Light On Dark Water

Laïs: The Ladies’ Second Song

Weekend Music

I was reminded of this by mention in another thread of an album by The Waterboys of Yeats poems set to music. This is the title song of an album by Laïs which features several Yeats poems, including two settings of "Leda and the Swan," one in English and one in what I take to be Flemish. This is one of several erotically charged songs on the album. The poem refers to an old story that Yeats adapted, in which a fine lady seeks to separate physical and spiritual love by having her lover sleep with her chambermaid. I'm pretty sure the poem's title is "The Lady's Second Song," and I suppose Laïs made it plural in reference to themselves.


 

It has become an extremely widespread and annoying practice to describe attractive women as "hot." But it seems applicable to Laïs in a more literal way. The first time I listened to this album I felt like I was in the presence of female sexual heat so powerful that I wondered that they didn't glow. I found myself thinking "Someone needs to marry these gals, soon"–because what they radiate is not just sexiness, but fecundity. They seemed like fruit so ripe that they might burst. So I'm pleased to see in this video that one of them at least is pregnant. Personally I find whatever it is they have far more alluring than the crude gyrations of the usual pop stars of the Britney Spears type. 

Here is the Flemish "Leda." I think it's better musically than the English one.


  

If you like these, you'll like most of the album. I reviewed another album by Lais a couple of years ago, here.

Maclin Horton
,

23 responses to “Laïs: The Ladies’ Second Song”

  1. Janet

    Well, good. This is the other one I was trying to remember.
    AMDG

    Reply
  2. Mac

    Happy to oblige.

    Reply
  3. Paul

    Yes, that is Flemish.

    Reply
  4. Louise

    a fine lady seeks to separate physical and spiritual love by having her lover sleep with her chambermaid.
    When I first read this, I thought “what a dumb thing to do.”
    I have to say, Maclin, I really enjoyed reading this post and it has meant more to me than you could possibly realise.
    Consider the possibility that at least since the Sexual Revolution We Had To Have (and possibly before that) women have not known how to behave like women, with the unpleasant result that men have not known how to behave like men. And then consider the possibility that Christian men and Christian women, while they have similarities, are nevertheless two fairly distinct things b/c men and women are (meant to be) similar but distinct.
    Imagine the possibility that perhaps our Western culture is largely made up of men and women who are more angrogynous than anything else (particularly among the under-45s or so).
    I can’t comment for anyone else here, but I feel as if my whole life I have had to learn how to become more feminine. Unlike my mother and her mother, for instance. And I notice it a lot in the women I know IRL too. No woman can eradicate her femininity altogether, but she can (inadvertently) hinder it quite a bit.
    The words you use like “alluring” and “radiate” are exactly right for women. This is knowledge which I suspect is normally instinctively known in both sexes, but has perhaps been obscured since the disaster of ’68.
    I’m not kidding when I tell you that I have had to consciously learn this stuff, taught intellectually out of books! It’s a wonder I was ever feminine enough to attract a husband.

    Reply
  5. Louise

    “androgynous” – excuse the typos!

    Reply
  6. Mac

    Well, I didn’t think I said anything much, but I’m certainly pleased that it meant something to you. That last bit, contrasting Lais and the Britney types, is really something that’s been a…well, obsession is too strong, but a persistent thought since I was pretty young. There is a sort of stripper-type raw sexuality that I’m certainly not unaffected by. But there has always been something I saw in some women that was a lot more subtle and not so superficially powerful, but was really more powerful–something really deep and rich and earthy. The first type could turn my head, the second could make me fall in love. I can’t say the first type is not feminine, I can’t even say it’s less feminine. But…hard to explain…it overemphasizes direct sexuality and doesn’t seem as deeply feminine in a good way.
    Plus the young “hot” actresses etc. frequently come across as having unpleasant personalities.
    Actually I think that as a society we are in deep trouble with regard to relations between the sexes, for a whole lot of reasons, too many to go into now.

    Reply
  7. Louise

    Well, I didn’t think I said anything much, but I’m certainly pleased that it meant something to you. That last bit, contrasting Lais and the Britney types, is really something that’s been a…well, obsession is too strong, but a persistent thought since I was pretty young. There is a sort of stripper-type raw sexuality that I’m certainly not unaffected by. But there has always been something I saw in some women that was a lot more subtle and not so superficially powerful, but was really more powerful–something really deep and rich and earthy. The first type could turn my head, the second could make me fall in love. I can’t say the first type is not feminine, I can’t even say it’s less feminine. But…hard to explain…it overemphasizes direct sexuality and doesn’t seem as deeply feminine in a good way.
    I shall attempt to describe how I see it. This comes from my recent quest to discover the answer to “What is a Good Wife?”
    The raw sexual energy of women is now what most people seem to believe constitutes femimine sexuality. The reason it affects men, obviously, is because it is feminine physically and obviously accentuates the erogenous zones etc. But it cannot make a man fall in love, b/c a man must connect with a woman’s heart to do that. And she must be in a feminine mode to enable that. If it is true (and I think it is) that masculinity is active and femininity is passive, or to put it differently, that a man gives and a woman receives and then “gives back,” we can see how this raw, animalistic sexual behaviour of women is off-putting to men emotionally. Not physically, necessarily – many men would be happy to merely have sex with such a woman, but he is unlikely to fall in love with her and even less likely to marry her. Feminine power is very different to masculine power and unfortunately, women have been taught in recent times to want masculine power. But our true power is in our mystery, in our hearts, in the light which should radiate from us and allure men.
    Sometimes, sadly, this is even overlooked in the traditional training of girls to be housewives. I believe housewifery to be much neglected, yet still important. However, no man marries a woman b/c he wants someone to sew on his buttons (unless he’s a Mama’s Boy). A man marries b/c he wants to have a beautiful light in his home and whom he can be truly united with physically and emotionally etc. He wants to give to her and the main thing he really wants, I think, is to be in the presence of her glory. That is often difficult in the hustle and bustle of busy family life. It’s hard to see a woman’s glory and light as she wipes baby poop off the carpet! (Something I had to do yesterday!) It’s easier to see as she sits quietly embroidering cushions (which is not something I do at all!) but yet, if she seems not to notice the man when he is actually before her, he may feel that he is not appreciated. At least, this is what my reading has been teaching me. It’s a far cry from learning hand-sewing and how to be a “useful” girl. Blech! Traditional women’s work is important, imo, but it’s a part of housewifery, not wifehood proper.

    Reply
  8. Louise

    Here is a related thought. When I dress, I think of such words as “modesty” “elegance” “beauty” “respectful” and so on. Young women and even prepubescent girls these days seem to think in terms of “hot” and “sexy.”
    Says it all.

    Reply
  9. Louise

    How aggravating! I wrote a longer comment just before this last one at 5:20 your time, but it disappeared, and I’m sure I had actually submitted it and seen it posted!!!

    Reply
  10. Mac

    I believe I just found it in the spam catcher. Is that it, above the “here’s a related thought” one? I don’t know why it would have been treated as spam, esp as it let through other comments from the same address. Possibly the fact that it opens with a tag and is pretty long.
    I have to eat pizza now. Later…

    Reply
  11. Janet

    Have you read Angel in the House Louise? Or Edith Stein on women?
    AMDG

    Reply
  12. Mac

    That’s extremely interesting. I’ve had a long stressful day and can’t really think of much useful to say. If I were not so sleepy I might try to articulate what “men”–i.e., I–wish for or think they’re getting or whatever when they fall in love and marry. Well, no, on second thought, that’s probably not useful–I’m probably too atypical.
    Here is some food for thought, from Dennis Prager: men want to be admired, and women want to be loved by a man they admire.

    Reply
  13. Louise

    Yes, that’s the comment, Maclin. Thanks.
    I have to eat pizza now. Later…
    I just have to say that this is one thing I love about men – they’re often uncomplicated. (I was going to say simple, but that might be misunderstood).
    That idea from Dennis Prager sounds pretty true to me.
    There was a marriage book written by a protestant author (I think) which was about men wanting respect (which I guess is a pre-requisite for admiration) and women wanting love.
    Your pizza remark also reminds me of something I read in another book on marriage. The male writer was saying, men do not only want sex. After they’ve had sex, they want to sleep. After they’ce slept, they want to eat!
    (Also it looks like they want to eat after a stressful day at work, which sounds sensible for anyone of either sex.)

    Reply
  14. Louise

    Janet, is Angel in the House a poem we saw posted on this blog not that long ago? If so, I did read it, but might take another look.
    Sounds like I might need to read Edith Stein? (I haven’t yet).

    Reply
  15. Mac

    More later, but: I guess everybody has seen this?

    Reply
  16. Janet

    Louise, I have attempted to send you a paper about E. Stein called “Feminine Nature and Virtues,” by way of a Facebook message. I hope it works because it was originally in Word and I don’t have Word on this computer, so it looks like it changed it to Wordpad.
    We did have part of the poem on the blog a while back but the whole thing is very long. You can find it online.
    AMDG

    Reply
  17. Louise

    success, Janet – I read the whole thing(Stein). Brilliant!
    Maclin, yes, I love that picture!
    So much to exclaim!

    Reply
  18. Mac

    I’ve heard the men-want-respect/women-want-love idea before, and I think it’s pretty much true. Prager’s formula is basically the same idea, just made more precise.
    Men aren’t necessarily less complicated, we just pretend to be that way so y’all won’t try to make us talk about it. 🙂
    Seriously, I think women are often misled in their dealings with men by believing they have us figured out when they really don’t. As in the old line about “It ain’t what you don’t know, it’s what you do know that ain’t so.” Several years ago I heard a dj (female) on the radio running through a list of “men are like…” and “women are like…” jokes. I only remember one of them: “men are like zip-loc bags: they keep everything in but you can see right through them.” I thought it was funny, but later I started thinking that women who think that are probably actually getting a good deal wrong.

    Reply
  19. Janet

    Men aren’t necessarily less complicated, we just pretend to be that way so y’all won’t try to make us talk about it. 🙂
    That is great, great, great.
    AMDG

    Reply
  20. ex pat

    I recently rewatched a very early Woody Allen movie, Take the Money and Run, for my Film and Theology class (no, don’t ask). There is a funny scene where his girlfriend tries to make him discuss their problems in front of the entire gang of robbers.

    Reply
  21. Mac

    A lot of early Woody Allen was very good, or at least I thought so at the time. This certainly sounds promising.

    Reply
  22. ex pat

    It is wonderfully funny; though part of my enjoyment is remembering seeing it with my parents in a cinema in NYC in 1969: I still think it is recommendable. I was also pleasantly surprised by how funny Zelig is. I didn’t particularly like that one, at the time.

    Reply
  23. Mac

    I never saw that one. I’m one of those who regrets that Allen ever stopped doing pure comedy in the first place. His comedy was more serious than his serious, you might say. I think the last one I saw was Crimes and Misdemeanors, which I thought was pretty good, but not as good as a lot of critics seemed to. I didn’t see “What’s Up, Tiger Lily” until I was in my late 40s or so and thought it was very funny. That’s the mid-’60s one where he dubbed ridiculous dialog into a cheap Japanese crime movie.

    Reply

Leave a reply to ex pat Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress