LL-L: "Spiritual aspects" LOWLANDS-L, 29.MAY.2000 (01) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 29.MAY.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Spiritual aspects

Some rather random thoughts:

1. If people come from a culture where religious music dominates one might
reasonably expect "serious" singers to be influenced by it. If so, this has

nothing to do with things "spiritual" and everything to do with the power
of
organised religion.

2. Conversely, Verdi's Requiem is generally regarded as very "operatic".

3. Fauré's Requiem is used to sell butter in the UK. This is either a
Protestant backlash or proves we are a nation of shopkeepers.

4. I cannot imagine any commentator in Britain using a form of words like
the one Roger quoted. I don't think that's because of political
correctness.
Feelings may be different in areas of Britain where there is a marked
religious divide but I find it hard to imagine them being expressed in this

sort of context. Of course, some singers may themselves consider and say
that religious influences have shaped their singing style.

5. But would it be very different in principle if a British commentator
said
that someone had a cold, clear Nordic voice or displayed the warmth of the
Italian south in their singing? That ought to be regarded as unacceptable
nonsense as well.

6. BTW, we Brits were recently glued (or buttered) to our TV sets watching
a
series about another Queen Elizabeth - Good Queen Bess, our Virgin Queen.
It
necessarily mentioned her contemporary William I, Prince of Orange
(1533-84), aka "William the Silent" - except that it insisted on calling
him
"William of Orange", the name usually reserved here for our William III
(1650-1702) who as every young schoolperson used to know was one half of
the
Dual Monarchy of Williamanmary - see further Sellar and Yeatman "1066 and
All That". William III is, of course, the "King Billy" still vividly
remembered in Northern Ireland.

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================