This song raises questions for me about Schopenhauer's take on the relationship between words and music. The speaker (Alan Watts) is not singing, was not being recorded for the intended purpose of having his voice laid down with music, but does that make him any less a part of the song? To me his words are just as consequential, if not more, to the impact of the song, they help me transcend and connect with something that is beyond my words, which is what Schopendhauer said real music will do, but he would not have considered this song to be of the higher order. What is the difference between the language of words and the language of music if words are meaning to point passed themselves?
I like that the narrator didn't have any part in the musical production of this track. I find it interesting how much the music adds to the profundity of what he is saying but when I imagine the music without his voice there, it still holds that same level of "transcendence" as you said, and I find Schopenhauer's insight into that truth incredibly fascinating.
ReplyDeleteWell, if we look at vocals (which are different from lyrics) as a text than the utterances of Watts are not the vocals of the song. Their production as lyrics is the component that makes them *into* the vocals and their "old" semiological content has been modified. It seems to me that music qua music cannot allow itself to be grounded and shaped by the sign/signified phonemes amongst itself but must instead play with and be played with by them.
ReplyDeleteThe best example of a deliberate use of this idea that I know of is Elizabeth Fraser (she's done a few soundtracks, we've probably all heard the Gladiator theme). This interview is about her means of selecting lyrics. She uses books and dictionaries in languages she doesn't understand and chooses what she likes. The words don't have meaning until she sings them.