Separating son and motz

The Dillon article explores the relationship between music and lyric, acknowledging that these two disparate elements are usually combined to create a performance, but can be separated as well. On its own, lyric maintains aspects of performance with a rhyme scheme that gives sonality to the verse. Yet because these lyrics are never performed in recitation, only in song, I agree with Zumthor that omitting melody notation does a disservice to the poem. After all, troubadours were both poets and composers. We have looked at their manuscripts with only 'motz', and listened to their performances with both 'motz' and 'son'. As a result, I would like to explore the third situation, a performance of just 'son'. The first embedded video presents a performance of the Cantigas de Santa Maria 163, with both voice and instrumental backing. The piece begins with a jaunty string instrument opening, setting up the melody of the song. At 0:20, the singer jumps in with vocals to the tune of the same melody. By and large, the collection of string instruments follow this singer, matching his tone and tempo. In the second video, a performance of CSM 142, there are no vocals, and so the relationship between the instruments and singer is superseded by the relationship between different instruments themselves. When moving from 'motz' to 'son', one instrumental part takes on the classic background role of the orchestra, while the other - a violin at 0:08 - becomes the "singer". This sole violin always carries the melody, as does the singer in the first video, as if it has a voice.This pattern is repeated across several instrumental versions of troubadour poetry. I believe it underscores the importance of 'motz', even when there is only 'son'. The voice of the singer is present in the singular instrumental lead, attesting to the nature of the poem as a expression of one person's thoughts and sensations.