Writen vs. Spoken poetry

[Epmd607]

Funding for the arts is major concern for all of us. I'm not sure I understand how mixing music and poetry is killing poetry?...

You don't think those forms have anything in common?

EDIT: I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the future of poetry. It's not a topic I think of very often.

Music, television, movies had a hand in killing poetry and the written word in general. Music accompaniment to a poem is pretty different than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mB0tP1I-14

Pretty much every newspaper 60 years ago printed poems, weekly if not daily. In my regional paper it specifically asks not to submit poetry.

Eleanor Rigby has plenty in common with poetry and Vivaldi. Doesn't make it poetry or anything more than a three minute pop song.

Just so we can stop with the lyrical poetry equals song lyrics... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_poetry Lyrical poetry is something to label a style of poetry that isn't epic poetry. A ghazal, sonnets aren't songs right? The ballad is the birth of the modern song form in the Middle Ages. In terms of etymology the word 'lyric' wasn't linked to 'the words to a song' until the late 19th century. Poetry recited to a lyre is a classical form, but linking that to a ballad or modern song is bogus.

Music isn't even the issue in sound vs. written word. Music will always win, it's more entertaining and easier to deal with. Beethoven reaches more people than Keats. I'm not trying to censor performance poetry, I don't care about it because it's derivative of the written word. There's a way to create and perform a poem that isn't derivative of the written word, but I don't see people doing it. I'm not going to do it.

 

[Xelebes]

Beethoven reaches more people than Keats.

I don't know why you mention Keats. Homer reaches more people than Beethoven. That is, the derivatives of Homer's work (dramatisations and presentations) reach more than derivatives of Beethoven's work (presentations and re-arrangements). The major reason why Beethoven is so notable is because Beethoven was writing music at the dawn of being able to write music in a standardised format.

 

[CharleyH]

There are about 43 gazillion theories about why jazz isn't so popular anymore in the USA (it's still pretty popular in Europe and parts of Asia). I think it is because two things happened: 1) jazz ceased to be the music young people listened to starting in the 1950s because 2) rock and roll became increasingly popular and as it grew it absorbed jazz (and blues and even certain classical sounds) into its giant maw. B

You know, Ang, I may have agreed with you two months ago on this (sorry for neglecting the rest of your post), but something happened in the interim: I attended a prog rock festival. I am none too keen on prog rock, believe me, but sitting there and listening to the complexities of all the instruments and sounds, I learned that rock isn't always simple and the complexities of jazz has not gone out of style. Prog Rock is a perfect example of how jazz has not gone the way of Neanderthals. It lives in some Prog and quite possibly other forms of music now. Jazz, like rock, has merely evolved.

Example: The Musical Box - Genesis

I suppose a question away from music might be ... has poetry evolved? On Lit, I see poets writing wonderfully rich and complex poems, but has poetry evolved? Has it done so in such a way as to compete with petty pop rhymes, or, is poetry becoming a lost art ... is poetry dying?

 

[Epmd607]

I don't know why you mention Keats. Homer reaches more people than Beethoven. That is, the derivatives of Homer's work (dramatisations and presentations) reach more than derivatives of Beethoven's work (presentations and re-arrangements). The major reason why Beethoven is so notable is because Beethoven was writing music at the dawn of being able to write music in a standardised format.

What's a derivative of Homer's work? Written epics as opposed to spoken or performed? Why would you mention Homer? Beethoven was a contemporary of Keats. They each represent the pinnacle of mastery in the Romantic Movement. More people can listen to music than read Keats in 1820. It's an issue of literacy. Beethoven spans two periods in music, classical and romantic. Standardized musical notation has existed in the West since the Dark Ages. We can thank monks for standardized musical notation.

It's still an issue of literacy. More people can listen to and enjoy Lady GaGa as opposed to deciphering someone presenting complex emotions via metaphor on a page.

 

[CharleyH]

What's a derivative of Homer's work? Written epics as opposed to spoken or performed? Why would you mention Homer? Beethoven was a contemporary of Keats. They each represent the pinnacle of mastery in the Romantic Movement. More people can listen to music than read Keats in 1820. It's an issue of literacy. Beethoven spans two periods in music, classical and romantic. Standardized musical notation has existed in the West since the Dark Ages. We can thank monks for standardized musical notation.

It's still an issue of literacy. More people can listen to and enjoy Lady GaGa as opposed to deciphering someone presenting complex emotions via metaphor on a page.

And what makes you think Lady Gaga, or her audience is simple? In this day and age, her words and emotion cannot be divorced from her image. We live in a visual culture.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

I would also mention that humanity is more literate today than at any other time in history, both in terms of numbers of people alive at the present moment who can read and write and in terms of percentage of the population who can do the same.

I don't think poetry is dying. Changing? Yes.

Again in terms of pure numbers, there are probably more poems published in more journals (both print and online) today than in the past. Even in the golden age of newspapers, the world population was so much smaller.

I also have a very inclusive definition of poetry. I include rap, song lyrics, words spoken in daily life, novels, short stories, the ocean, etc.

I played in a band that played some cross of gypsy music, jazz, marching band music, punk rock... Some similar in form to forms of jazz... ABA AABA, etc... Lots of room for soloing with horns and rhythm section vamping behind...

I've also argued that hip hop is a form of jazz... Miles Davis did a lot of sampling in the late 70s early 80s just as MCs were beginning to do same

And we could also probably add heroin into the list of factors that decreased traditional jazz's popularity in the U.S.

 

[Epmd607]

And what makes you think Lady Gaga, or her audience is simple? In this day and age, her words and emotion cannot be divorced from her image. We live in a visual culture.

I think you agreed earlier that listening is easier than reading complex symbols. It's real work reading a poem, not so much watching a Lady G music vid. When you read something you have to be a little creative, the page can only give you so much, you have to use your imagination to fill in the rest. Passive medium vs. active. I prefer active mediums, even though I do like listening and watching visuals.

 

[Epmd607]

I would also mention that humanity is more literate today than at any other time in history, both in terms of numbers of people alive at the present moment who can read and write and in terms of percentage of the population who can do the same.

More people can read and they choose the visual medium by far over the written. The Internet is in between. Is going to Youtube and watching videos, checking your email, or reading social networking sites all that complicated? Keats and Beethoven were both elite arts in their day, poor people weren't dealing with either. The difference is still sound travels easier. The musical lineage Beethoven was a part of was always elite. Even so, more people know fifth symphony than ode to a grecian urn. Poetry was an everyman's art for most of its history, it still is in a weird way, as everyone writes poetry at one point or another outside of a school chore. But that's back to music vs. poetry, and this is about written poetry vs. poetry that is spoken(after being written)

 

[Angeline]

You know, Ang, I may have agreed with you two months ago on this (sorry for neglecting the rest of your post), but something happened in the interim: I attended a prog rock festival. I am none too keen on prog rock, believe me, but sitting there and listening to the complexities of all the instruments and sounds, I learned that rock isn't always simple and the complexities of jazz has not gone out of style. Prog Rock is a perfect example of how jazz has not gone the way of Neanderthals. It lives in some Prog and quite possibly other forms of music now. Jazz, like rock, has merely evolved.

Example: The Musical Box - Genesis

I suppose a question away from music might be ... has poetry evolved? On Lit, I see poets writing wonderfully rich and complex poems, but has poetry evolved? Has it done so in such a way as to compete with petty pop rhymes, or, is poetry becoming a lost art ... is poetry dying?

Oh I think we still agree dear girl. Part of the history of jazz is the way it has assimilated into many other forms of music, like progressive rock or any rock (think, for example, of Steely Dan: their music incorporates a lot of jazz). And if you listen to certain songs by Big Joe Turner or Louis Jordan, you would swear you're listening to 50s-era rock and roll, but they were doing that stuff in the 1920s and 30s. So there has been lots of assimilation. What has fallen out of the main stream of music, far out of the mainstream, is straight ahead jazz, It was very popular at one time, now less and less so. One of the reasons I love writing about a lot of the early jazz figures is because I feel they need a voice. It saddens me, for example, that so few people know who Lester Young is anymore.

 

[Tzara]

You know, Ang, I may have agreed with you two months ago on this (sorry for neglecting the rest of your post), but something happened in the interim: I attended a prog rock festival. I am none too keen on prog rock, believe me, but sitting there and listening to the complexities of all the instruments and sounds, I learned that rock isn't always simple and the complexities of jazz has not gone out of style. Prog Rock is a perfect example of how jazz has not gone the way of Neanderthals. It lives in some Prog and quite possibly other forms of music now. Jazz, like rock, has merely evolved.

Example: The Musical Box - Genesis

I had a really weird reaction watching this video: I wanted to date Peter Gabriel.

I mean, skinny, flat-chested, slim, pretty (there is no other way to describe that look). I spent a lot of time wondering when Genesis had had a chick singer, actually.

Then I finally recognized Phil Collins (with hair! lots of hair!) and realized that Petra was Peter (in more ways than one) eons ago.

Another failed romance, I guess.

I don't really know what I think about jazz vs. sophisticated rock as complex music. I'm not even sure complexity means sophistication--the avant-garde in 60s classical music (Steve Reich, Terry Riley, LaMonte Young, Giancinto Scelsi) were, like, overly simplistic in form and development, yet made some really interesting musical statements.

My own preference has tended to move toward late 19th century German classical music, which is some of the most complex music ever created. Richard Wagner may have been a complete asshole, but Jesus God Tristan und Isolde is some hellaciously beautiful music.

Well, I think. You may not.

 

[HoHoBomb]

 

[EroticOrogeny]

I had a really weird reaction watching this video: I wanted to date Peter Gabriel.

I mean, skinny, flat-chested, slim, pretty (there is no other way to describe that look). I spent a lot of time wondering when Genesis had had a chick singer, actually.

Then I finally recognized Phil Collins (with hair! lots of hair!) and realized that Petra was Peter (in more ways than one) eons ago.

Another failed romance, I guess.

I don't really know what I think about jazz vs. sophisticated rock as complex music. I'm not even sure complexity means sophistication--the avant-garde in 60s classical music (Steve Reich, Terry Riley, LaMonte Young, Giancinto Scelsi) were, like, overly simplistic in form and development, yet made some really interesting musical statements.

My own preference has tended to move toward late 19th century German classical music, which is some of the most complex music ever created. Richard Wagner may have been a complete asshole, but Jesus God Tristan und Isolde is some hellaciously beautiful music.

Well, I think. You may not.

My preference strongly runs to the Baroque, especially Bach. Prefer the keyboard works on harpsichord over piano. Or organ, including variants such as those by Walter/Wendy Carlos.
Also generally prefer pure instrumental over vocal, with works such as Bach's Mass in b, Handel's Messiah, parts of some operas.
I find some modern 'classical' music, such as Phillip Glass, entrancing.

 

[CharleyH]

I think you agreed earlier that listening is easier than reading complex symbols. It's real work reading a poem, not so much watching a Lady G music vid. When you read something you have to be a little creative, the page can only give you so much, you have to use your imagination to fill in the rest. Passive medium vs. active. I prefer active mediums, even though I do like listening and watching visuals.

Actually, I am sure I said that reading complex symbols was easier for me than hearing them. I'm very visual, and very into semiotics (symbols, indexes, metaphors, et al). A lady Gaga video isn't without it's complexities. The lyrics and music and perhaps voice may be, but the video surely isn't. This brings me to something Mmm said to me about the experimental or avant garde, but that's for him to articulate. I'm afraid I don't have much time left to discuss (I want to find a LOST thread on Lit because I'm a freak), but I find your thoughts intriguing, EPM.

Can you tell me the difference between an active and passive medium?

 

[Epmd607]

Actually, I am sure I said that reading complex symbols was easier for me than hearing them. I'm very visual, and very into semiotics (symbols, indexes, metaphors, et al). A lady Gaga video isn't without it's complexities. The lyrics and music and perhaps voice may be, but the video surely isn't. This brings me to something Mmm said to me about the experimental or avant garde, but that's for him to articulate. I'm afraid I don't have much time left to discuss (I want to find a LOST thread on Lit because I'm a freak), but I find your thoughts intriguing, EPM.

Can you tell me the difference between an active and passive medium?

This thread is longish, I can't remember exactly what we were talking about earlier, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't know what hearing or listening to complex symbols would look or sound like. What I meant was, most people put more effort into understanding written metaphors than spoken language. Spoken language has the benefit of what's unspoken about human communication: body language, tone etc.

You can re-read a difficult passage, maybe not understand it and go on, but with human to human communication you can get real clear, ask the person to re-phrase the statement. At a performance you usually have the visual aid of the person on stage, their body language, phrasing and tone instruct you much better on a poem than just reading the same poem on paper over and over trying to get at the author's intention.

Music videos are something else. Usually they're just eye candy while the song plays in the back ground. The song Telephone is lyrically mindless, it has nothing to do with LBGT issues, Wonderbread, Elvis Presley while the video does. The song could be anything. I don't like how we've gotten so far into music vs. poetry. I liked thinking about written poetry vs. performed written poetry vs. performed non-written poetry.

 

[Epmd607]

Oh yeah, passive vs. active mediums.

TV is a passive medium, all attention is given over to the experience of images and sounds. Most texts are active mediums, all your attention is given over to interacting with the text in such a way that you understand and possibly become part creator of some scenario. Reading fiction is active, you have to fill in most of the details to make the story good, the author only clues you in to certain things you have to experience the story with your own memory stock. ie I alter the image of my childhood home to match the brief description of the narrator's childhood home.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

This is an interesting topic. I think the question of written v spoken poetry is bound to slip into music, they are just so close to each other. For me, it feels a little uncomfortable to draw such stark demarcations between the disciplines, it's like trying to write with a pencil with only two fingers, you know? Singing and music have so much to inform us about poetry it feels a little uncomfortable to build some sort of wall.

Here's a question: what do we consider the "speaking" of Charley Brown's teacher?

I have been meaning to read this book.

The book makes the point that there is still cognitive functioning happening when a person watches television. For example, take tension. Tension often exists in a person when they are watching a show. It doesn't just happen in the show, it often happens in the person watching. It is a feeling. It is often subtle but is also what often keeps us watching a show or movie. Or there is sex appeal, often wrapped up in tension. Even finding a show or movie sexy represents "work" in the viewer. The work may not manifest itself as imagination, but the body is working its chemical energy as a result of the show. Which is, physiologically speaking, the same thing as imagining, it just feels different, or manifests itself differently, based on the parts of the nervous system or flesh being worked. So when you're sitting there watching a show, and you don't get up to turn the channel, there is a part of your body working to keep you from changing the channel.

If only to play devil's advocate, and if only to play the you-can-back-up-any-idea-you-have-thanks-to-the-internet card, here's a quote from the amazon page:

When it comes to television, even (perhaps especially) crappy television, Johnson argues, "the content is less interesting than the cognitive work the show elicits from your mind."

Johnson's work has been controversial, as befits a writer willing to challenge wisdom so conventional it has ossified into accepted truth. But even the most skeptical readers should be captivated by the intriguing questions Johnson raises, whether or not they choose to accept his answers.

Incidentally, I think bringing television into the conversation is fun, because while there are only a few formal presentations of poetry on mass TV (inaugurations, olympic ceremonies), there are very many instances of unintentional poetry. I have much fun with those Most of TV I find quite vapid, or course, but every once in a while a show or a movie or some DVD rented from the library hits you just so, you know? Certainly there is much to be said about poetry in acting and in speaking for an audience and even in directing, producing, set decorating, costuming, camera placement, editing, etc.

 

[CharleyH]

Oh yeah, passive vs. active mediums.

TV is a passive medium.

Yeah, I tried that with my 2nd year TV Com. Prof. It didn't work out well for me.

 

[CharleyH]

This is an interesting topic. I think the question of written v spoken poetry is bound to slip into music, they are just so close to each other. For me, it feels a little uncomfortable to draw such stark demarcations between the disciplines, it's like trying to write with a pencil with only two fingers, you know? Singing and music have so much to inform us about poetry it feels a little uncomfortable to build some sort of wall.

Here's a question: what do we consider the "speaking" of Charley Brown's teacher?

I have been meaning to read this book.

The book makes the point that there is still cognitive functioning happening when a person watches television. For example, take tension. Tension often exists in a person when they are watching a show. It doesn't just happen in the show, it often happens in the person watching. It is a feeling. It is often subtle but is also what often keeps us watching a show or movie. Or there is sex appeal, often wrapped up in tension. Even finding a show or movie sexy represents "work" in the viewer. The work may not manifest itself as imagination, but the body is working its chemical energy as a result of the show. Which is, physiologically speaking, the same thing as imagining, it just feels different, or manifests itself differently, based on the parts of the nervous system or flesh being worked. So when you're sitting there watching a show, and you don't get up to turn the channel, there is a part of your body working to keep you from changing the channel.

If only to play devil's advocate, and if only to play the you-can-back-up-any-idea-you-have-thanks-to-the-internet card, here's a quote from the amazon page:

When it comes to television, even (perhaps especially) crappy television, Johnson argues, "the content is less interesting than the cognitive work the show elicits from your mind."

Johnson's work has been controversial, as befits a writer willing to challenge wisdom so conventional it has ossified into accepted truth. But even the most skeptical readers should be captivated by the intriguing questions Johnson raises, whether or not they choose to accept his answers.

Incidentally, I think bringing television into the conversation is fun, because while there are only a few formal presentations of poetry on mass TV (inaugurations, olympic ceremonies), there are very many instances of unintentional poetry. I have much fun with those Most of TV I find quite vapid, or course, but every once in a while a show or a movie or some DVD rented from the library hits you just so, you know? Certainly there is much to be said about poetry in acting and in speaking for an audience and even in directing, producing, set decorating, costuming, camera placement, editing, etc.

Interesting, Palba. What would be the happy middle?

 

[Xelebes]

It is entirely up to what active-passive means.

We could draw the line where passive refers to static works (text, photographs) and active refers to works that span time through action (drama, music.) We could also define it as the amount of participation the audience has with the artist: passive (film, text, album) and active (plays, concerts, shows.) But with that, I find it hard to determine which is more active and passive on how stimulated the imagination is as it would be entirely subjective with how one's brain works with each medium. Some people are visual, some people are aural and literal and some people are abstract. It would be such a hit and miss measure.

 

[Epmd607]

People are born to follow facial expressions, tone of voice, everything that's non-verbal and communicative about human bodies. Written language is missing a large chunk of what constitutes communication. I really liked this book when I was a student:

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Language-Edward-T-Hall/dp/0385055498

You can have someone conversing to you in person, over the phone, and then by letter. There's less and less information. The same can be said of a poem, a novel, a play. There's more information at each level, the author has the potential to be clearer in their message and story with human bodies performing. The downside of having a director and an interpretation of a text, as the author usually isn't involved with the staging of their work, there ends up being less interpretation by the audience. The audience has less work to do in the theatre than at home with a book in their lap. It's natural, accepting the fiction of the shoddy playhouse and the shoddy actors to experience the story. Instead of having to create your own playhouse and give character to low dimensional characters.

Television watches you, the programming that you receive needs to accommodate the product or service you're most likely to buy. Your only activity when watching television or film is whether you bought the ticket or changed the channel.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

If I have read a book and then see the TV or film adaptation it's never the same as my imagination and I can't help but think whoever adapted it could have much gained much more from what I saw in the book and what they seemed to have missed

 

[Xelebes]

If I have read a book and then see the TV or film adaptation it's never the same as my imagination and I can't help but think whoever adapted it could have much gained much more from what I saw in the book and what they seemed to have missed

It is a two-fold issue: one, the director and two, the screenwriter. The screenwriter has to re-interpret the work into another text form before the director can start putting in his interpretation.

 

[EroticOrogeny]

People are born to follow facial expressions, tone of voice, everything that's non-verbal and communicative about human bodies. Written language is missing a large chunk of what constitutes communication. I really liked this book when I was a student:

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Language-Edward-T-Hall/dp/0385055498

You can have someone conversing to you in person, over the phone, and then by letter. There's less and less information. The same can be said of a poem, a novel, a play. There's more information at each level, the author has the potential to be clearer in their message and story with human bodies performing. The downside of having a director and an interpretation of a text, as the author usually isn't involved with the staging of their work, there ends up being less interpretation by the audience. The audience has less work to do in the theatre than at home with a book in their lap. It's natural, accepting the fiction of the shoddy playhouse and the shoddy actors to experience the story. Instead of having to create your own playhouse and give character to low dimensional characters.

Television watches you, the programming that you receive needs to accommodate the product or service you're most likely to buy. Your only activity when watching television or film is whether you bought the ticket or changed the channel.

Some of that knowledge appears innate or learned at an early age. But we learn more as we continue to interact. We make mistakes in our interactions and try to handle the situation better next time. There are many things I know now that I wish I had found out earlier. Sometimes our faux pas results from our not being inconsiderate, but just not knowing.

It is true that from the personal contact we can pick up on those non-verbal cues, such as fear and anger. With the phone, only tone of voice as additional non-verbal insight. But when we write we can take time to put our words down and perhaps express ourselves more clearly. Of course, there's a notably delay between sending a message and receiving a response. Quicker now with email, but still there.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

It is a two-fold issue: one, the director and two, the screenwriter. The screenwriter has to re-interpret the work into another text form before the director can start putting in his interpretation.

I realise there is only so much they can put in from a book but some of the changes are a real pain ...... The De Vinci Code for example, it didn't even have the same ending as the book!

 

[Epmd607]

Some of that knowledge appears innate or learned at an early age. But we learn more as we continue to interact. We make mistakes in our interactions and try to handle the situation better next time. There are many things I know now that I wish I had found out earlier. Sometimes our faux pas results from our not being inconsiderate, but just not knowing.

It is true that from the personal contact we can pick up on those non-verbal cues, such as fear and anger. With the phone, only tone of voice as additional non-verbal insight. But when we write we can take time to put our words down and perhaps express ourselves more clearly. Of course, there's a notably delay between sending a message and receiving a response. Quicker now with email, but still there.

It's impossible knowing someone's tone in regular conversation on these message boards. You don't know if someone's joking, serious, honest, deceitful. Half the time I write something it seems like someone thinks I'm in confrontation mode, when I'm not at all. Text is weak for non-specialized, emotive communication, but the plus side is that it lets you become an active participant when reading stories and poems. You get to fill in the gaps in the story frame with your own expression.

There's instructional and technical writing, which is easier for some people to understand than someone speaking the same text, but for the most part, if you really want to understand someone's thoughts on something you want to be in the same room as them. That's why people go to certain grad schools and colleges, to learn under these people, as opposed to just reading their books.