Not sure I'd give it this much credence, either, Frank:
"At times Mr. Gordon’s score moved through stretches of dreamlike, sustained textures, laconic passages redolent of the Velvet Underground, hard-driven string figures and sections part sung and part recited by Ms. Charles in a pianissimo growl that suggested a connection between Dickinson and Leonard Cohen."
Erm, aside from the fact I think the writer means "reminiscent" of the VU, I doubt even Leo would think of himself as a direct "literary" descendent of Em. D. (despite their shared passion for the sacred/secular as well as their tendency to write shorter-lined lyrics); but, I might be wrong.
However, speaking of things that make one go, Ermmm . . . Didn't Russ Bowden just tell us that her poetry's been set to music hundreds of times? I mean, why not try someone else, like, erm, Sharon Olds or Maya Angelou? (Pls to note this is not an endorsement of either poet's work.) Come to think of it, I'd like to see what someone could do with Anne Bradstreet's oeuvre (given the fact Walt's been done over five-hunnert-odd times).
Short answer? Nah, no way does Em's work translate well in terms of this century. She had heart, soul, spunk, rapture, and spirit in spades.
(I might have put "faith" in that list; but, the Tricky-Dicky Hitchkens would be all over us like yellow on yolks.)
"Reinterpreting Shakespeare for _______" (fill in today's date) has been common for quite some time, often producing abortive disasters. There have been, and will be, other victims, as well. What most concerns me is encapsulated in the question Do the works of the finest writers really need to be "reinterpreted" for people who can read?
Can't say I disagree with you, Hedgie, at least as far as reinterpretation goes; and, truly, I've never understood this need to translate one medium's work into another medium.
Sometimes I am struck by how awful the results are; and, occasionally, they don't off-piss me too much. But, anyone who takes a masterpiece, say, Hamlet, and does it in another century or setting does get my ghost.
By definition, a masterpiece can't be touched or it is no longer a masterpiece, period. Then again, there's that ol' buck-to-be-made angle; and, you know, there's a f*cker born ever minute :).
Not sure I'd give it this much credence, either, Frank:
ReplyDelete"At times Mr. Gordon’s score moved through stretches of dreamlike, sustained textures, laconic passages redolent of the Velvet Underground, hard-driven string figures and sections part sung and part recited by Ms. Charles in a pianissimo growl that suggested a connection between Dickinson and Leonard Cohen."
Erm, aside from the fact I think the writer means "reminiscent" of the VU, I doubt even Leo would think of himself as a direct "literary" descendent of Em. D. (despite their shared passion for the sacred/secular as well as their tendency to write shorter-lined lyrics); but, I might be wrong.
However, speaking of things that make one go, Ermmm . . . Didn't Russ Bowden just tell us that her poetry's been set to music hundreds of times? I mean, why not try someone else, like, erm, Sharon Olds or Maya Angelou? (Pls to note this is not an endorsement of either poet's work.) Come to think of it, I'd like to see what someone could do with Anne Bradstreet's oeuvre (given the fact Walt's been done over five-hunnert-odd times).
Short answer? Nah, no way does Em's work translate well in terms of this century. She had heart, soul, spunk, rapture, and spirit in spades.
(I might have put "faith" in that list; but, the Tricky-Dicky Hitchkens would be all over us like yellow on yolks.)
"Reinterpreting Shakespeare for _______" (fill in today's date) has been common for quite some time, often producing abortive disasters. There have been, and will be, other victims, as well. What most concerns me is encapsulated in the question Do the works of the finest writers really need to be "reinterpreted" for people who can read?
ReplyDeleteCan't say I disagree with you, Hedgie, at least as far as reinterpretation goes; and, truly, I've never understood this need to translate one medium's work into another medium.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I am struck by how awful the results are; and, occasionally, they don't off-piss me too much. But, anyone who takes a masterpiece, say, Hamlet, and does it in another century or setting does get my ghost.
By definition, a masterpiece can't be touched or it is no longer a masterpiece, period. Then again, there's that ol' buck-to-be-made angle; and, you know, there's a f*cker born ever minute :).