At least there's a sliver of agreement! Ok you've agreed with something
quite significant even if, for you, the rhythm of poems is a matter of
little importance. For the poem that's a matter of crucial importance, it's
often the very hinge of a meaning disclosed or missed. Singers are quite
happy to stress syllables, say, a monosyllabic preposition, that would make
absolutely no sense in speech and would make nonsense of a poem read, and no
one listening to the song would mind a bit. Sometimes, as in Dylan, this
departure from speech rhythm is a matter of enjoyment - I can't think of an
example offhand but I know they exist as I've recalled thinking about it.
Here you don't need to repeat your argument about there being bad poems and
better song lyrics, no one who wasn't off their trolley would deny that -
you'd have to look far and wide for a better poem than Ariel's song in the
Tempest "Full fathom five..." (though it's telling that it was written by a
poet, whoever we think that poet was). What I'm drawing attention to is not
an 'exact' difference or a 'definition' but a direction or a tendency
distinguishing the two arts of poems and songwriting.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 4:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much
I agree with this, but it still doesn't take us any nearer to what exactly
is the difference between a poem and a song lyric (without the musical
overlay).
-------------------Original Message-------------------
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
Which goes back to my earlier point that the meter that plays off speech in
poems is often lost when it turns into song. And vice versa, again to do
with stress and rhythm, when a song is spoken there's a loss which not only
the loss of musical accompaniment.
|