Blues songs weren't originally meant for literary purposes when they were written. The singers were just trying to evoke their feelings in music and lyrics rather than be concerned with whether or not their type of song would be a topic in our class. I feel its purpose is to allow the signer to rid themselves of their problems through words and song instead of keeping it inside. For this reason, I that that blues lyrics aren't typically read in a literary way because they weren't originally meant for that purpose.

     Although blues songs/lyrics do have literary tendencies, I still wouldn't classify them under "literature masterpieces," so to speak. There are many songs today whose lyrics are very meaningful to the artist, and may be spoken/sung in a strange way, yet we still don't tend to think of them as an important role in literature. Personally, I put blues songs in my "music genres" category in my mind because I hear them more as songs with deep meaning than anything else.

     The slave songs were arguably a part of the African Americans culture and customs. Many nights they would get together and have praise meetings, where many of the songs were made up and sung. Also, the qualities of the African Americans are explained so that they come off as nice, worry-free and have faith and hope in God. I feel that all of the authors must have learned something from those attitudes and that this must have somehow touched them, otherwise they may not have written this collaboration.

     I believe that the authors didn't merely publish the slave songs for their health. There was a purpose behind all of their work, not only to have permanence of the songs, but to prove something. I think they wanted to show their readers, and Northerners alike, that African Americans actually were intelligent, contrary to the belief of slave owners, racists, and those prejudice against them. They were so intelligent, in fact, that they came up with their own musical genre (spirituals) and even their own words. Because they were so oppressed, what other way did they have to speak their thoughts and emotions, but through music?

    In addition, her husband, Mr. Pontellier, tends to be bothersome to her about taking care of the children. It's apparent that he becomes annoyed, but he doesn't seem extremely persistent with her. In chapter 3, Mr. Pontellier addresses his wife and tells her that one of their children has a fever and that she should attend to him. Mrs. Pontellier more or less ignores him and isn't concerned. When he comes back inside, he reassures her that something is wrong with the child. She checks on him for merely a few mintues, but does nothing to make the child's fever go down or even to comfort him. Mr. Pontellier lets it go and goes to bed.

     As for Mrs. Pontellier's transformation into her "self," it first becomes evident through nature in chapter 6. " A certain light was beginning to dawn dimly within her...Mrs. Pontellier was beginning to realize her position in the universe as a human being, and to recognize her relations as an individual to the world within and about her...The voice of the sea is seductive; never ceasing, whispering, clamoring, murmuring..."

     Another instance when it becomes obvious that Edna is changing is in chapter 9 when Madame Reisz played a Chopin piano piece for her. It was stated that "the very first chords...struck...sent a keen tremor down Mrs. Pontellier's spinal column. It was not the first time she had heard an artist at the piano. Perhaps it was the first time she was ready, perhaps the first time her being was tempered to take an impress of the abiding truth...But the very passions themselves were aroused in her soul..." She has had some sort of inner "awakening" due to the playing of this piece.

     Musically, this scene deals with a variety of instruments, including an accordion, trumpet, flute, saxes, guitar, and a drummer. Of my understanding of Flamenco music, it is not uncommon that the guitar players are playing very intricate passages, However, this scene of the ballet does not include that. In the crowd, many people are playing very percussive instruments, including sticks and scraping on glasses with spoons. The clapping also contributes to the percussive feel.

     There isn't much dancing, if any, in this scene. However, the fact that everyone is involved in the scene is what attracted me to it. It portrays a joyous sense that might make someone WANT to dance.

     As for the construction of the music in the entire ballet, much of it sounds "different" than something we might be used to listening to today. Flamenco music tends to use odd scales in which there are certain altered tones in the music. Throughout the ballet, it is evident that this is taking place in both the faster and slower songs.

Mother: "What blood would you expect him to have? His whole family's blood. It comes down from his great grandfather, who started in killing, and it goes on down through the whole evil breed of knife wielding and false smiling men."

     This quote is from Act II: Scene 2. Mother is speaking of Leonardo. She is saying that he has his "great grandfather's blood" because he does not have good intentions with the Bride, according to the Bride's family. His name is already "contaminated" because of his former relatives. Names, Inheritance, Blood - To me, this is an idea that you inherit a good or bad name and that your "past" blood is always a part of you.

     In my opinion, I believe it is better to constantly discover new music than to focus on one "swath" of music and know it really well. The more music you discover, the more you are going to understand what you already know. While knowing a lot about one type may be beneficial in some aspects, I don't feel that it is the best use of your time. Why focus on one thing when you can know so much more?

     I feel that an unknown authored piece has somewhat of a significance. For example, if the reader is familiar with how a certain author writes, they will know what to look for. With an unfamiliar author, it probably won't be as obvious. However, as a reader, I wouldn't shy away from a certain piece just because I didn't know the author.

      As an interpreter, an unknown author makes it easier to interpret the emotions and depth of the piece. As I mentioned before, it's a given to me, that one is able to interpret in any way he or she wishes without altering the actual story.

     I find a large significance in the fact that early performers could change the names, events, and images in the tradition of the corrido. To me, changing those types of things has the potential to create too much of a difference between the new and original. The story and real emotions are lost. In time, a misinterpretation could eventually change an entire story for the future.

     Compelling other performers to take up an oral text is extremely important. Without continuing to tell a "story," the story is lost. New generations are responsible for carrying on old pieces so that the next generations can do the same. After a long enough period of time, these certain pieces have the potential to become "classics" and they will never be lost.

     In the first stanza of "Estat ai en greu cossirier," there are many sound patterns. From the way I was reading it, every line in this stanza is rhyming with another. For example, lines 1 & 4 or lines 2 & 3 are each connected in this sense. However, in lines 5 & 6 or lines 7 & 8, there is no rhyming that I've picked up on. Also, there is no repetition in this stanza.

     Of the translated version, there is more rhyming than the original. I think using the rhyme in the English translation was an attempt to better convey the meaning of the poem than what the exact translation is. I suppose "reworking" the poem is the correct terminology. However, I don't feel that the translation sacraficed the "music" of the original. The text still conveys the emotional meaning that the poet was expressing.

P.S. I'm on the right in my picture.