 |
 |
I agree totally, Tim. For years I've been arguing that songs are poetry. I'm glad the issue is now getting some serious attention, at least on this list. Here’s a link to some interviews with songwriters I did about how they view the differences between songs and poems. It’s about 10 years old, but some might find it interesting. http://www.argotistonline.co.uk/Interviews%20with%20Songwriters.htm If anyone is interested in writing an article for me on this subject, let me know. Email me at: argotistonline AT gmail DOT com I’ve dealt with it in some articles I’ve written, but not in depth. And the older I get, I can’t seen to summon the energy to get involved in any extended debates about it again, hence my lack of contributions to this current discussion. On 22 Oct 2016, at 12:58, Tim Allen wrote: I agree with David with regard to this logic. Poetical qualities (however we define them) are within the lyric whether it is with music or not - they are therefore 'literature'. I tried to say this early in the discussion re Dylan, maybe the music helps put the phrase in the brain but once it's there the phrase, line, lyric stays in the brain as words and what it is that those words do to you - how that cannot be literature I just don't get, unless a definition of 'literature' is so limited that it contradicts itself e.g. poor poems on the page. On 22 Oct 2016, at 12:47, David Lace wrote: True, Robin that is the “dictionary” distinction between them. But Jamie seems to be saying that without the music the lyrics of a song are without any “poetical” qualities. But as I said before, many poems are without poetical qualities, yet are considered literature. I’m not saying here, by the way, that all songs are poetical, many are obviously not, but many are.