Without+Music

The ballad is the first form we have looked at that is ordinarily performed with music. This music makes a big difference in the impression the poem makes on me. I suppose that if someone did a powerful reading of, say, a sestina, it would change the way I look at it, but the music opens up a whole new realm of possibilities as far as performance goes. The music allows the audience a closer look into the mind of the creator of the poem, I feel, whereas with the other poems, the closest we got to the historical placement of the poem and the feeling of it was the stresses on the words and the accent of the performer. The music backs the ballad up.

So what is the ballad without its music? Is it just another poem? I feel like some of the other forms we have studied, such as the sonnet with its iambic pentameter, have had musical qualities, but what about the ballad? Are they better suited for music than other forms we have studied? Is the ballad as good a poem as it is a song? 1201052212

I agree that the music does make an impression on me. It helps me appreciate more the effort the poet has put into the poem. The music shows that he/she has worked hard to make the ballad so metrically and rhythmically perfect. But I don't think that a ballad without music is detrimental in any way. The ballad is so lyrical that it becomes a song in and of itself. Look at it this way; the ballad is like a gregorian chant: Simple, elegant, lyrical, and able to be beautiful without music. I can enjoy the ballad perfectly well without music. My stance, therefore, is that the music points out the beauty of the form.

I think that the ballad is better suited for music than the other forms we have studied. In Iambic pentameter and sonnet form, poems can have different sounds in different lines. Not so with the ballad. The internal scheme seems more rigid and the rhyme scheme does as well. Simply put, the ballad just sounds like a song, unlike other forms.1201139444

Coming from a very musical background, I was pleased when we started the ballad because it opened my eyes a little bit more to poetry. I always have a hard time with poetry, but when there is music involved, the poem's words, or lyrics, if you will, resonate more with my brain. With the music, I can better understand the main idea of the poem, which tends to get lost in my head when it is read. So, for me, a ballad without its music is just another poem or just some more phrases that happen to rhyme. Some of the ballads that we read it class did not sound to me like they had a very specific rhythm, which takes away some of their appeal. These few were in the minority, and for the most part, the poems had very bouncy rhythm to them which reminded me of music, which would automatically make them more suited for accompaniment. 1201145965

I agree that the ballad is suited quite well for music. It is an inherent quality of the form, and I believe it unfair to consider the poem to other forms if the music of the ballad is not considered: balladeers meant for the poetical form to be performed, and thus they may not have considered the other aspects--rhythm, meter, and such--if they did not first fit well into the design of "song." The musical quality was to be the most important and to be the most distinctive.

I, personally, love this aspect because it makes the form stand out and more easily worked with and well-known. Take, for instance, the songs we analyzed and listened to in class. Bro Tom said that the songs were shared and even sometimes performed by more than one singer. I assume this makes the form more appreciated, as well.

"Or bringing from the meadows, At set of harvest day, The frolic of the blackbirds, The sweetness of the hay . . ." (83).

Imagine the delicate words sung, performed even, and put to a melody; it adds to the richness of the poem and raises the quality to its fullest potential.1201227548