[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the need for a rhythm section
i said:
> >rhythm is more important than melody...for you can have rhythm without
> >
> >melody, but can you have melody with rhythm? (no matter how obscure
> >that
> >rhythm may be).
to which kelvin replied:
> Sure you can. How about them thar Gregorian chants? Beautiful melodies,
> but no real rhythms to speak of . Unless, of course, you're using a very
> loose definition of rhythm.
good point.
it took me a while to come up with a response to this, but i think i've come
up with one that helps substantiate my initial point.
*please know that i'm not deliberately trying to argue with you...i was just
reading a book when this thought came to me*
anyway, live performances are never the same twice. nothing is ever the same
twice. gregorian chant is never done the same twice. i should know...i've
performed in groups that did a lot of gregorian chant.
i think the reason why it's never quite the same is because rhythm *isn't*
written out precisely.
and everyone who performs it does it a little differently, based on what they
feel, and on their internal rhythm.
if we had never heard *bothered* before, or *rhapsodie* or even *sleep baby
jane*, and were handed sheet music with specific notes written on it, but
with no particluar rhythm, would we all sing it the same way?
more than likely not.
have to go now...the fiance is here, and i think we're going out.
btw, ysoie, i got the ring. wait until you see it...oh my gosh!
*hugz and kisses*
jessyka