The first thing that I'm concerned with regarding this idea of sound poetry is the definition(s) that Dick Higgins imposes on what is or isn't sound poetry. While he carefully states all the different things that sound poetry is, he asserts that sound poetry isn't music. He argues that sound poetry is "inherently concerned with communication and its means, linguistic and/or phatic. It implies subject matter..." and so on. I'm unclear on how this all works (especially since this he seems fairly confident in this one point). I don't see how these terms separate sound poetry from music.
In fact, it seems like a song would do a better job communicating something than, say, Schwitters' "Ur Sonata" or the percussive sounds of the Chopin performance (and lead me to the question, would Higgins classify a drum solo as sound poetry, or does it have to come from the mouth? Or how the Four Horsemen use throat-singing in their pieces--it's singing! Even the Turtle Assymetries intentionally harmonize--that's music!). What about Bjork's Medulla, using only human voices (singing, sure, but also beat boxing, grunting, throat singing, and other mouth sounds) to make what is almost certainly music? Or, since I'm getting too Icelandic anyway, the made up language that Sigur Ros sings in--where does all that fall? Sure it's not quite the sound poem that is described here, but it's hard not to draw the comparisons. If a sound poem is just "poetry without words" as McCaffery describes in his section on Dada, I think Higgins' definition might be too bold to be so certain what it is not.
Henri Chopin's "Why I Am The Author of Sound Poetry and Free Poetry" is obviously a contradiction: he describes the useless, obsolescense of written language while fluidly using language to articulate that. What, then, is his actual argument?
Chopin writes with such exaggerated passion--"I can stand no longer to be destroyed by the Lord, that lie that abolishes itself on paper"--as a way of expressing the limitations of our language. He clearly does not mean that the language that we use is without value--even though is essentially the argument he makes. Instead, the point is to draw your attention to how much we take our language for granted--and more importantly, accept it as the dominant possibility for making sounds to send towards each other. Watching his performance didn't really convey meaning to me--and I'm interested to see how this could happen with just sound--but it was something entirely enjoyable that I think deserves exploration. Rather than saying this, however, Chopin asks for everything in hoping to get just a little piece.
I'm including here The Pleasure is All Mine, because it's turning mouth sounds into music--which is fun (sounding a lot like some of our listenings, only more musical, so I think the line is a bit blurrier--all sounds are vocal, even if it doesn't sound like it sometimes). I'm also including Triumph of a Heart, because the concept is similar, and the video is awesome (and I have a Bjork problem...).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good point about the problematic distinction from music. It seems like much effort in the sound poetry readings goes into distinguishing it from language/communication etc. but the other direction (music) is at least as problematic. It might be that these authors don't see that as their particular struggle; there is the definition given by Chopin (I think?) tying music to voice vis a vis a score. Certainly the "muse" in music is tied to voice (even when dealing with instruments) vs. the "poeisis" (invention) in poetry. I think at that point one would want to bring in Cage on sound and music. Then there's the question of whether we want to preserve topoi or distinctions such as poetry/music and for what reason? Or do we want to go towards an intermedia "art"?
ReplyDelete