lundi 11 mai 2015

BERGER ON SONG


[…]
A song, when being sung and played, acquires a body. It does this by taking over and briefly possessing existent bodies: the body of the double bass standing vertical while it’s being strummed, or the body of the harmonica cupped in a pair of hands hovering and pecking like a bird before a mouth, or the torso of the drummer as he rolls. Again and again the song takes over the body of the singer, and after a while the body of the circle of listeners who, as they listen and gesture to the song, are remembering and foreseeing.
A song, as distinct from the bodies it takes over, is unfixed in time and place. A song narrates a past experience. While it is being sung it fills the present. Stories do the same. But songs have another dimension, which is uniquely theirs. A song fills the present, while it hopes to reach a listening ear in some future somewhere. It leans forward, farther and farther. Without the persistence of this hope, songs would not exist. Songs lean forward.
The tempo, the beat, the loops, the repetitions of a song offer a shelter from the flow of linear time — a shelter in which future, present, and past can console, provoke, ironize, and inspire one another.
Most songs being listened to around the world at this moment are recordings, not live performances. This means that the physical experience of sharing and coming together is less intense, but it is still there in the heart of the exchange and communication taking place.
[…]
In every song there is distance. The song is not distant, but distance is one of its ingredients, just as presence is an ingredient of any graphic image. This has been true from the beginning of songs and the beginning of images.
Distance separates or can be crossed in order to bring about a coming-together. All songs are at least implicitly about journeys.
[…]
Songs refer to aftermaths and returns, welcomes and farewells. Or to put it another way: songs are sung to an absence. Absence is what inspired them, and it’s what they address. At the same time (and the phrase “at the same time” takes on a special meaning here), in the sharing of the song the absence is also shared and so becomes less acute, less solitary, less silent. And this “reduction” of the original absence during the sharing of the singing, or even during the memory of the singing, is collectively experienced as something triumphant — sometimes a mild triumph, often a covert one.
I could wrap myself,” Johnny Cash once said, “in the warm cocoon of a song and go anywhere; I was invincible.”
Flamenco performers frequently talk about el duende. Duende is a quality, a resonance, that makes a performance unforgettable. It occurs when a performer is possessed, inhabited, by a force or compulsion coming from outside her or his own self. Duende is a ghost from the past. And it’s unforgettable because it visits the present in order to address the future.
[…]
We have noted how a song borrows existent physical bodies in order to acquire, while it’s being sung, a body of its own. The borrowed body may be that of an instrument, a single player, a group of players, a bunch of listeners. And the song shifts unpredictably from one borrowed body to another. What Antonello’s painting can remind us of is that in each case the song settles inside the body it borrows. It finds its place in the body’s guts — in the head of a drum, in the belly of a violin, in the torso or loins of a singer and listener.
The essence of songs is neither vocal nor cerebral but organic. We follow songs in order to be enclosed. We find ourselves inside a message. And this is why what songs offer is different from what is offered by any other message or form of exchange. The unsung, impersonal world remains outside, on the other surface of a placenta. All songs, even when their content or rendering is strongly masculine, operate maternally.
The words of songs are different from the words that make prose. In prose, words are independent agents; in songs, they are first and foremost the intimate sounds of their mother tongue. They signify what they signify, and at the same time they address or flow toward all the words that exist in that language.
Songs are like rivers: each follows its own course, yet all flow to the sea, from which everything came. The fact that in many languages the place where a river enters the sea is called the river’s mouth emphasizes the comparison. The waters that flow out of a river’s mouth have come from an immense elsewhere. And something similar happens with what comes out of the mouth of a song.
Much of what happens to us in life is nameless because our vocabulary is too poor. Most stories get told out loud because the storyteller hopes that the telling of the story can transform a nameless event into a familiar or intimate one.
We tend to associate intimacy with closeness and closeness with a certain sum of shared experiences. Yet in reality total strangers, who will never say a single word to each other, can share an intimacy — an intimacy contained in the exchange of a glance, a nod of the head, a smile, a shrug of a shoulder. A closeness that lasts for minutes or for the duration of a song that is being listened to together. An agreement about life. An agreement without clauses. A conclusion spontaneously shared between the untold stories gathered around the song.
[…]
It’s difficult today to express or sum up in prose the experience of Being Alive and Becoming. Prose, as a form of discourse, depends on a minimum of established continuities of meaning; prose is an exchange with a surrounding circle of different points of view and opinions, expressed in a shared and descriptive language. And such a shared language no longer exists.
By contrast, songs can express the inner experience of Being and Becoming at this moment — even when they are old songs. Why? Because songs are self-contained and because songs put their arms around historical time.
Songs put their arms around linear time without being utopian.
[…]
In any utopian vision, happiness is obligatory. This means that, in reality, it’s unobtainable. Within the logic of utopias compassion is a weakness. Utopias despise the present. Utopias substitute dogma for hope. Dogmas are engraved; whereas hopes flicker, by contrast, like the flame of a candle.
Both candles and song often accompany prayer. And prayer in most, if not all, religions, temples, and churches is double-faced. It can endlessly reiterate dogma or it can articulate hope. And which function it accomplishes doesn’t necessarily depend on the place or circumstances where the prayer is being prayed. It depends on the stories of those praying.
The way singers play with or defy the linearity of time has something in common with what acrobats and jugglers do with the force of gravity. […]

John Berger, ”Some Notes on Song” (Harper's Magazine, February 2015)

Aucun commentaire: