Skip to main content

Seriously Trifling // Abigale Bell

 


I just want to offer a few thoughts on the history of English madrigals.

First, I found it interesting that the English took Italian madrigals and toned them down. They changed the meaning to be more pleasing to the English ear. Apparently, the English weren't into all that deep Italian drama. 

Secondly, an idea that seems to permeate this topic is that of the nature of music. For the Italians, music, specifically the madrigal, was used as a mouthpiece for the composer. He could convey his personal feelings. Expressing emotion towards a lover who broke his heart, or one who had stolen his affections. The Italians put so much emotion and significance in the words and the sound of the music. Not so with the English interpretations. The English adopted a style of madrigal that took the complete opposite track. They continued to word-paint in the Italian style, but the overall meaning was not as deeply significant. The English diluted the drama to make it comical or trivial. This created a new kind of interest; music that was dramatic, though in a different way, yet separated from the voice of the composer. This form of madrigal, which focused on the light-hearted, did not allow the composer to speak as much as for the music to speak for itself. 

Finally, I found it interesting that, in an age where music was so heavily influenced by the church, people would so readily engage in music that was intentionally secular. The heavily symbolic and meaningfully religious music was replaced, at least in England, by a somewhat ridiculous style of madrigal. 


Commented on Braylan's and Caroline's posts. 

Comments

  1. Great point! It's kind of like turning a drama into a romantic comedy. It has the same story-line and plot, but there's ridiculous banter and embarrassing moments the characters go through in order to keep the drama to a minimum. It's diluted, like you said the English madrigals are. I wonder why they didn't want their audience to feel the drama...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...