The thing about poetry, and writing in general, is the absolute nature of words. Sure, a word can mean or suggest many different things, but for the most part, the physical word itself that is written, printed in ink, or even displayed on a monitor is unchanging. The same cannot be said for music, because while instructions are given for rigid forms such as Classical, music is such a live experience that two recordings of performances by the same group of the same piece will not be the same. Music asks to breathe with its transience and its "in-the-moment" qualities. The improvisatory and human qualities of music are what can make it so compelling.
I much prefer to give my poems to people to read over reading them myself. I don't want the experience of my own reading (which, to be quite honest, would not do my own work justice) to affect how the reader feels.
While this is interesting, I think you are making a bit of a skewed comparison. More comparable, perhaps, would be sheet music or lead sheets to written poetry and performed verse with performed music. It seems to me that both forms of expression take on an "alternate life", if you will, when performed. Try listening to some old Gil-scott Heron readings, or spoken-word versions of Scroobius Pip songs. These are both people involved in poetry and music. When one element is stripped away, their presentation doesn't lose power or meaning; rather it gains a dimension, a new side that you never would have known otherwise. I would encourage you to read your own works.
ReplyDeleteYou're right - I should have been more clear. I guess what I was trying to convey is that there's a difference between how a poem can be read silently and how the same can't be as simply done with music. I do plan on practicing reading poetry, because practice leads to results of some sort.
Delete