Poetry and music?

[Toxikator]

Is poetry a form of music? Is it related to music in some way? are there parallels?

Lyricism is KvR's shortest stick IMO and I'd like to see where this discussion takes us.

I for one feel that poetry, at least when spoken, is absolutely a form of music. As a person who defines "music" by "a sound that is appreciated for purely (or primarily) aesthetic qualities", I believe that poetry (and by extension, lyrics), unlike prose, does not hinge quality on message, but rather on delivery.

Discuss!

[tee boy]

I dont think that poetry is music, but I do think that it is closely related. Almost like dance is. These are forms of art that work very well together. I mean, take Flamenco - this is a true fusion of lyricism, music and dance, with each play equally important roles.

As for poetry itself, I know very little. Iv never written a song or a poem, rarely pay attention to song lyrics, etc. Its something I really need to look into further. Infact Iv thought that it might be cool to take some poems and a musical theme from the classical or romantic literature, then try to make a song out of them. Im sure this would be fine song writing practing. Who knows, perhaps this would open up a whole new world to me?

Only thing is, I'll probably have to learn to sing then... and the thought of that makes my stomach hurt

TB

[tee boy]

In terms of direct corelations, there are many.

Infact, Baroque music was based on rhetoric! The phrasing and what have you was all based on this. The ideas of invention and development, etc. Im not sure on the exact 'lingo'.

TB

[leahzero]

I for one feel that poetry, at least when spoken, is absolutely a form of music. As a person who defines "music" by "a sound that is appreciated for purely (or primarily) aesthetic qualities", I believe that poetry (and by extension, lyrics), unlike prose, does not hinge quality on message, but rather on delivery.

But what about poetic prose, or prosaic poetry?

Poetry (and lyrical prose!) is highly musical, but I wouldn't equate poetry with music. There are forms that straddle the tenuous line between poetry and music, like rap and chant, but written poetry is not music, in my opinion. The reading of a poem can be musical, and we could split hairs about whether a reading is "sung" enough to constitute a song, or whether things like a capella rap and chant are music, etc., but performance transforms all art and strains definition. I could argue that reading poetry is acting, too--and then argue that the oration involved in acting is music--and then that performing music before an audience is acting--and so on.

Anyway, while the euphony of poetry is usually significant in its enjoyment, I have to disagree that it is what anyone "purely (or primarily)" appreciates. That's subjective, and it also depends on the piece: some works deliberately stress euphony above imagery, narrative, or theme etc.

I could go on (guess who's an English major?), but I'll stop here and wait for the discussion to progress a bit. Interesting topic!

[Toxikator]

I don't think that singing is necessary for music. The point (IMO) is the distinction between the relevance of the content and the beauty of the aesthetics. The quality of a piece of prose is determined by the function of it's content; does the writing convey the point? Is the rhetoric compelling? Is the imagery believable? Does the author capture the images he's trying to create?

Poetry, on the other hand, is far more musical (IMO); poetry and prose about the same thing will be judged in two separate ways. The poetry will be judged by the sound; how the words are chosen and flow, the meter, rhythm, rhyme, and (when spoken) the inflection and tensions created by the speech. The prosetic (is that a word?) considerations would be on subject and word choice as it portrays it.

Let me stop and say, for those who might call me out on it later, I'm no english expert, I'm a musician, so I'm trying to approach this from a musical perspective.

consider "The Raven" by Poe: If I were to write some prose that described the same contents, how would it be evaluated? By how 'realistically' I presented the subject, by the subject itself, by how immersive my writing style was; however you consider it, ideally, when reading the story, you would not be "aware" of my writing, you would (on a level) be experiencing it in your mind's eye, ear, what have you.

Conversely, I'd say the poem is highly musical; we are aware of (and concerned with) the words themselves. How do the words sound to us? Do the words mesh aesthetically? Does the piece flow? Does the 'sound' of the poem in our mind's ear (assuming we're reading it) work to us? I don't find Poe's poem to be very immersive; his word choice certainly doesn't create the atmosphere the same way quality prose would. But the poem itself is dark and musical, and as it progresses there's a sense of tension that coincides with the general tone.

Or consider for example foreign music. I for one love the lyrics of Rammstein, despite not having any clue what they're saying; and I love the sounds of Latin poetry (mostly in the form of written chants) despite the meaning. Of course, meaning is relative and understanding the language is key to the context of the music, but I suppose the point is that the aesthetics are the consideration.

It's something I deal with regularly; I love, say, The Casualties, Handel, and The Kottonmouth Kings despite hating their respective agendas (Anti-Corporation, Faith in Christ, and drug use). The poetry of their lyrics are their strength, the aesthetics of the language (not just in sound but in how the language promotes the images and ideas and how they mesh with the music) are relevant. However, the actual subject matter, and how they subsequently try to convince me of it, demonstrate it, or make it realistic is very poor, which is why I segregate it from prose.

Of course, It's a point I go back and forth on CONSTANTLY so...

[vurt]

as the human voice is an instrument id have to say yes.kind of.much poetryis based on rhythm more so than melody but even then some poetry performers do involve other aspects of music such as harmony and melody.so i guess some crossover does exist, but id add that all arts are intertwined at some point or other.

[aMUSEd]

Poetry can be musical but that doesn't make it music per se but obviously there are areas where they overlap such as Rap - as with almost any category there are permeable boundaries and points where they flow together.

[Meffy]

Last time this topic came up (I won't go "oh, no, not again" because most decently deep topics can recur without becoming repetitious) I mentioned Ken Nordine's "Word Jazz" and I'll do it again now. =^_^=

http://www.wordjazz.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Nordine

[Toxikator]

@aMUSEd (and all who agree with him): Definitely true. All art runs. I'm interested in drawing lines just for the sake of doing it; I find it helps me to explore what I can do within certain realms and understand how things work. For example, certain aspects of a concert are entirely unmusical (performance), and others are pure music. Understanding that boundary helps me when I compose, as I can attempt to exploit the musical strengths of the live performace. Surely there's a blurry line between music and written poetry, but trying to distinguish it can help me (and others) exploit the truly musical aspects in our compositions without getting into the world of poetry.

@Meffy: that is absolutely specTACular.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Is poetry a form of music? Is it related to music in some way? are there parallels?

Lyricism is KvR's shortest stick IMO and I'd like to see where this discussion takes us.

I for one feel that poetry, at least when spoken, is absolutely a form of music. As a person who defines "music" by "a sound that is appreciated for purely (or primarily) aesthetic qualities", I believe that poetry (and by extension, lyrics), unlike prose, does not hinge quality on message, but rather on delivery.

Discuss!

Ok, purely thinking out loud, my initial reaction is no, poetry is not music. - It can be set to music (either consciously or unconsciously), but by itself it isn't.

This then begs the question, is rap and other spoken-word things 'music'? - Well, if poetry isn't music, then rap can't be either.

What is music? - That's the question. - Does it have to be pitch, rhythm and harmony (even if only implied)? - Or will only one of these things suffice to call something music?

Is stuff for untuned percussion music? - It has rhythm but no pitch or harmony.

Does poetry have an inherent rhythm? - If it does, then it is no different than untuned percussion. - If one is music, the other must be also. Or, does poetry not have an inherent rhythm in itself, and is it only our interpretation of it that gives it rhythm? - Personally, I think the latter is probably closer to the truth, - you can say the words in whatever rhythm you like surely? - Can you notate poetry? - Is the same poem always said with exactly the same rhythm every time? - Again, personally I think not.

According to my dictionary, the definition of music is:
"the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion".

Now, I wouldn't say that is necessarily the best or only correct definition of music, but it does raise some interesting points.

Clearly poetry consists of vocal sounds, so the first part checks out.
'beauty of form'. - Well, poetry certainly has form and it can be quite beautiful, so yes, it still fits.

But notice the word 'and', four words before the end, which is absolutely crucial here. - Taken literally, that would seem to imply that music has to have beauty of form AND beauty of harmony AND expression of emotion. - Although poetry can certainly express emotion, it contains no harmony in itself, therefore it no longer fits the definition.

However, drum rhythms also contain no harmony, so they don't fit the definition either.

However, are we taking the definition of 'harmony' too literally? - Maybe it doesn't mean harmony in the sense of chords, but harmony given by the definition: "the quality of forming a pleasing and consistent whole". - Taken in this context, poetry may indeed posses harmony, therefore it now fits all the above criteria to be classed as 'music'. (As do drum rhythms).

But if poetry is indeed music, where is the distinction between poetry and other text, like prose?
Prose is still vocal sounds which can express emotion and form a pleasing and consistent whole. - But, does prose have form?

What exactly is 'form'? - According to the same dictionary:
"the visible shape or configuration of something" or "the arrangement of parts; shape". - Or, perhaps the most important definition here:
"arrangement and style in literary or musical composition".

Taking any of those definitions, you could argue that at least certain prose has form. - Notice that form does not necessarily seem to mean 'metrical structure' (which is required for poetry), form could seem to mean something as simple as beginning-middle-end.

In which case, if prose has form, it also must be music (as it fits all the other criteria listed above). - But is the form beautiful? - Remember, it's not enough that music has form, it must have 'beauty of form'. - What is beautiful? - Surely that is entirely subjective?

And where do you stop? Many things have form, beauty and emotion but they are not music. - Maybe the above definitions are flawed? - In which case we need more specific definitions.

Interesting.

[vurt]

Last time this topic came up (I won't go "oh, no, not again" because most decently deep topics can recur without becoming repetitious) I mentioned Ken Nordine's "Word Jazz" and I'll do it again now. =^_^=

http://www.wordjazz.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Nordine

aye, nordine is a prime example of art as one form.

[rockstar_not]

There was a stickied thread that was 'Lyrics needing music' in one of the forums here that got un-stickied due to inactivity. I found at least one inspiring lyric there from kvrian, jens and wrote and recorded a song from it.

You'll have to dig through to find that thread now.

The song, if you are interested, is 'Tram' on my website - click the logo below

[Toxikator]

Can you notate poetry? - Is the same poem always said with exactly the same rhythm every time? - Again, personally I think not.

First, yes you can notate poetry, and in fact the earliest musical notation was DONE for poetry... in explaining the meter and relative pitch/tone of biblical verse recitation.

Second, is all sheet music performed the same way exactly every time? No. That's why each PERFORMANCE of a piece constitutes a musical reinterpretation. I've said before (to much derision) that notation of any form is a sort of half-attempt at recreating a musical idea, while a recording is a TRUE means of notation. So spoken word poetry may be notated, as may a beethoven concerto, and every reading may be different... we only call it the "same" piece since certain fundamental and recognizable characteristics stay (be they the words of a poem or the relative pitches of a score).

But you and I have very different definitions of music, too, so...

[JumpingJackFlash]

First, yes you can notate poetry, and in fact the earliest musical notation was DONE for poetry... in explaining the meter and relative pitch/tone of biblical verse recitation.

It's true that the earliest music almost always set text to music, initially just the liturgy of the church (which may or may not be classed as poetry).

However, that doesn't mean that the text that was set has only one definite interpretation. - As exemplified by the thousands of Masses that were set to music over hundreds of years. - The text is always the same, but the music varies enormously. - It goes back to what I was saying about words can be set to music, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have an inherent music within them. - There is not just one way to recite (perform?) the text, it can be done so in many different ways (as with poetry).

Second, is all sheet music performed the same way exactly every time? No. That's why each PERFORMANCE of a piece constitutes a musical reinterpretation.

That's true, certainly of earlier music. But if nothing else, at least you have some basic framework from which to get pitch and rhythm; the details might be different in each performance, but the basics are usually the same. - Does this same framework exist for poetry? - Is there something inherent to the text that tells you, even if only on a basic level, how to perform it?

I've said before (to much derision) that notation of any form is a sort of half-attempt at recreating a musical idea, while a recording is a TRUE means of notation.

Personally, I do not think a recording is notation. The two things are inherently different, one is written down (often for posterity), the other is an audio occurrence (just one interpretation, one moment in time). - But this is digressing from the point, so maybe we shouldn't argue about this.

This is all just my opinion, and I'm not even sure quite where I stand on the issue yet, I'm just thinking aloud.

[Toxikator]

First: yes, there is a general system of recreating the rhythm of poetry; rhythm of stressed and unstressed syllables (that occur naturally in words) which creates a driving rhythnm of accented and unaccented beats. This is how we define Sonnets, Limericks, Iambic Pentameter, etc.

Second: One could argue that the "basic framework" of a piece of music is left to the artist and audience; the basic framework of a bach chorale is the basic counterpoint; the melody and harmony. A bach chorale functions very well at a variety of tempos. By contrast, a very fast drum and bass track would probably be very boring at even a (comparatively) marginally slower tempo, since the frenetic rhythmic complexity would break down into simple grooves. In that case, tempo is EXTREMELY important and something that would be notated.

For poetry, if we do call it music, one could argue that the 'absolute' melody and rhythm are not the things which define it, any more than the articulation and timbre of a violin would determine whether or not twinkle twinkle little star was the same piece. Certain pieces have certain "defining" or primary characteristics.

IMO "one interpretation" is exactly what a piece ought to be. A clearly and concisely expressed musical idea. So much of music is limited for reasons of performance; it's too tough for tenors to sing, there aren't enough fingers on a keyboard player/arms on a drummer/ air molecules in a lung, so avoid it to be safe. A RECORDING as a medium of notation allows the composer to have a literal control over every aspect of the performance, rather than just a relative one, making the actual musical creation far more precise.
that's part of what was going on with musique concrete and what's going on again now with industrial and other electronic acts; the sounds themselves are so important to a composition that the recording is the only way of "notating" it. Beethoven's works don't require recordings since they do not subsist in the sounds themselves but some music does, especially in this postmodern musical landscape, so I think that considering an unchanging, single "interpretation" of a piece can in some cases be the only way of truly capturing what it's all about.

but that depends heavily on what you feel is important or relevant to your works... just as some might argue that a broadway play is the same play from time to time regardless of the nuances of the performance and set, while certain film students would argue that the filmography, effects, and details themselves are what make the performance truly great, rather than the aspects valued by the performing artists.

All very interesting stuff, great so far, especially that word Jazz. Didn't Jack Kerouac do some similar stuff with his work?