sense.Quote:
Literature can also be reading, but not necessarily must to be written thing. Since past times till today that is the way it is.
Jesus, audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE.Quote:
audio-visual language is a mix of arts.
Only written things are literature. Jesus, you can even read what you just said a few posts ago ?Quote:
Cyber language can be literature, but not necessarily literature must to be a written thing. Not only written things are literature. Do not need a book to be literature. Cordel is literature. Do not need to be written to be literature. Cantiga is literature.
But what is opera?
A musical and theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the libretto, it's literature.
Do you notice that you say that you must read the libretto. you only read what is writen. You cann't read sounds!
Of course Cordel is literature. You are sounding very childish - From Camara Cascudo definition of Cordel "...referente aos folhetos impressos". Do you see, PRINTED STUFF. Writen. Or you really do not knew that they used to recite the stanzas to sell the books?
Cantingas is a song, music!
Who is denying it. Photography is the origem of Cinema, but Cinema is not photography. I am not my mother and father either, and i was born from them. Literature became a thing own their own.Quote:
I agree with the most things you say, actually oral and written are different things, but we can not deny that the writtings are a necessity born from the oral language.
It is more than enough to show that you can not escape from the paper and use the limited definitions you are using.Quote:
Some literature are necessarily in the paper and can not exist outside the paper. Brazilian Concretismo, for example, depends of the graphics to be a poem. But literature is not just Concrestismo, that style is only one style.
Song: the sound is not literature, it is music. But the words yes it is literature.
No, he is a musician. That is what he is.Quote:
Any musician who writes words is poet too. It does not need to be in a book.
Quote:
Renato Russo was a musician, he played guitar, bass, piano, etc, and he wrote musics. I know what is a musician, I am musician too. And I am poet too, cause I write words. Some words become songs, some just remain as poetry. Some has rhymes, some not.
Rhymes, rhymes, I see you have no idea that lyric poetry had no rhymes in the origem, do you ?
No, but soon you can claim he was a painter too, what if he painted stuff and never exposed. So far, I know and you know he only did music. What ifs is not a logical argument.Quote:
The same thing is Russo. He wrote poems to be sung while the music was played. So, he was a poet too. What if he published a book with the words that not became a song? Do not need to publish to be a poet.
Dude, he is a writer. He wrote. Who wrote is a writer not a poet because Kafka was a writer and not a poet and he wrote words.Quote:
I know, poem can have metre or not. Music as well. But the words of a song is literature, so he was a poet (and also musician cause he wrote music too).
Music is just the sound, but the words is not music.
Screenwriter. Yes. But storyboard is part of the process he used to direct.Quote:
If Hitchcook did his own storyboards he is an ilustrator.
He directed movies too, so he is director as well.
What if he wrote the scrypts? How can we call him? I tell you, it is called writer.
That is even worst... Propaganda does not use art - Propaganda use techniques that Art employs. And yes, the purpose is different, but Your deffinition have nothing to do with the purpose since propaganda does give information and try to provoke a feeling.Quote:
Camilo, about you last post I say:
Telejornal, propaganda, etc... can bring feelings but the purpose is different from the art. I was advertising student. Propaganda use art, but the purpose is different, so it is not art. Dance does not exist without music. And autobiography can bring feelings, but it is a consequence, not a purpose. You are making confusion (this is my oppinion) however you have the right to have your oppinion, as I have my right to have my oppinion.
Dance does not exist without music ?So what? Dance is not music, it is an artistic expression on her own. Again - Most arts are influenced by other artistic style, that is natural.
Feelings are always a consequence and who are you to say that I didn't wrote the story of my life to make people feel pity about me?
If anything, You are a festival of confusion and lack of information (For example, You have no idea what cordel is for what is seems). And I am not denying your right for opinion, I am poiting that your opinion is not right and you take opinion as the same value as fact.
You do not even is coherent with your conclusions (Pointing book is not literature, rightfully so, but falling to see that Song is a product of music just like a book is a product of literature, just to express your point about a musician being a poet - soon an paiter will be a poet too)
It is not that I do not know - Your definition of art is not the traditional definition because the traditional definition links arts and aesthetics and you are unable to even mention it. Your defintion seems to belong to Plato and Aristotles time and seems to ignore 3000 years of culture.Quote:
So I can define, by the way, that is a traditional definition (how you didn't know it?).
So you must accept the basic critics I made and see how your tiredoom is making you say what is not correct.Quote:
Imagine the sacrifice of post references of all I write! This is a forum, not a scientific article. I say references if I judge it necessery.
Define art is a difficult thing to do and now I am exaust, tired, hungry...
Dude, I am not a 12 years student to play those games of interpretation. The best singer is Elis Regina. The Best musician Tom Jobim. The best artist Vinicius.Quote:
Now I ask you a curious thing, please answer it:
In your oppinion, who is the best singer? I am not talking about poetry, literature, etc. I am talking about music now.
In your oppinion, who is the best singer, who has the stronger voice and best interpretation? Between (there are opitions):
Renato Russo
Vinicius de Moraes
Chico Buarque
Tom Jobim
João Gilberto
I know this kind of person, unfortunatelly.
You got all undestood, all my posts. But your arrogance does not let you admit it.
You know that (into the list) Renato Russo has the best voice, everybody can see in youtube. But you will never admit it.
The same is about the controversies:
"P. Coelho is bad writer or not" - I try to show that kind of oppinion depends, but you are too cathegoric.
"words of a song is poetry" - I belive I've already proved that in all ways. If you do not want to see, I have my conscience in peace. I like debates, but it has limit too.
The one who write words (for poetry or song), does not matter if it will be sung, read, narrated, etc... is a poet.
Musician writes music. Do you know what mean "partitura", musical notes, musical time, chords?
"audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE" - Congratulations, Cabral! You've discovered the Brazil.
You know, and you know very well, the context I said that!
But you want to prove by force your ideas, so you made my posts seems like that, out of context! The same strategy I have seen in other posts of yours.
So, as friends, I wish you all the best.:thumbs_up
Dude, I am not angry and do not know me. It is your arrogance who defy your own logic (You manage to say that if you listen to a song it is musical appreciation but if you read the words you have literature, but then you insist that literature is not writen, despite your earlier conclusion) and every single time you bring Renato Russo or Paulo Coelho. Are you just upset because I am pointing to them as artists of low quality ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
For god sakes. If you can not get the sarcasm for me with those little games (Interprete this, say who is good or not) because you build up a biased list (despite Joao Gilberto being a superior singer for example, everyone knows his voice is not great) that you wish to be analysed using merits power of voice because any kid know Renato Russo can have a more powerful voice for watever purpose I cann't help you out.Quote:
You know that (into the list) Renato Russo has the best voice, everybody can see in youtube. But you will never admit it.
Again, see. Here is Paulo coelho again.Quote:
The same is about the controversies:
"P. Coelho is bad writer or not" - I try to show that kind of oppinion depends, but you are too cathegoric.
No, the only thing you did is proving that you do not know how to read. Songs are not Poems. Something different than poetry. Fact is I said song uses poetric devices since day one.Quote:
"words of a song is poetry" - I belive I've already proved that in all ways.
Yes, I suggest you when debating to listen others, to follow logic and use competente sources. Otherwise you will be crying wolf like you are now.Quote:
If you do not want to see, I have my conscience in peace. I like debates, but it has limit too.
No. Only if you mean all writers are poets. For example, we are writing words here and we are not poets because of that.Quote:
The one who write words (for poetry or song), does not matter if it will be sung, read, narrated, etc... is a poet.
If you live in a universe where the definition of poet is : the one that write words then I suggest you to give a Nobel to however writes the telephonic lists. You know, someone wrote words there.
Yes, after your amazing display with Cordel do not try to patronize me. As I said a music is composed by more than just lyrics (if any lyrics at all) so, when someone write a music he is doing something different than writing a poem to be writen. Listening all those differences are helping my argument.Quote:
Musician writes music. Do you know what mean "partitura", musical notes, musical time, chords?
Seriously,how old are you? I mean, you claim a language is art, I have to write this down and pretend to be sarcastic? I am arrogant or you just didn't noticed that you have no idea what a language or a media is?Quote:
"audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE" - Congratulations, Cabral! You've discovered the Brazil.
Are you joking, aren't you ? You do the absurd of claiming writen language is part of oral language, I list different languages besides the oral and writen included audio-visual then in the next post, you mix that reply with the reply of another post refering to the definition of art that you posted and I am the one taking it out of context ? You even mixed subjects and I am taking it out of contexts ?Quote:
You know, and you know very well, the context I said that!
But you want to prove by force your ideas, so you made my posts seems like that, out of context! The same strategy I have seen in other posts of yours.
I mean, I was taking out of context when I noticed you have no idea of what a Cordel is??
Camilo: "I am not a 12 years old student".
- I know!
Camilo: "Poem is something different than poetry"
Camilo: "you have no idea what a language or a media is"
Camilo: "you have no idea of what a Cordel is"
- Maybe, when I get your age I will be as inteligent as you.
Be happy!:)
I love opera, but I do not consider it literature. It's all trite as far as story and language goes. The power and originality and interest is in the music. Separate the music out and you have nothing.
"Separate the music out and you have nothing." :(
- Maybe opera loses some attributes when translated to english.
Ma per chi capisce l'italiano le parole sono bellisime!
Opera is pure lyricism!
The same thing is the Portuguese Fado. Perfect, beautiful!!!
No, literature is written language. Oral work is not, and cannot be, literature. When poetry was first written down, it became literature. Today, the onlyoral art is extemporaneous work that was not written down at the time it was presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Literature is an art, but that does not mean that it encompasses all arts, nor do all other arts encompass literature.
I would say there is oral art with the moderm oral storytellers, although the majority uses some short of record before memorizing.
The thing about Opera is that no art lives in a bubble isolated from the other arts. Take William Blake who considered his illustrations part of the poems or Andre Breton claim that a text should have no narratives and because that he used pictures in Nadja. A Drama always combined his acting with the support of other forms of art, first the oral form, then the text, sometimes music ,dance, etc.
But thinking that makes all arts one art is just being near-sighted.
Let us say that I wish to go to a performance of Glass' Akhnaten, and I read the libretto before attending; how does this effect (or improve my understanding) of the opera itself?
Now, since I have the time and money, I go to Stravinski's Oedipus Rex. I do the same study of the libretto. How does this effect my understanding of the performance (and why does the narrator tell the story behind the music)?
I'm sorry Brasil. I disagree with you. All you're proving is how beautiful a language Italian is. (And I think it's the most beautiful language in the world ;) ) An opera singer can sing "Im taking out the garbage" in Italian and it would sound wonderful. That's why most operas are in Italian. It's easy to integrate the sounds of Italian to music. And it goes to show that it's how it sounds (and therefore integrated medium with music) that counts, not the literary ingrediants of the words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
:lol: He has to be one hell of a singer to say this and actually amuse people :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But I agree. I for one think that Arabic is the most beautiful language in the world, but still, I can't see it going anywhere when it comes to Opera. If we say that Opera is a literary genre, then Arabic operas would be good (based on their literary value). It depends mostly on the music, since, as far as I know, some Operas were literary works that turned to Operas later. So basically the judge in the opera isn't based on literary grounds but rather musical ones.
If we consider Opera literature, then we might as well call Ballet literature, since it's, sometimes, based on literary works. Literature means books, or that's how I see it. Anything else adds a new element to that book to make it 'different' from literature, and that's how they get their names and techniques. I'm not sure if that made sense, but hope you get my point.
I haven't hread enough Arabic to compare it's inherent beauty with other languages. The little bit I have heard compares favorably. It seems to have a lot of vowels, and vowels are the key for language sounds. I always remember this. Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones (rock group) was asked what was the key to writing songs, and he said, "it's all in the vowels." What makes Italian have the edge over some of the other languages with lots of vowels is that there vowel sounds are disctinct from each other and don't blurr. Apparently that means something to song writers. Perhaps because each syllable is a distinct note. I don't know, I'm not a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
Maybe. I'm not an expert on Opera (and haven't heard much of it either) so you might be right. But I remember that there was an attempt (I think in the 40s or the 50s) to make an Arabic Opera, and it failed big time. The singer who was supposed to sing it, was at that time (and still is) the best most famous Arabic singer. Her vocal abilities were compared to an Opera singer called Maria Callas (Whom I'm told was a great Opera singer herself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If you're interested in listening to Oum Kolthoum (the singer I was just talking about), here's the best YouTube video I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ8Cu...eature=related
Maybe you can judge from this. But I'm still not sure about Arabic being an Opera language. Maybe if I hear it and judge myself. Who knows.