|
Post by Cinemachinery on Dec 3, 2019 6:44:33 GMT
Three things here: 1) Offering a comparison of three incredible song writers with large catalogs based on a couple of lines from two songs is the OP boxing right at their fighting weight. Just some really sharp-edged analysis, there. 2) Discounting any song due to simple lyrics or nonsense phrasing reminds me of the exchange between Faulkner and Hemingway, wherein Hemingway skewered him aptly with “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?” Some of the most legendary, impactful and firmly-culturally-cemented works have revolved around simple phrases, imagery, and even nonsense. Saying it’s not “deep” (ugh) in nature betrays more a shallowness on the listener’s end. 3) “Obla di, obla da” is a fucking joyous, mood-changing bop, Only people dead inside fail to tap their foot and grin. It was John Lennon who said Paul was a dumbass who simply had a knack for coming up with catchy tunes. Who am I to disagree with John Lennon? Lennon also hated that Obla Di song. 🙄 Anyone even vaguely familiar with their relationship knows of the bias and animosity between them. They were two highly competitive songwriters, and Lennon was a bundle of depressed and abusive neuroses. Brilliant songwriter, yes. Objective judge of his best frenemy’s music? You need to do some reading. The fact that you opened with a fraction of lines from two songs amidst a sea of music then went with “Well John didn’t like it” illustrates the same dynamic you have with the topic of politics: not terribly versed on it, just there to use it as a springboard in fishing for contrarian attention. Begone with your “Who am I to disagree with the guy I think is ‘deep’” nonsense. That’s some watery basis for one’s own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Dec 3, 2019 7:02:46 GMT
Made me think of a lot of old Irish airs. Basically sung poetry. Some of them discard meter entirely; it’s just lyrical storytelling that meanders in and out of time signatures. Strip the music away and it’s still incredible verse, but singing it enhances it. I think the spoken word leaves a lot more of the emotional interpretation up to the listener. Singers tend to tint it with their own feels. Well, even the poetry itself can be stripped of its crucial element without changing the story: "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou?" vs. "Hey, where you at?" Wherefore means why, as in Why are you Romeo [Montague], the son of my father's greatest enemy? Why can't you be named Joe Shmoe, and be of no relation to anyone The House of Capulet means ill and vice versa? A rose by any other name.... So an apt versus would be more like "Why you got be named dat?".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 7:07:50 GMT
Well, even the poetry itself can be stripped of its crucial element without changing the story: "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou?" vs. "Hey, where you at?" Wherefore means why, as in Why are you Romeo [Montague], the son of my father's greatest enemy? Why can't you be named Joe Shmoe, and be of no relation to anyone The House of Capulet means ill and vice versa? A rose by any other name.... So an apt versus would be more like "Why you got be named dat?". Oh. lol. Smarter every day! I'm glad I didn't go with my first choice: "U up?"
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Dec 3, 2019 7:17:36 GMT
Wherefore means why, as in Why are you Romeo [Montague], the son of my father's greatest enemy? Why can't you be named Joe Shmoe, and be of no relation to anyone The House of Capulet means ill and vice versa? A rose by any other name.... So an apt versus would be more like "Why you got be named dat?". Oh. lol. Smarter every day! I'm glad I didn't go with my first choice: "U up?" Lol, I'm just an English major nerd; we have to be good for something. But yeah, most everybody's "why" but ours has "for" in it, usually "for what", like pourquoi or por qué or perché. German's is either "wherefore" or "therefore" depending on the phrasing. That's how they should've taught that line from Romeo to us when we were kids in school; if "wherefore" is the question, "therefore" is the answer not "there". I'll stop now.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 7:20:23 GMT
Oh. lol. Smarter every day! I'm glad I didn't go with my first choice: "U up?" Lol, I'm just an English major nerd; we have to be good for something. But yeah, most everybody's "why" but ours has "for" in it, usually "for what", like pourquoi or por qué or perché. German's is either "wherefore" or "therefore" depending on the phrasing. That's how they should've taught that line from Romeo to us when we were kids in school; if "wherefore" is the question, "therefore" is the answer not "there". I'll stop now. Interesting. Shouldn't "for what" be followed with "reason"? (Yes, I know the question mark goes inside the quotes. I'm a rebel that way.)
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Dec 3, 2019 7:40:36 GMT
Lol, I'm just an English major nerd; we have to be good for something. But yeah, most everybody's "why" but ours has "for" in it, usually "for what", like pourquoi or por qué or perché. German's is either "wherefore" or "therefore" depending on the phrasing. That's how they should've taught that line from Romeo to us when we were kids in school; if "wherefore" is the question, "therefore" is the answer not "there". I'll stop now. Interesting. Shouldn't "for what" be followed with "reason"? (Yes, I know the question mark goes inside the quotes. I'm a rebel that way.) No, you got it right. It goes outside the quotes there because you're not quoting someone asking "Reason?", you're quoting only the word "reason". But, nooooooooo, you're killing me with all that punctuation within parentheses, which I'm told is technically now only a "style choice", therefore entirely acceptable, but still... In the primary Romance languages, French, Spanish, and Italian, modifiers often go after the word they modify and also in other ways, things are done in reverse order of what we do, so their "for what" is essentially "what for" (what some kids say in place of "why") to which the answer is pretty much always "because". Don't know if that affects your "reason" question. Funfact: The Romance languages are technically derived from "Vulgar Latin".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 7:54:33 GMT
Interesting. Shouldn't "for what" be followed with "reason"? (Yes, I know the question mark goes inside the quotes. I'm a rebel that way.) No, you got it right. It goes outside the quotes there because you're not quoting someone asking "Reason?", you're quoting only the word "reason". But, nooooooooo, you're killing me with all that punctuation within parentheses, which I'm told is technically now only a "style choice", therefore entirely acceptable, but still... I've had that debate a few times before, and invariably, somewhere along the way, someone will link to an article or five that says it's a geographical difference or something. Like it's only a stupid American thing or whatever. At any rate, I've never heard the rule about punctuation in parentheses, or what for you're even talking about parentheses. (Maybe "parentheses" means "quotation marks" in your neck of the world.) Ha!
That makes sense, but how do they build suspense? You know, like... "It was a really big... scary... maneating... hedgehog!" I guess for them it's a people eater, one-eyed, one-horned, flying. Do you suppose that's why it's not called an American tickler?
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Dec 3, 2019 8:04:24 GMT
No, you got it right. It goes outside the quotes there because you're not quoting someone asking "Reason?", you're quoting only the word "reason". But, nooooooooo, you're killing me with all that punctuation within parentheses, which I'm told is technically now only a "style choice", therefore entirely acceptable, but still... I've had that debate a few times before, and invariably, somewhere along the way, someone will link to an article or five that says it's a geographical difference or something. Like it's only a stupid American thing or whatever. At any rate, I've never heard the rule about punctuation in parentheses, or what for you're even talking about parentheses. (Maybe "parentheses" means "quotation marks" in your neck of the world.) Ha!
That makes sense, but how do they build suspense? You know, like... "It was a really big... scary... maneating... hedgehog!" I guess for them it's a people eater, one-eyed, one-horned, flying. Do you suppose that's why it's not called an American tickler? Oh my god!! You win. I give. And as a great man once said, pass that around or quit smoking it. Shit, I hope that was you who replied that. I think so. And clean up the cat hair!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 8:09:10 GMT
I've had that debate a few times before, and invariably, somewhere along the way, someone will link to an article or five that says it's a geographical difference or something. Like it's only a stupid American thing or whatever. At any rate, I've never heard the rule about punctuation in parentheses, or what for you're even talking about parentheses. (Maybe "parentheses" means "quotation marks" in your neck of the world.) Ha!
That makes sense, but how do they build suspense? You know, like... "It was a really big... scary... maneating... hedgehog!" I guess for them it's a people eater, one-eyed, one-horned, flying. Do you suppose that's why it's not called an American tickler? Oh my god!! You win. I give. And as a great man once said, pass that around or quit smoking it. Shit, I hope that was you who replied that. I think so. And clean up the cat hair! Nope, wasn't me. And the more I clean up the cat hair, the more cat hair I have to clean up. But I don't care because I won. It's a good day.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 12:11:17 GMT
No, you don't. Go read the published notebooks of any great poets and see how much work goes into it. Go listen to/read poets talk about the craft of writing poetry and understand how much of it is like putting together a puzzle. Teens are inspired to write poetry, but teens almost always lack the skill to know how to fully express that inspiration in the craft. Yeah, Keats famously talked about "words flowing through him," but his notebooks tell a different tale given how much editing he did. So whatever "inspiration" he may have had in the moment was heavily tempered by thoughtful craft afterward; and even much of his "inspiration" came from the study of Shakespeare's sonnets and his critique of what he felt worked and didn't work in them. So even "inspiration" is, in large part, tied to an understanding of the craft of poetry itself. The notion that the best poems ever written weren't "hard work" is just sheer ignorance, and plain false. But I know this combination of ignorance expressed as falsities is kinda your thing. All the best poets didn't think of it as 'hard work'. They loved it. Yeah, they pretty much did. Who says you can't love hard work? The difficulty is what makes the satisfaction so much stronger when it comes out good.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 12:22:13 GMT
Song lyrics are almost never as deep as actual poetry, and that's as it should be. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I suppose I could if it's being read/spoken, but singing a poem can enhance its depth, and in some cases, even create it. Delivery is important, especially in the arena of poetry and lyrics. Technically, any poetry can be set to music the way Schubert did with Goethe and any number of great German poets, so I'm trying to make the distinction between lyrics written specifically for a song, and poetry that's written with the initial intention of being read. The reason the former typically isn't as deep as the latter is because the latter is trying to say everything it has to say solely with language, which means using form and diction to the utmost potential. For lyrics (or plays/libretto for musicals/operas), the idea is that the music is going to be the primary expressive vehicle. If the language is as expressive as it is the best written poetry, there's less for the music to actually do. WH Auden was one of the best poets of the 20th century and he wrote very insightfully about this after writing several librettos; he said his first attempts were bad because they were too poetic, the nuance of the language clashed too much with what the music was trying to do. His best attempt was The Rake's Progress (set to great music by Igor Stravinsky), and it was, by far, his simplest and least poetic. Lyrics are typically the same when they're written to be sung; songwriters don't have to think of the perfect word or perfect rhyme or perfect meter because the music's going to be doing most of the heavy lifting. Not to mention most songwriters know very little about what makes great poetry to begin with (Dylan being one notable exception).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 12:27:55 GMT
Now post the lyrics of some of your hits that have been remembered for decades. 2) Discounting any song due to simple lyrics or nonsense phrasing reminds me of the exchange between Faulkner and Hemingway, wherein Hemingway skewered him aptly with “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?” Some of the most legendary, impactful and firmly-culturally-cemented works have revolved around simple phrases, imagery, and even nonsense. Saying it’s not “deep” (ugh) in nature betrays more a shallowness on the listener’s end. On this note, two of my favorite nonsense poems:
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 12:48:07 GMT
Please, in the name of all that is holy, grace us with a sample of this undoubtedly deep poetry. I do love a good turn of phrase. Let’s see those chops. I'm not a masochist. You just want to ridicule them, regardless of how good they are.
My poems were written from inspiration and from my heart -- not by textbook instructions or to mimic/copy other poets' writing. They were not written from 'hard work'. Inspiration flows. It's not forced or drawn out of a textbook.
There are people who are captured by the first line, or maybe even the first word of a poem, and that makes them want to read the entire poem.
Did you read all of Yojimbo's poem? Why don't give us your astute critique of it? Post them on an anonymous poetry forum and get feedback. Trust me, they'll let you know if it's good or not and you don't have to worry about any bias from us. Of course since your poems were "inspired" and "from the heart" this should be obvious to anyone who reads it. Why, right now I'm seeing in my mind's eye you posting that poetry on a place like Eratosphere and everyone there just gushing over the depth of inspiration and heart. I'm surprised YOU didn't give an "astute critique" of my poem/excerpt. I mean, I posted it fully expecting you to ridicule it, but I'm used to critical abuse (poets/poetry critics can be vicious, so you either toughen your skin or stop writing and/or sharing).
|
|
|
Post by RomyLovesMick on Dec 3, 2019 14:19:33 GMT
Or maybe you're just a snob. You are implying that the majority of people who enjoy reading poetry or moved by song lyrics are somehow ignorant for being touched by it because they don't know how to 'measure depth'. Dream on. Since you've read and studied it by rote, I'm sure you can easily write a poem. Why don't you post one of your poems? It's nothing to do with being a snob, you just don't know what you're talking about but constantly make claims as if you do. Yes, when you don't know about something you are ignorant about that something, that's literally the definition of the word. Being "touched" by something doesn't make you an expert on that something. This is pretty basic, obvious stuff. Writing and studying poetry are two completely different disciplines. The best critics/academics are rarely the best poets and vice versa. That said, yes, I've written plenty of poetry in my day, but not much I consider to be very good. A big reason I don't consider it very good is precisely because I know how to measure "depth" and have high standards for quality that I rarely feel I meet. Writing good poetry is hard work, and even with hard work it's not guarantee you'll produce anything of quality. But, fine, this is probably my favorite of what I've written (caveat: it's an excerpt from a much longer piece): Eva Yojimboheeeeey is apparently unfamiliar with the poems of Robert Frost, or she would have seen his influence in the poem you posted. There are even direct nods to Frost's poem "Design" - the moth caught in the spider's web and held "like a kite" and "Design/Only governs in a thing so small," almost a direct quote. I think you want the reader to make the connection between your poem and Frost's "Design." Is "darkness visible" meant to be a reference to William Styron's memoir? I might have other questions and comments, but this is an intriguing work that invites more than the single reading I've had the time to give it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 14:37:42 GMT
It's nothing to do with being a snob, you just don't know what you're talking about but constantly make claims as if you do. Yes, when you don't know about something you are ignorant about that something, that's literally the definition of the word. Being "touched" by something doesn't make you an expert on that something. This is pretty basic, obvious stuff. Writing and studying poetry are two completely different disciplines. The best critics/academics are rarely the best poets and vice versa. That said, yes, I've written plenty of poetry in my day, but not much I consider to be very good. A big reason I don't consider it very good is precisely because I know how to measure "depth" and have high standards for quality that I rarely feel I meet. Writing good poetry is hard work, and even with hard work it's not guarantee you'll produce anything of quality. But, fine, this is probably my favorite of what I've written (caveat: it's an excerpt from a much longer piece): Eva Yojimbo heeeeey is apparently unfamiliar with the poems of Robert Frost, or she would have seen his influence in the poem you posted. There are even direct nods to Frost's poem "Design" - the moth caught in the spider's web and held "like a kite" and "Design/Only governs in a thing so small," almost a direct quote. I think you want the reader to make the connection between your poem and Frost's "Design." Is "darkness visible" meant to be a reference to William Styron's memoir? I might have other questions and comments, but this is an intriguing work that invites more than the single reading I've had the time to give it. I knew she'd be unfamiliar, but I'm delighted you recognized it! Design is one of my favorite poems and I'm absolutely quoting/referencing it there (I quote numerous other poems/poets in the entire piece). Frost used it as a metaphor for Intelligent Design VS Evolution, but I'm using it more as a metaphor for the creative process. "Darkness visible" is actually a quote from Paradise Lost after Satan has been cast into hell: Anyway, as I said that piece is an excerpt from a much longer work, by far the longest thing I've ever written. The entire thing is 3400 words and 448 lines. It's split into three sections, with the longest middle section being a narrative about my experience with devastating floods/tornadoes living in Oklahoma, while the opening and closing sections are more meditative. That excerpt is from the last section, and it undoubtedly makes more sense in context, but I do believe it's the best thing I've written.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 3, 2019 14:45:27 GMT
I'm not a masochist. You just want to ridicule them, regardless of how good they are.
My poems were written from inspiration and from my heart -- not by textbook instructions or to mimic/copy other poets' writing. They were not written from 'hard work'. Inspiration flows. It's not forced or drawn out of a textbook.
There are people who are captured by the first line, or maybe even the first word of a poem, and that makes them want to read the entire poem.
Did you read all of Yojimbo's poem? Why don't give us your astute critique of it? Post them on an anonymous poetry forum and get feedback. Trust me, they'll let you know if it's good or not and you don't have to worry about any bias from us. Of course since your poems were "inspired" and "from the heart" this should be obvious to anyone who reads it. Why, right now I'm seeing in my mind's eye you posting that poetry on a place like Eratosphere and everyone there just gushing over the depth of inspiration and heart. I'm surprised YOU didn't give an "astute critique" of my poem/excerpt. I mean, I posted it fully expecting you to ridicule it, but I'm used to critical abuse (poets/poetry critics can be vicious, so you either toughen your skin or stop writing and/or sharing). I have.
I got glowing reviews and feedback. I wouldn't here though out of spite.
To be honest, I didn't read your poem yet. I did peruse it, but it's too long. From what I did read of it, I couldn't tell what it's supposed to be about. Other than that, it looks very 'textbook', i.e., very well-structured and resembling the cadence of those you have read, studied, and styles you seem to have copied.
I don't usually read long poems unless I'm captured by the first line or paragraph.
My poems aren't lengthy, and I haven't written any in years. Mine were all written mostly in my teens and 20s -- one or two in my early 30s. But I haven't written any since, because I haven't been inspired to write any since then. I wouldn't write any otherwise. I can't 'force' myself to write one out of 'work'.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 3, 2019 14:45:56 GMT
His best work is from the 60s and 70s
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 3, 2019 14:48:04 GMT
It was John Lennon who said Paul was a dumbass who simply had a knack for coming up with catchy tunes. Who am I to disagree with John Lennon? Lennon also hated that Obla Di song. 🙄 Anyone even vaguely familiar with their relationship knows of the bias and animosity between them. They were two highly competitive songwriters, and Lennon was a bundle of depressed and abusive neuroses. Brilliant songwriter, yes. Objective judge of his best frenemy’s music? You need to do some reading. The fact that you opened with a fraction of lines from two songs amidst a sea of music then went with “Well John didn’t like it” illustrates the same dynamic you have with the topic of politics: not terribly versed on it, just there to use it as a springboard in fishing for contrarian attention. Begone with your “Who am I to disagree with the guy I think is ‘deep’” nonsense. That’s some watery basis for one’s own opinions. I am quite familiar with that, and just because John couldn't stand Paul (for good reason), that doesn't mean he didn't also dislike that song.
Since you are so familiar with them, then you must know why John couldn't stand Paul.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 3, 2019 14:49:33 GMT
Samples: "Someone's knocking at the door...somebody's ringing the bell. Someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell. Do me a favor -- open the door and let them in." "Obla di, obla da, life goes on, yeah, lalalala life goes on." Something tells me John and George wrote the deep stuff. Some Beatles songs which I love for their lyrics: Norwegian Wood - John Lennon She Came In Through the Bathroom Window - Paul McCartney A Day in the Life - John Lennon Eleanor Rigby - Paul McCartney Rocky Raccoon - Paul McCartney In My Life - John Lennon I do think Let It Be is a good lyric, and I think he said it came to him in a dream -- just as easily as all his others.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 3, 2019 15:13:23 GMT
Post them on an anonymous poetry forum and get feedback. Trust me, they'll let you know if it's good or not and you don't have to worry about any bias from us. Of course since your poems were "inspired" and "from the heart" this should be obvious to anyone who reads it. Why, right now I'm seeing in my mind's eye you posting that poetry on a place like Eratosphere and everyone there just gushing over the depth of inspiration and heart. I'm surprised YOU didn't give an "astute critique" of my poem/excerpt. I mean, I posted it fully expecting you to ridicule it, but I'm used to critical abuse (poets/poetry critics can be vicious, so you either toughen your skin or stop writing and/or sharing). I have. I got glowing reviews and feedback. I wouldn't here though out of spite. To be honest, I didn't read your poem yet. I did peruse it, but it's too long. From what I did read of it, I couldn't tell what it's supposed to be about. Other than that, it looks very 'textbook', i.e., very well-structured and resembling the cadence of those you have read, studied, and styles you seem to have copied.
I don't usually read long poems unless I'm captured by the first line or paragraph.
My poems aren't lengthy, and I haven't written any in years. Mine were all written mostly in my teens and 20s -- one or two in my early 30s. But I haven't written any since, because I haven't been inspired to write any since then. I wouldn't write any otherwise. I can't 'force' myself to write one out of 'work'.
Then link to the forum where you got "glowing reviews and feedback," or, better yet, link to a journal that you submitted them to. I'd love for you to post them on Eratosphere. Too long? So you haven't bothered to read Paradise Lost? The Prelude? Don Juan? Four Quartets? Comedian of the Letter C? Changing Light at Sandover? Considering you've never read a poetry textbook you're in no position to say "it looks very textbook," nor what the cadence resembles (or doesn't). You seem to think that hard work and inspiration are mutually exclusive. They are not. I only ever write when I'm "inspired" to write as well, I don't force myself to write just to write. That's not the point, though, because even when you're inspired to write there should be hard work that goes into it: the careful consideration of diction, line breaks, form, voice, tone, figurative language, allusions, etc. If you want me to post some short stuff I've written that certainly doesn't come from any "textbook" (beyond the fact that they're cinquains), try these--each five lines is separate poem; title is first line:
|
|