Free Digital Sheet Music

Some poetic forms simply cannot treat serious subjects seriously, while other forms are more capable of supporting serious subjects. I’ve found that one issue that people have a difficult time grasping is that the meaning of the same propositional truth content can actually be changed depending on in what form it appears. Let’s set musical form aside for a moment and concentrate just on the poetic form. Here are two love poems. Propositionally, they both discuss love. But see if you think they deal with the subject in the same way: Imagine a skunk who proposes, To his true love, surrounded by roses. It may turn out just fine, When she falls for his line, But I wonder if flowers have noses? Let me not to the marriage of true minds        Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds,        Or bends with the remover to remove: O no! it is an ever-fixed mark        That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark,        Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks        Within his bending sickle's compass come: Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,        But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved,        I never writ, nor no man ever loved. You certainly have noticed that while both poems speak of love, the first is considerably more silly and the second more serious. Now the content of the first poem is silly itself, but that just proves my point. You can’t say anything serious with a limerick, or if you try, you end up looking silly yourself. I searched and searched for an attempt at treating a serious subject in limerick form, but could not find one. I tried writing one myself, but to no avail. The point is this: some poetic forms simply cannot treat serious subjects seriously, while other forms are more capable of supporting serious subjects. One illustration I love using to demonstrate this point is the poem, ’Twas the Night Before Christmas . Look at the first couplet, and notice how the poetic form contributes to the light, humorous nature of the poem’s propositional content. It might help you to read it out loud. ’Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house Not a creatures was stirring; not even a mouse. This poem is written in anapestic feet, that is [weak, weak, STRONG, weak, weak, STRONG, etc.]. This form gives a kind of skipping feeling, which adds to the silly overall feeling of the poem’s content. How does it do this? Is this simply cultural convention? In another culture, could this poetic form be interpreted as serious? Hardly. This form inherently communicates “skippiness” precisely because it sounds like skipping – it accurately mimics in sound what skipping feels like physically. And so it is only natural for humans to hear this “skippy” meter as light, fun, and trite. Now what would happen if we took the same propositional content and changed the poetic form? Instead of using anapestic feet [weak, weak, STRONG], what if we changed the meter to iambic feet [weak, STRONG, weak, STRONG, etc.]? Notice how this changes the treatment of the same propositional material. Again, reading out loud may be helpful. ‘Twas Christmas eve, the house was still, And not a creature stirred. Poets can use further means to change the affect of a text in the treatment of propositional content. The use of sounds has powerful influence on the affect of a text. Certain phonemes carry affect simply due to the sounds that they make (these are called phonetic intensives). Here is a list of examples: "fl__" -- communicates movement "gl__" -- associated with light "sl__" -- smoothly wet words "bl__" -- word expressive of sound "__tt__" -- particled movement "--er" -- associated with repetition "--le" -- associated with repetition "--ck" -- sudden cessation of movement Furthermore, how words are put together into sentences can influence the text’s affect based on combinations of sound. A perfect example of this is a couplet by Robert Frost. Notice how different the two lines sound from one another and how this reflects the propositional content of those lines. Again, read it aloud. The old dog barks backward without getting up. I can remember when he was a pup. The use of strong plosives (b’s, k's, d’s, etc.) take longer to articulate, communicating the lethargy of the old dog. However, the phonemes in the second line easily roll off the tongue, communicating the sprightliness of the puppy. The whole point of all this is to say that the propositional truth content of a text should not be the only criterion in an evaluation of a text’s worth. The poetic form contributes heavily to the text’s ability to communicate to man’s affections. Otherwise, why set the words to poetry at all. It is true that poetry aids in the retention of truth, but is this the only reason? Certainly not. The primary purpose of all art is to speak to the affections. So when evaluating the quality of a sacred text, we must consider the poetic form. Be should be concerned with not only the propositional content of our texts, but also how we treat the truth poetically. It is more than possible to treat truth about our almighty God flippantly, and this is something we should certainly avoid. We might also treat God’s truths in other manners that are inappropriate. A perfect example of this is something I’ve seen both Bauder and Dissidens use. The propositional truth of the following poem is objectively true. But notice how the form treats the truth very flippantly. God is here, God is there, God, you know is everywhere. He’s up your nose, Between your toes, He dwells within your garden hose. But now let’s take the same propositionally truth and treat it seriously and respectfully: Lord, all I am is known to Thee: In vain my soul would try To shun Thy presence, or to flee The notice of Thine eye. Thy all surrounding sight surveys My rising and my rest, My public walks, my private ways, The secrets of my breast. Is it not clear that the second version is more appropriate and pleasing to the King of the Universe? We have not even discussed musical form, but that is a topic for another day.