I was going to remark to Mark that not only are 'music' and 'song' contested in poetry but so is 'poetry'. There are people very happy to have created poetry devoid of poetry and proudly declared as such.  I can't seek a name for exactly what it is that is omitted from that formula without ending up with "lyrical", which indicates a certain kind of emotional investment in the language. How otherwise am I to acknowledge that it is poetry? So my answer to your final remark is yes. I don't mind what on earth people write, but for me I insist on homing in on that investment, I can't get any nourishment without it. Nothing to do with being avant-garde or not. 

I'd be very interested to know how M. Morris's "Lyric and Polis" structure worked out, though knowing the school she comes from I'd fear the worst. 

Peter

 

On 21 Nov 2014, at 15:28, Tim Allen wrote:

Peter, how can it be a 'factor of all poetry' and a 'necessary part of any definition of poetry'? Some poetry is not lyrical, so do you mean that such poetry still has an element of lyric within it somewhere or do you mean that if it does not have that element then for you it is not poetry, or failed poetry?

Cheer

Tim

On 20 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Peter Riley wrote:

For me lyric/al remains most useful in its sense of musicality, suitable for singing or partaking of sung qualities, song-like and therefore a factor of all poetry, a necessary part of any definition of poetry.