I can never read song lyrics and much prefer listening to them. With poetry I still love reading it and prose. When I worked in a multi media some years ago I learned that writing poems and songs are chalk and cheese. Leonard Cohen's songs are great but his poetry leaves me cold. Yet his novels are top class. 

In a religous context often great sermons + good vibes are ruined by very weak hymns. Even in more modern 20th century religous movements the music can be poor. This goes across the religous range as church visiting is a hobby of mine. Music in theatre is also of interest but getting older means one has one then two tin ears. What once was a pleasure fades with illness and age.

sc

Turn that frown upside down

On Sunday, 30 October 2016, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes to everything in your long paragraph Jeff. 

I also need to say that I got the title of the album wrong, it's Good As I Been to You, which along with World Gone Wrong was a brilliant performance of traditional songs with just Dylan on guitar and harmonica. (I hope that by saying brilliant I haven't put the man on the pedestal, Robin, - it's just the way we show our appreciation of something good.) Somebody else might use the word boring or god-awful - so it goes, it's not important.

But going back and explaining why my argument does not rely on the lyric/poem thing is more difficult - I'd have to go back and find the bits and reform them (which I might if I get the time). In a very general way it's my way of explaining why I agree with your sentence below - "I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do."

Thanks to what Peter was saying about what Denise Riley says I am in full agreement about that same distinction between the possibilities of poem and song that you have come around to. The distinction might be endlessly compromised but nevertheless for a certain type of poetry on the page it holds true.

Cheers

Tim 
On 29 Oct 2016, at 17:07, Jeffrey Side wrote:

> Tim, not all of your posts were addressed to me, so I’ll respond to those that don’t as well as to those that do. I’ll put my responses beneath quoted passages by you.
> 
> “There has been a tendency in these conversation towards an unwillingness to separate off parts - if someone was to praise Dylan's guitar playing on The Good Is Gone album that would not be a belittling of his vocal performance or the strength and mystery of the songs (which were all traditional of course - again with spare and suggestive narratives and imagery which far outshine a good deal of finicky literary poetry that pretends to be doing similar). Of course with someone like Dylan it all becomes one, and is supposed to, and I have never denied that - for me it's just not the point.”
> 
> Personally, I’m willing to separate parts of Dylan’s art. There are, indeed, distinct elements of it in play. Each can be appreciated separately in my view, but it is the gathering together of them in one performance that makes them effective. I’ve read his lyrics on the page, and though they do have striking turns of phrase, and utilise poetic ambiguity far more effectively than much of modern mainstream written poetry does, the naked text on the page seems sparse and dry. Maybe this isn’t the case with all his lyrics—how could it be; he’s written so many of them, that many will compare favourably with written poetry when read as texts. His lyrics are, indeed, poetic and do contain poetic elements like metaphor, allusion, symbolism etc. It is only that the placement of the words and phrases on the page, don’t read as smoothly, as, say, Eliot’s ‘Prufrock’. To say this, isn’t denying that they are not poetic or literary, etc. just that they don’t read as pleasingly as they sound when sung. A poor comparison (I can’t think of a better one) is that between the performance of a play and the text of the play being read as a story. Or the watching of a film with the sound turned down and the colour (if it is in colour) removed. Both art forms need their other elements to fully be effective, as does Dylan’s art. 
> 
> “If you look at my reasons for backing up the Dylan thing you should see that my argument is not dependant on this lyric/poem thing.”
> 
> Can you explain this? I must have missed that part of the discussion. 
> 
> “I think you are right on that Jeff. If Dylan was on the Nobel committee Dylan would not have been given the prize. But that's just his opinion, I or anyone else can have another.”
> 
> I’m not against him having a Nobel—though I know you aren’t saying I am. I’m just stating that for the record. He does, indeed, deserve to have one. I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do. 
> 
> As I said to Jamie, a few years ago I would have been in full agreement with you. But I don’t see Dylan as needing to be defended anymore regarding his needing to be recognised as a “written poet”, as I don’t see written poetry being superior to song.