meter v rhythm

[billy]

in poetry is there any difference between meter and rhythm.

i sort of get the impression that rhythm is in the amount of times a foot [stressed or unstressed] is used in iambic pentameter; pentameter is the rhythm, iambic the meter.

is this right or wrong?

[tectak]

in poetry is there any difference between meter and rhythm.

i sort of get the impression that rhythm is in the amount of times a foot [stressed or unstressed] is used in iambic pentameter; pentameter is the rhythm, iambic the meter.

is this right or wrong?

If there is Music in poetry then different meter creates different rhythm. This may seem blatantly obvious but meter is a mathematically derived parameter which can create emotional "effects".
For example, di dum di dum di dum di dum is a "meter" which gallops and works in fast moving, rollicking rhymes. On the other hand dum di dah dah, dum di dah dah, dum di dah dah, dum di dum. is more suited to slow.and dirge-like "heavy" verse.
Some meter is skitterish and relies more upon pattern over time rather than "blocks". di di di di, di di di di, di di di di, di di dum..
There are some complex examples of meter which "hit" you without warning because they suggest a subtle and yet strangely familiar "rhythm". di dah di dah di dah dah,...dah dah di dah di dah dah. and we are back to.music... the opening bars of Sound of Silence.
So meter is the mathematics, the describable concept which is fixed by fact...but rhythm is the emotional response to meter.
Purists will be quick to point out that rhythm can be varied by speed of delivery and this is undeniably true...yet it is strange, is it not, that we aspirinants struggle to make words "fit" meter, at any speed, yet we seem to introduce emotion by the controlled application of rhythm.
So there.
Best,
tectak

[billy]

i get what you're saying tom, and thanks for replying.
my problem is this,
i see meter as

da dum
or
da da dum depending on the meter

and the rhythm as

da dum da dum da dum da dum da dum

[rayheinrich]

The below is from the Wiki article on Scansion.
It largely echos what tectak said, and what I was going to try to say; but I like how it says it:

"To understand any form of scansion, it is necessary to appreciate the difference between meter and rhythm.

The rhythm of language is infinitely varied; all aspects of language contribute to it: loudness, pitch, duration, pause,
syntax, repeated elements, length of phrases, frequency of polysyllabic words... As C.S. Lewis observes, "if the
scansion of a line meant all the phonetic facts, no two lines would scan the same way".

Meter is another matter. It is an ordering of language by means of an extremely limited subset of its characteristics.
In English (and in many modern languages) the language is ordered by syllabic stress. All other aspects of language
are present, indeed they are vital to the rhythm of the verse; but they are not ordered by the meter.

However, marking stress is not the same as marking meter. A perfectly regular line of iambic pentameter may have
anywhere from 2 to 9 stresses, but it is still felt to exhibit 5 pulses or beats. This can most easily be understood
through the principle of relative stress: an unstressed syllable between 2 even slightly weaker syllables may be
perceived as a beat; and the reverse is true of a stressed syllable between 2 even slightly stronger syllables. These
phenomena are called "promotion" and "demotion". Thus a syllable, regardless of its level of stress, that realizes a
beat is ictic; and a syllable, regardless of its level of stress, that does not is nonictic. Ictus refers to the position
within a line that is experienced as a beat, or to the syllable that fills it."

[billy]

is the rhythm of language the same as poetic rhythm?

i only ask in order to comprehend.

[Leanne]

Rhythm is rhythm. It's exactly the same whether you're talking about the rhythm of a dance, of a concerto or of a poem.

Meter is the means by which rhythm is created in poetry, just like the beat -- the drum or the bassline, whatever -- makes the rhythm in music.

[rayheinrich]

is the rhythm of language* (Ray's asterisk, see below) the same as poetic rhythm?

i only ask in order to comprehend.

At the most general level, I'd say yes.

But at a more detailed level, one could define/describe the different qualities of rhythm in song,
written poetry, lyric poetry, spoken poetry, prose, music, etc, etc.

*It's like asking: "Is the colour of fruit the same as the colour of apples?"
You should use "rhythm of prose" or "rhythm of every-day speech" or etc. instead of
"rhythm of language" as "rhythm of language" includes "poetry", some of the other above categories,
and many others as well.

[RiverNotch]

I'd gander meter is a kind of rhythm, and of the kinds of rhythm there are many, meter being the most regular -- and of the senses of rhythm, there are two, the rhythm of thought, where the show of stresses and such are meant to convey emotions, images, etc, and the rhythm of sound, where the show of stresses and such are supposed to be enjoyed by the ears, or followed by the feet. This is something I got from this haiku book I'm currently reading, and apparently this is some Japanese or imagist conception? But I sorta agree with this.

[billy]

nice and concise, can there be meter without rhythm?

Rhythm is rhythm.  It's exactly the same whether you're talking about the rhythm of a dance, of a concerto or of a poem.  

Meter is the means by which rhythm is created in poetry, just like the beat -- the drum or the bassline, whatever -- makes the rhythm in music.

[rayheinrich]

... can there be meter without rhythm?

    Nice kōan.

A mono-syllabled foot with just one stressed or unstressed syllable would still have
rhythm because there would still be the time before and the time after it was spoken.

But a null foot without any syllables would work. It wouldn't have any rhythm.
So yes, you can have meter without rhythm*.


*Though, considering RiverNotch's two senses of rhythm: The null-foot, while not possessing  
the rhythm of sound, would still have the rhythm of thought for the writer;  because she/he would know
it was there. But for the reader, yes, for the reader it would indeed have no rhythm (unless the writer
told her/him).

What is the sound of no hands clapping?

[RiverNotch]

"What is the sound of no hands clapping?"

*breaks a wrist*

[milo]

Rhythm is the organic ebb and flow of the universe, it is in the waves, the pulse of stars, the orbits of the planets - even free verse! It is not always exact but it is in everything. Meter is the consistent, measured phrase found in the beat of music, the metronome, simple harmonic motion and metric verse

[billy]

is there one of the two which is more important, or are they symbiotically connected? and if you mention meter, the rhythm side of it would be a given?

[milo]

is there one of the two which is more important, or are they symbiotically connected? and if you mention meter,  the rhythm side of it would be a given?

I don't know if I really have a good answer to that question but I do like the discussion.

There is a rhythm to the seasons that people follow even though it is inconsistent in the present and it is felt through the accumulation of years so when you read the poems of Ray Heinrich that feature many of these cycles of humanity you will feel the rhythms in them even though they lack the precision of meter.  This is using rhythm to emulate or even to sympathize with the metaphor and it can be very effective in a way that meter would not be.

When Philip Larkin writes, he tends toward perfect meter and frequently sets the mathematical precision as a false dichotomy with the failings of man on an individual level.  This metaphor is beautiful because individual failings and tragedy against the almost god like potential for mathematical perfection is the post modern backdrop of humanity - especially in post-war Britain.

Anyway, if I am not being clear, i think that rhythm appeals to the organic or natural cycles or metaphors while meter appeals to the intellectual or mathematical cycles and metaphors and, not that one would tend toward natural rhythm for a natural poem in a strict sense but more that one can use the subconscious sense of it to underpin a poem.

[ellajam]

is there one of the two which is more important, or are they symbiotically connected? and if you mention meter,  the rhythm side of it would be a given?

If I'm getting it right, you can have rhythm without meter but not meter without rhythm.

I think whatever armature you choose to hang your poem on it's good to have one under there. A good piece pulls me along with it, it could be the rhythm of the words or phrases or strophes or white space or thoughts, it could be a set meter, even a set syllable count can lend a satisfying underlying pattern that the reader appreciates whether they notice it or not.

When I read the work of someone who feels this isn't necessary while I can see what they've done well, what is missing stands out more and the whole piece falls flat. That's where I'm at as a reader right now.

[billy]

thanks for the reply milo, i think i'm getting a grasp of what's being said.
a list poem of 1 feminine halves of a poem [while being a pretty shite poem] would be more inclined to the mathematical meter of a poem; a sonnet for instance; where lines contain iambs troche's etc; would lean more to the aesthetic [ rhythmically speaking] meter of a poem.

or am i confusing myself as usual?

@ ella;

i suppose in the big scheme of poetry it doesn't really matter, we use meter properly and it'll sound good. it's just that the more i see of the two in comparison the more craft i'm seeing in some poet's works.

[Leanne]

A heart can have an irregular, ragged rhythm but it's not a good sound. Ella's correct in that poets who pay attention to meter, who understand its purpose in creating pleasant rhythms, write poems that are far more attractive to the ear.

[rayheinrich]

    Rhythm IS time.

    Meter is one of the many ways of measuring it.

[NobodyNothing]

Enjoyable read.  Don't have anything to add, at least not now.

That is all.

PS> I had no formal training in the writing of poetry.  When attempted to write a poem, I usually copied certain poetic forms that I found interesting, or forms that I *thought* might best serve my purpose, or that I simply admired.

Now, when I actually began to construct the poem, I would always keep reciting it to myself.  What I thought I was after was the rhythm of it, that  the sound of it to my own mind pleased me.  This was something I somewhat poetically agonized over.  I read it back to myself over and over until the sound texture of it finally pleased me (putting content aside for a moment), or at least served the purpose of creating the intended and desired affect. 

So I guess this is where rhythm and meter sometimes confuse me.  I've written poems that to my own inner ear had an unmistakable rhythm to them (within what I * thought* to be a given form), a rhythm that I felt I could stand by given that the poem was read in the manner I read it back to myself, if that makes any sense.  And yet, I am aware that I very well have made "meter mistakes", at least in the classical sense of how it might be applied to the particular form I was employing.  

On another note, I'm sure I've read great poems that fulfilled the classical metrics of any such form, yet I have found it very difficult to find anything very pleasing to me as to its rhythm, at least as I continually read it back to myself.

I'm trying my best to express my own sometimes confusion as to this rhythm/meter question.

[billy]

On another note, I'm sure I've read great poems that fulfilled the classical metrics of any such form, yet I have found it very difficult to find anything very pleasing to me as to its rhythm, at least as I continually read it back to myself.

I'm trying my best to express my own sometimes confusion as to this rhythm/meter question.

there's a device called cacophony where we use collections of words that are hard on the ears. though it's use i would think is more an exception than a rule; if it's cacophonic by accident, then the rhythm is probably screwed as might be the meter.

some of Lewis Carrol's poetry used cacophony [the jabberwock] though i'm sure he meant to as it's one of my favorite poems. i think i agree with ella that if we take time over meter the rhytm will show itself and we will end up with a better piece.