|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2023 6:24:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Sept 3, 2023 7:41:57 GMT -5
Belfast sisters Mollie & Mamie McGinn who, along with a friend, have been performing on Belfast streets for a while. Dea Matrona means Divine Mother Goddess. That’s close, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Sept 3, 2023 17:56:32 GMT -5
On a side note, if I had to play an entire song kneeling like that with my legs stuck out to the side, first I wouldn’t make it much past the first verse, and two, I’d probably be carried away afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2023 19:16:40 GMT -5
On a side note, if I had to play an entire song kneeling like that with my legs stuck out to the side, first I wouldn’t make it much past the first verse, and two, I’d probably be carried away afterwards. If you looked like her you'd probably get volunteers willing to carry you away. |
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Sept 3, 2023 19:25:45 GMT -5
On another side note, Townes Van Zandt is a lot like Leonard Cohen, in that he writes great songs, that sound better when sung by just about everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 3, 2023 21:14:18 GMT -5
"On another side note, Townes Van Zandt is a lot like Leonard Cohen, in that he writes great songs, that sound better when sung by just about everyone else."
They sound prettier. I wouldn't go along with better.
|
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 4, 2023 10:58:57 GMT -5
"On another side note, Townes Van Zandt is a lot like Leonard Cohen, in that he writes great songs, that sound better when sung by just about everyone else." They sound prettier. I wouldn't go along with better. Spoken like a true Texan. I would add on Bob Dylan, in many cases, and John Hiatt, in a number of cases. Or maybe, in Hiatt' case, some really great artists picked up his songs. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 4, 2023 14:27:59 GMT -5
I thought these ladies did a terrific job. I very much enjoyed it. I love the harmony.
I'm reminded of a debate we've had in church. Should the choir sing the psalm? They usually do. It's gorgeous. When they're through, though, I often have no idea what the psalm was about. When the psalm is read, I do. But then I miss the nonverbal plusses of the music.
This thread prompted me to listen to Townes' version of I'll Be Here In the Morning. I noticed a couple of things in the lyrics I'd missed here. In the chorus, the narrator has his fingers crossed.
Close your eyes
I'll be here in the morning
Close your eyes
I'll be here for a while
That "for a while" takes back what is otherwise implied. The narrator isn't professing undying love.
And there's a great line in one of the verses. "I'd like to lean into the wind and tell myself I'm free." That line struck me when I heard Townes' simpler version. I didn't notice it in the ladies' version.
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. It depends on the song and the musician's goal. There's ample room for both approaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 4, 2023 18:58:34 GMT -5
I thought these ladies did a terrific job. I very much enjoyed it. I love the harmony. I'm reminded of a debate we've had in church. Should the choir sing the psalm? They usually do. It's gorgeous. When they're through, though, I often have no idea what the psalm was about. When the psalm is read, I do. But then I miss the nonverbal plusses of the music. This thread prompted me to listen to Townes' version of I'll Be Here In the Morning. I noticed a couple of things in the lyrics I'd missed here. In the chorus, the narrator has his fingers crossed. Close your eyes I'll be here in the morning Close your eyes I'll be here for a while That "for a while" takes back what is otherwise implied. The narrator isn't professing undying love. And there's a great line in one of the verses. "I'd like to lean into the wind and tell myself I'm free." That line struck me when I heard Townes' simpler version. I didn't notice it in the ladies' version. I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. It depends on the song and the musician's goal. There's ample room for both approaches. Interesting take. I've had a similar discussion about hymns. 40-50 years ago it started to become rather commonplace to update the archaic language in hymns. I was among the resistant. But I finally had enough occasion to realize the same thing you did about Townes' own version -- that is, I noticed that different presentations make different things either more obvious or more obscured. Even though I perfectly well understood what the original words to the hymns meant -- no matter how archaic the language -- what I gained from the re-writes was a way of hearing the intent framed differently and divorced from something that had accidentally (via tradition) become something ... I don't know ... maybe sacred? The rewrites sometimes made the words less abstract and more real. All that, even though the meaning was never changed. |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 4, 2023 19:03:28 GMT -5
Interesting take. I've had a similar discussion about hymns. 40-50 years ago it started to become rather commonplace to update the archaic language in hymns. I was among the resistant. But I finally had enough occasion to realize the same thing you did about Townes' own version -- that is, I noticed that different presentations make different things either more obvious or more obscured. Even though I perfectly well understood what the original words to the hymns meant -- no matter how archaic the language -- what I gained from the re-writes was a way of hearing the intent framed differently and divorced from something that had accidentally (via tradition) become something ... I don't know ... maybe sacred? The rewrites sometimes made the words less abstract and more real. All that, even though the meaning was never changed. I passed a church today whose sign advertised an upcoming service with these words: "Come sing old hymns." If it were guaranteed sermon-less, I could get into that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 4, 2023 20:20:24 GMT -5
"Even though I perfectly well understood what the original words to the hymns meant -- no matter how archaic the language -- what I gained from the re-writes was a way of hearing the intent framed differently and divorced from something that had accidentally (via tradition) become something ... I don't know ... maybe sacred? The rewrites sometimes made the words less abstract and more real. All that, even though the meaning was never changed."
Well, how's this for a digression.
I recently read a new translation of the gospels by a woman named Sarah Ruden. She's a highly respected translator of ancient languages. Also a Quaker. She tried to be as faithful to the "original" Greek as she could be. Where there was humor, she showed that. Where slang was used--surprisingly often--she'd translate the passage into slang. In her introduction, she discusses how previous translations were often colored by the outlook of the dominant church at the time, as well as a couple of thousand years of accretions. She tried to avoid all that.
I'm no Bible scholar but she made one interesting choice. When the words "believe" or "belief" appear in previous translations, she uses "trust." I'd previously read a book in which a Catholic scholar suggested the very same change on the basis that it was closer to the original meaning, and that "belief" has acquired so much baggage that it ought to be replaced.
Reading multiple translations is somewhat akin to singing various versions of hymns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Sept 4, 2023 21:06:36 GMT -5
"Even though I perfectly well understood what the original words to the hymns meant -- no matter how archaic the language -- what I gained from the re-writes was a way of hearing the intent framed differently and divorced from something that had accidentally (via tradition) become something ... I don't know ... maybe sacred? The rewrites sometimes made the words less abstract and more real. All that, even though the meaning was never changed." Well, how's this for a digression. I recently read a new translation of the gospels by a woman named Sarah Ruden. She's a highly respected translator of ancient languages. Also a Quaker. She tried to be as faithful to the "original" Greek as she could be. Where there was humor, she showed that. Where slang was used--surprisingly often--she'd translate the passage into slang. In her introduction, she discusses how previous translations were often colored by the outlook of the dominant church at the time, as well as a couple of thousand years of accretions. She tried to avoid all that. I'm no Bible scholar but she made one interesting choice. When the words "believe" or "belief" appear in previous translations, she uses "trust." I'd previously read a book in which a Catholic scholar suggested the very same change on the basis that it was closer to the original meaning, and that "belief" has acquired so much baggage that it ought to be replaced. Reading multiple translations is somewhat akin to singing various versions of hymns. I had my own breakthrough/reconciliation with my quite conservative upbringing when I realized that my faith, which was struggling with certain precepts, didn't require absolute certainty. For some things, it was sufficient that I trust and be willing proceed as if they were true. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2023 6:05:28 GMT -5
"Even though I perfectly well understood what the original words to the hymns meant -- no matter how archaic the language -- what I gained from the re-writes was a way of hearing the intent framed differently and divorced from something that had accidentally (via tradition) become something ... I don't know ... maybe sacred? The rewrites sometimes made the words less abstract and more real. All that, even though the meaning was never changed." Well, how's this for a digression. I recently read a new translation of the gospels by a woman named Sarah Ruden. She's a highly respected translator of ancient languages. Also a Quaker. She tried to be as faithful to the "original" Greek as she could be. Where there was humor, she showed that. Where slang was used--surprisingly often--she'd translate the passage into slang. In her introduction, she discusses how previous translations were often colored by the outlook of the dominant church at the time, as well as a couple of thousand years of accretions. She tried to avoid all that. I'm no Bible scholar but she made one interesting choice. When the words "believe" or "belief" appear in previous translations, she uses "trust." I'd previously read a book in which a Catholic scholar suggested the very same change on the basis that it was closer to the original meaning, and that "belief" has acquired so much baggage that it ought to be replaced. Reading multiple translations is somewhat akin to singing various versions of hymns. you might be interested in the coincidental content of the second episode of the podcast I linked to in my "good music story"thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 5, 2023 7:35:13 GMT -5
"I had my own breakthrough/reconciliation with my quite conservative upbringing when I realized that my faith, which was struggling with certain precepts, didn't require absolute certainty. For some things, it was sufficient that I trust and be willing proceed as if they were true."
We all have to trust something, Rob. No one has a self-validating outlook.
That doesn't mean that all choices about who or what to trust are equally wise.
|
|
