Another quick lyrics question

[crow]

So, here's another likely-wrong idea I'm trying to talk myself out of:

The basic semantic unit of poetry is the word, whereas the basic semantic unit of lyrics is the colloquial phrase.

Dumb as it gets, or is there something to it?

[rayheinrich]

So, here's another likely-wrong idea I'm trying to talk myself out of:

The basic semantic unit of poetry is the word, whereas the basic semantic unit of lyrics is the colloquial phrase.

Dumb as it gets, or is there something to it?

The semantic unit of poetry (overwhelmingly, not exclusively) is the line and/or -- depending
on a specific poem's content/structure -- the stanza. Sure, lines can be composed of a single word and
stanzas a single line (most of my poems are rife with such), but the principle remains the same.

And the same goes for lyrics because they are poetry -- a specific category of poetry, but poetry
nonetheless.

And "phrase" , depending on how you define it, could be either a line, a stanza, or -- arguably --
another semantic unit used in poetry.

Of course, 'line', 'phrase', 'stanza', etc. are crude divisions** made for convenience's sake. 
Since semantic units are a measure of information/meaning, their boundaries vary and
many times overlap.

Ray


*A "song" -- the definition of "song" that Shel Silverstein's "A Boy Named Sue" fits -- is a poem set to music.
A consistently rhythmic poem is a song. My favorite type of poem that fits this definition is a chant.
(And as sure as I love Reggae, I love to write these.)

**Consider enjambment or a typical E.E. Cummings poem.

P.S. And where the hell did "colloquial" come from? It doesn't, to my mind, coincide with the
logic of the of the discussion.

[Quixilated]

I may be misunderstanding the topic up for debate ...

I view lyrics vs. poetry in light of who is its master. Poetry's high priest is finding the perfect balance between meaning and form. Poetry is all about what the poem says, and how it says it. The words are potent, the structure contrived to hit your brain at just the right angle. Lyrics kowtow to sound. The meaning and complexity of form are secondary to the way it hits the ear at just the right angle, with (or even without) music. What would be an uninspired refrain in poetry becomes a genius, unforgettable hook for lyrics. Not all lyrics are poetry, and not all poetry could be lyrics. A lyrical poem contains enough meaning and structure to stand on it's own without music, but still has a pleasing musical quality that would make the reader sort of hum his own background music.

Anyway, that's how it's all worked out in my brain. Probably not at all what you were talking about. My ability to misunderstand a question can be quite astounding at times. *sigh* But I do so love these conversations. I learn so much from everyone else's insights.
-Quix

[milo]

Interestingly enough, most classic forms of poetry started out as song forms. The French forms (villanelle, rondeau, triplet, etc) are known as chansome forms (songs) and sonnet means little song. A good poem should focus at least as much on sound as a song and I would say more on sound than meaning.

[tectak]

So, here's another likely-wrong idea I'm trying to talk myself out of:

The basic semantic unit of poetry is the word, whereas the basic semantic unit of lyrics is the colloquial phrase.

Dumb as it gets, or is there something to it?

Hi crow,
have you ever given serious thought to not thinking?
What meaning attaches to "colloquial" in your peculiar premise?
I have no idea what the question is about, or for, or even "is".
The sooner you give yourself a good talking to the sooner you can concentrate on the Grand Unification Theory...or get a parrot.
You wrote some good poetry.
Very best,
tectak

[rayheinrich]

Interestingly enough,  most classic forms of poetry started out as song forms.
The French forms (villanelle, rondeau,  triplet, etc) are known as chansome forms
(songs) and sonnet means little song. A good poem should focus at least as much
on sound as a song and I would say more on sound than meaning.

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit!

While I kinda know a bit of all that, I'd never put it together as you did above.
Of course! I've screwed the hierarchy up: Lyrics AREN'T a subset of poems.

A poem is a song.

The words of a poem are its lyrics.

I usually resist categorizing a piece of writing as prose or as poetry as it seems
a smooth continuum to me. But if, in the future, someone should ask:  I'll
now be able to bring them to their knees by shear force of intellect. (And while I'd
certainly neglect to credit you, you can take solace in the fact that God not only
knows, but will punish me for it as well -- I hope it's a good spanking, his golden
cane roughly caressing my vulnerable bottom... too much to expect?)

[crow]

So, here's where I'm at. This is what I think I know, stated abruptly, regarding how lyrics and poetry differ.

Poetic meter is determined by inherent stresses, and lyrical meter is determined by beats. All the lyrics writing books have a version of that.

My own version is that lyrics have three audiences: the melodist, the composer, and the performed-to audience, whereas poetry has only one audience: the reader.

That said, I think there's a longer, more interesting (and super-weird) answer, and the question about words vs colloquialisms might help me prove it.

The long answer is my own, and I have yet to locate any authority that agrees w me. (Also, my phrasing is still unwieldy, so sorry for that.)

The long answer is that reading words-for-music as poetry yields genre, melody (including vocal range), and the time signature, whereas reading those words as lyrics yields verses/choruses/bridges, instrumentation, dynamics, and styling.

So . . . I'm at least pretty comfortable saying poetry and lyrics aren't the same thing . . . As to whether colloquial phrases (e.g., down the street, hit me with your best shot, I came across a river, I'll keep my eye out for you) are the building blocks of lyrics, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I can think of very few songs that aren't a bunch of colloquial phrases stuck together. But my thought is, if you google a phrase or clause from song lyrics, you're more likely to get search results than if you google a phrase or clause from a poem. And I don't think that's because songs aren't as well written, I think it's because the colloquialism has access to musicality in a way that non-colloquial phrases don't.

[ellajam]

I think you get more hits for lyrics than poetry because music is a money maker and poetry isn't. Music is more popular and that's what spreads on the web.

[crow]

Sorry, I wasn't just talking top 40. Here's a for-instance,

Patty Griffin
Rowing Song

As I row, row, row
Going so slow, slow, slow
Just down below me is the old sea
Just down below me is the old sea
Nobody knows, knows, knows
So many things, things, so
So out of range
Sometimes so strange
Sometimes so sweet
Sometimes so lonely

The further I go
More letters from home never arrive
And I'm alone
All of the way
All of the way
Alone and alive

You just have to go, go, go
Where I don't know, know, know
This is the thing
Somebody told me
A long time ago

The further I go
More letters from home never arrive
And I'm alone
All of the way
All of the way
Alone and alive

---

What I mean is that the phrases in lyrics tend to be drawn from a pool of recurrent expressions, whereas the phrases in poems tend to avoid such phrases.

[rayheinrich]

Anyone who presumes that song lyrics contain more clichés than poems -- not that I'm talking about
different beasts, which I ain't -- has either listened to too many songs or read too little poetry.

-ray

P.S. I'm not trying to be mean so much as I just don't understand where you're trying to go with this.

[crow]

I don't think I said cliches, but I'm willing to take your point. Also, I did my best to say where I was trying to go, but I'm happy to clarify if there's parts of that explanation that're unclear

---

I think what this thread has taught me is that "colloquialism" and "colloquial phrase" are the wrong terms. But it's also made me think, along with certain other exchanges, that the discussion forum dislikes high-falutin questions and questions without much definition. So, I'll make sure not to repost until I have some thoughts that aren't wholly abstract.

---

I will say this, though, lyrics and poetry have rhyming in common. That's about it.

[billy]

you say high falutin, i say not of interest to me. nothing more nothing less, i have no knowledge apart from knowing what i like, Chinese language i think can be agreed is not hi falutin in general but i don't answer questions about Chinese either :

i would say that the basic unit of any language is the letter. i presume lyrics are language? if so then i say the letter is the basic unit. after that the word and after that the line or part line. you say semantic [which relates to the meaning of a word, phrase or other collection of intelligible collections of letters.] in which case i still say the letter. they need to be formed in a way to have meaning. after that, all you have is language. be it poetry/song or prose. most can be and often are interchangeable. as for colloquialisms... they are often a part of what ever type or language we write, as often is dialect. my shout out is
as dumb as it gets

---

I think what this thread has taught me is that "colloquialism" and "colloquial phrase" are the wrong terms. But it's also made me think, along with certain other exchanges, that the discussion forum dislikes high-falutin questions and questions without much definition. So, I'll make sure not to repost until I have some thoughts that aren't wholly abstract.

---

I will say this, though, lyrics and poetry have rhyming in common. That's about it.

[shemthepenman]

i have tried for the last few days to understand this question. came close, then lost it again(:

there is a difference between lyrics and poetry, and that is music. the fact is, this difference has nothing to do with the reader. i mean, the reader, given some words on a page, may be able to detect if they are reading poetry or lyrics (having not come across the page of words before), but that is just based on formula, and yep, even great lyricists often apply cliché and whatnot. if you read the lyrics to 'jumping jack flash' for example, these have the 'colloquial phrases', and it sounds like lyrics (no matter how poetic); but, then again, everyone knows that song, and reads it that way. the fact is, the difference is in how one writes lyrics and poetry. and to be honest, i don't think there is a real difference apart from the music. when i have written songs in the past, i have sometimes started with the music, a melody and then written the words, and of course the melody is going to influence the style and the particular words i write. but often, i have a melody and simply used that melody with an old poem, cutting it a bit, trimming, etc., to make it fit.

i must confess, that it is true that a lot more lyrics use colloquialisms than poetry, but i think it is simply a superficial thing, and nothing incredibly meaningful. most popular songs are based on a blues root, which emphasised the natural spoken word. in fact, most music today is folk music, so it makes sense. this doesn't, however, imply that that is is the only way to do it. not only because of the words but also because beats and a blues root isn't the only way to go about music. for example:

Yes I'm thinking of this, yes I am
Puddletown Tom was the underground
Hold you tighter so close, yes you are
Please hold on to the steel rail

Colonel with gloves draft leaches
He isn't loved on 'Sundays Mail'
All the fives crock Henrietta
She's a mean go-getter
Gotta write her a letter.

Did I wink, did i winking of this, I am
Yum, yummy, yum, dough, yummy, yum, yom, yom...
Yes, I'm thinking of this, in steam
Skeleton kissed to the steel rail

Fleas in Pamela gloves drafts leaches
Chugging along with a funnel of steam
All the fives crock Henrietta
She's mean go-getter
Gotta write her a letter...

[Magpie]

Hi Crow,

I have also been pondering this question for a couple of days or so and also much like Shem I thought had a grasp on a concept that... yeah, you know the story. Truth is I don't think I could answer this question satisfactorily and I probably never intended to. But it gives me the chance to say what I kind of wanted to say the last time you asked a question about lyrics that also seemed to baffle people and question logic. I fully understand your current interest in lyric writing but it seems to me that you are approaching it from an almost mathematical point of view and looking to try and break it into neat formulaic structures that can be used to slot in to another song at the appropriate place.
The fact that this whole approach would seem to be going against the way that I perceive your approach to poetry baffles even more. I've read your poems and they are good and they don't strike me as the product of such formulaic thinking.
Shem said it perfectly in the first sentence of his statement, "there is a difference between lyrics and poetry, and that is music", if the music is no good then the lyrics are irrelevant. Good lyrics can't save a bad song, but good music can. If the music is good and the lyrics are good then the ultimate aim has been achieved. But because the lyrics depend on the music then I believe they should be written in a 'musical' way. And by this I really mean that they should be natural, they should sound natural and not stick out as a separate entity. Because of this then rules and formulas should be thrown as far away as possible from any process that involves lyric writing.
Listen to a song in a language that you don't understand and then consider your question, listen to an instrumental piece of music and concentrate on the lyrics, it's not as daft an idea as what it sounds. Good music flows like water, it fits naturally into what ever space it is allowed fill, it doesnt have straight lines or perfect right angles and neither does nature. You wouldn't try and draw a tree by using a set square and ruler.
Please don't take any of this the wrong way, it is not meant as an attack on you or your methods for writing lyrics. Like I said before I appreciate the fact that you have a current interest in that area. In some ways I would say that it is possibly more difficult writing lyrics than it is writing poetry. I play guitar and I try and write poetry but putting the two together is not a place that I like to go. It perplexes me and whenever I've tried it I manage to come up with a shit poem that becomes a burden to any melody, rhythm or harmony, so I just don't try any more.
It is an art and it's not an easy art but the fact that it is art and not maths means it has to be approached in an artistic way. Yeah, bridges, verse, chorus, verse and middle eights all seem to contradict what I'm saying in many ways but even someone with no knowledge of that terminology would probably still know those concepts in songs, just not in a way that they could accurately describe it technically.
Whenever someone who doesn't play an instrument discovers that certain people, like Jimi Hendrix for example, played an instrument yet was unable to read music they are amazed and start to think along the lines of genius to understand how it is possible. Whereas most musicians would probably say that it is the least important aspect of music. It's equations and formulas so that it can be trapped on a sheet of paper, it's useful in an intellectual way of documentation, but it's not music.

It's just a thought that I wanted to share.

Mark

[NobodyNothing]

Song lyrics (putting quality aside for the moment) have the advantage of music.  Any poet worth their weight in words is envious of music's ability to viscerally connect and engage the listener in an almost effortless fashion through beat, rhythm and melody.  I sometimes find myself miffed as to why so many poets write without a sense of music, write too "talky" of poetry, too "prosy" of poetry, almost as if to spite the musical element which could potentially be woven within it.  I admit to being bored with most poetry that I read for this very reason.

[rayheinrich]

Song lyrics (putting quality aside for the moment) have the advantage of music.  
Any poet worth their weight in words is envious of music's ability to viscerally
connect and engage the listener in an almost effortless fashion through beat,
rhythm and melody.  I sometimes find myself miffed as to why so many poets
write without a sense of music, write too "talky" of poetry, too "prosy" of poetry,
almost as if to spite the musical element which could potentially be woven within it.
I admit to being bored with most poetry that I read for this very reason.

Yes, I often wonder the same thing. Though it depends on what type of poem
you're writing. If I'm writing for spoken poetry, I feel the same attention to rhythm as lyrics
set to music is essential. Now-a-days this is the only type (95%) that I (try to) write.
And these poems don't actually have to be spoken out loud. My aim, even though it's
written on a page, is to get the reader to move her/his lips as they read it.

But this isn't the only type of poetry, there are many very effective poems that are "prosy".
Imagery, emotion, ideas have their own rhythms. Paintings are often described as having
rhythmic patterns, emotions come in waves, ideas in flashes. And any of these prosy poems,
when read aloud on stage, can be turned into music when delivered by an able speaker.

One of the interesting things about poems is that they do not require a staff filled with notes
sitting above them. Truly wonderful ones contain the notes within themselves.

Magic - Magic - Magic

[NobodyNothing]

Song lyrics (putting quality aside for the moment) have the advantage of music.  
Any poet worth their weight in words is envious of music's ability to viscerally
connect and engage the listener in an almost effortless fashion through beat,
rhythm and melody.  I sometimes find myself miffed as to why so many poets
write without a sense of music, write too "talky" of poetry, too "prosy" of poetry,
almost as if to spite the musical element which could potentially be woven within it.
I admit to being bored with most poetry that I read for this very reason.

Yes, I often wonder the same thing. Though it depends on what type of poem
you're writing. If I'm writing for spoken poetry, I feel the same attention to rhythm as lyrics
set to music is essential. Now-a-days this is the only type (95%) that I (try to) write.
And these poems don't actually have to be spoken out loud. My aim, even though it's
written on a page, is to get the reader to move her/his lips as they read it.

But this isn't the only type of poetry, there are many very effective poems that are "prosy".
Imagery, emotion, ideas have their own rhythms. Paintings are often described as having
rhythmic patterns, emotions come in waves, ideas in flashes. And any of these prosy poems,
when read aloud on stage, can be turned into music when delivered by an able speaker.

One of the interesting things about poems is that they do not require a staff filled with notes
sitting above them. Truly wonderful ones contain the notes within themselves.

Magic - Magic - Magic  

Nice response.  I'm so brain-dead of late I can't think of a well written reply.  My statement was kind of a generality, and there's always roadkill involved in such a thing.  My whole approach to poetry when I first truly discovered it was to write it "as if" it was going to be performed.  Oftentimes I used "classic" forms, but I had it in my head the way in which I would perform/enunciate it.  I was into the performance poetry thing (kind of a bigger deal where I lived).  

I would oftentimes read poems in, say, "The New Yorker", and I would say to myself "why would anyone want to read this?  You're competing against film, rock, rap, etc..."  I felt like poetry had to be reinvented for wider appeal.  I didn't want it to die.

Anyway...like I said, I'm pretty brain-dead of late.  

[rayheinrich]

Nice response.  I'm so brain-dead of late I can't think of a well written reply.  My statement
was kind of a generality, and there's always roadkill involved in such a thing.  My whole
approach to poetry when I first truly discovered it was to write it "as if" it was going to be
performed.  Oftentimes I used "classic" forms, but I had it in my head the way in which I
would perform/enunciate it.  I was into the performance poetry thing (kind of a bigger deal
where I lived).  

I would oftentimes read poems in, say, "The New Yorker", and I would say to myself "why
would anyone want to read this?  You're competing against film, rock, rap, etc..."  I felt like
poetry had to be reinvented for wider appeal.  I didn't want it to die.

Anyway...like I said, I'm pretty brain-dead of late.  

Those poor armadillos, their generality involves getting to the other side of the road.
That there's a car coming down it at 80 mph is a bit too specific for them -- either that
or they're brain-dead and/or eating peyote cactus (I love Austin, Texas and its music).

I write my poetry as if I was going to perform it. It's not that I think I will, it's just the only
way my voice works. I'm my own audience, I perform it for myself. Egotism is pathetic,
but that's what art is about.

I've seen some great performance artists, what always put me off was that it was a competition.
They were great, it worked for them; but the exaggerated emotions, the trick endings, the pandering
to the audience...

Poetry can't compete with a film, a rock concert, a circus performance, etc. The problem is in thinking
that it needs to compete. Ever since clay tablets it's been a bare, skinny kind of thing. It's primitive,
it doesn't require money, and usually not a whole lot of time or talent. Anybody can do it. It's worthless.
And THAT is its saving grace. Through no fault of its own (or ours), the only reason worth doing it is love.

Love never dies.

[crow]

you say high falutin, i say not of interest to me. nothing more nothing less, i have no knowledge apart from knowing what i like, Chinese language i think can be agreed is not hi falutin in general but i don't answer questions about Chinese either :

i would say that the basic unit of any language is the letter. i presume lyrics are language? if so then i say the letter is the basic unit. after that the word and after that the line or part line. you say semantic [which relates to the meaning of a word, phrase or other collection of intelligible collections of letters.] in which case i still say the letter. they need to be formed in a way to have meaning. after that, all you have is language. be it poetry/song or prose. most can be and often are interchangeable. as for colloquialisms... they are often a part of what ever type or language we write, as often is dialect. my shout out is
as dumb as it gets

I'm with you. Saying "huh? now, whaddya think?," which is what my original prompt amounts to, isn't compelling, and I'll try not to post such an open errand futurewise.

Fwiw, lots of written languages don't have letters. Like . . . I forget which ones.

[billy]

yes but most lyrics do cuneiforms, hieroglyphs while not of our alphabet are still read and as such are of the written word as their culture and ours know them...

you did nothing wrong posting this crow. and forgive my post for making me sound like a twat. i just meant i know nothing about music but i'll stick in my 2 cents. god, the last thing we want is for people to be put off posting open ended questions by twats like me, [i just gave myself and invisible 20% warning.