Companion to the Thread "On Meter"

[Angeline]

First off, I would agree with Waeponwifestre that a song is not a poem, nor is a single line in isolation necessarily representative of a poem in total. But having said that, I'll go ahead and treat the line as if it were characteristic of a complete poem. Start with marking what you are pretty sure are stressed syllables:

​

Lu·cy in the sky with dia·monds​

Note that the last syllable of "Lucy" and the next two syllables "in the" are all normally unstressed or lightly stressed syllables, so by promotion, one would increase the stress on the middle syllable of the three ("in") for intelligibility, leaving

​

Lu·cy in the sky with dia·monds​

Now you have consistently alternating stressed and unstressed syllables, beginning with a stressed syllable, so marking the feet gives you

​

Lu·cy / in the / sky with / dia·monds​

which is trochaic tetrameter.

At least that's how I would analyze it.

So my original thought (trochaic tetrameter) was right! But how did you decide that "in" gets promoted to a stressed syllable and that "in the sky" is not an anapest? Is it just how you hear it? When I think of that line, which obviously I've heard many times, I do hear an emphasis on "in." I have to keep reminding myself it's not an exact science!

 

[Tzara]

So my original thought (trochaic tetrameter) was right! But how did you decide that "in" gets promoted to a stressed syllable and that "in the sky" is not an anapest? Is it just how you hear it? When I think of that line, which obviously I've heard many times, I do hear an emphasis on "in." I have to keep reminding myself it's not an exact science!

Probably "how I hear it" has a lot to do with it and the rest is justification backing that up. But look at what you get if you assume "in the sky" is an anapest:

​

Lu·cy / in the sky / with dia·monds​

A trochee, an anapest, and an amphibrach—no metrical consistency at all. You could find a little consistency by marking it this way:

​

Lu·cy / in the / sky with / dia·monds​

which would make it trochaic tetrameter with a pyrrhic substitution in the second foot, but you still have the problem of the three unstressed syllables in a row. Because of this, I doubt a pyrrhic substitution would ever follow a trochee (or, worse, a dactyl). Mary Oliver states categorically that a pyrrhic foot "occurs only when immediately followed by a spondee" (27), which isn't the case here.

I think the main thing is metrical consistency. Substitutions and elisions and whatnot occur, but relatively rarely. If a poem seems difficult to fit into a particular metrical pattern, it's probably in free verse.

Of course, you could consider it to be simply accentual verse, where only the stressed syllables matter. I think that's probably closer to how it sounds when sung, but again, a song is not a poem and you wouldn't analyze it the same way.

 

[Angeline]

Probably "how I hear it" has a lot to do with it and the rest is justification backing that up. But look at what you get if you assume "in the sky" is an anapest:

​

Lu·cy / in the sky / with dia·monds​

A trochee, an anapest, and an amphibrach—no metrical consistency at all. You could find a little consistency by marking it this way:

​

Lu·cy / in the / sky with / dia·monds​

which would make it trochaic tetrameter with a pyrrhic substitution in the second foot, but you still have the problem of the three unstressed syllables in a row. Because of this, I doubt a pyrrhic substitution would ever follow a trochee (or, worse, a dactyl). Mary Oliver states categorically that a pyrrhic foot "occurs only when immediately followed by a spondee" (27), which isn't the case here.

I think the main thing is metrical consistency. Substitutions and elisions and whatnot occur, but relatively rarely. If a poem seems difficult to fit into a particular metrical pattern, it's probably in free verse.

Of course, you could consider it to be simply accentual verse, where only the stressed syllables matter. I think that's probably closer to how it sounds when sung, but again, a song is not a poem and you wouldn't analyze it the same way.

Thanks Tzara. This is very helpful. With each explanation I understand a little more.

 

[Angeline]

I've been reading and comparing examples of trochaic tetrameter and iambic tetrameter in order to hear the different (opposite you could say) way they sound. I came across this lovely poem by Philip Larkin.

The Trees​

The trees are coming into leaf
Like something almost being said;
The recent buds relax and spread,
Their greenness is a kind of grief.

Is it that they are born again
And we grow old? No, they die too,
Their yearly trick of looking new
Is written down in rings of grain.

Yet still the unresting castles thresh
In fullgrown thickness every May.
Last year is dead, they seem to say,
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
~Philip Larkin, 1974

It's pretty straightforward iambic tetrameter except for one line:

Yet still the unresting castles thresh

What do I make of "the" in this line? Is it a demoted syllable? Or is "un" the demoted syllable? I know there's an extra unstressed syllable and I think it has to be in the second foot. Just trying to understand!

 

[Tzara]

I've been reading and comparing examples of trochaic tetrameter and iambic tetrameter in order to hear the different (opposite you could say) way they sound. I came across this lovely poem by Philip Larkin.

The Trees​

The trees are coming into leaf
Like something almost being said;
The recent buds relax and spread,
Their greenness is a kind of grief.

Is it that they are born again
And we grow old? No, they die too,
Their yearly trick of looking new
Is written down in rings of grain.

Yet still the unresting castles thresh
In fullgrown thickness every May.
Last year is dead, they seem to say,
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
~Philip Larkin, 1974

It's pretty straightforward iambic tetrameter except for one line:

Yet still the unresting castles thresh

What do I make of "the" in this line? Is it a demoted syllable? Or is "un" the demoted syllable? I know there's an extra unstressed syllable and I think it has to be in the second foot. Just trying to understand!

I think it's just an anapestic substitution. The way I would mark the scansion of the line is

​

Yet still / the un·rest / ing cast / les thresh​

so Larkin has simply replaced the expected iamb with an anapest. Of course, that prompts the question "why?"

My guess is that it is partly to break up the repetitiveness of the iambic meter, but also to emphasize the activity of the tree regrowing its leaves, regenerating each year. The tree changes from its leafless state into its spring growth, disturbing the stasis of winter. I think it's also significant that the substitution is in the first line of the stanza, as the way I mark the scansion, the first line of the previous stanza also features a substitution

​

Is it / that they / are born / a·gain​

replacing the first iamb of the line with a trochee. Again, partly (perhaps) to mix up the rhythm a bit, but maybe also to give the stanza a bit of drive into the question-and-answer the stanza supplies about the "grief" mentioned at the end of the first stanza.

My thoughts, anyway. Very nice poem and example. Larkin's meter is always so elegant.

 

[Remec]

Thanks Tzara. This is very helpful. With each explanation I understand a little more.

I think I distill at least a smidgen more too. (But not much more since most discussion of meter and feet goes mostly over my head.) But I still pop in to read and glean what I can.

I get what y'all were saying about song vs poetry. I can appreciate the lyrics, but working out accents, stresses, and meters get a little obscured in how I "hear" the line(s) in my head. eg, In that first line from Lucy, I hear 'sky' and 'dia' as being multisyllabic.

 

[Angeline]

I think I distill at least a smidgen more too. (But not much more since most discussion of meter and feet goes mostly over my head.) But I still pop in to read and glean what I can.

I get what y'all were saying about song vs poetry. I can appreciate the lyrics, but working out accents, stresses, and meters get a little obscured in how I "hear" the line(s) in my head. eg, In that first line from Lucy, I hear 'sky' and 'dia' as being multisyllabic.

Hi Remec . We'll see what our gurus have to say but I hear you and I think the whole point (regarding the Lucy line) is about a song not being a poem. You can't (shouldn't?) apply the way a word is sung to id how a syllable is stressed. The Fabs, to my ear, draw out the word "sky" when they sing it. I can see how someone listening to it would think it's two syllables. But we both know it's really not, which is why my idea about trying to scan a song lyric (and out of context to boot) is rather a hare-brained one.

However it's good to have a fellow traveler on this journey. I kinda feel like Alice in Wonderland lol. And on an unrelated note thank you for reviving the 30/30 thread. I've considered trying another round but I sweat just thinking about it!

 

[Tzara]

I think I distill at least a smidgen more too. (But not much more since most discussion of meter and feet goes mostly over my head.) But I still pop in to read and glean what I can.

I get what y'all were saying about song vs poetry. I can appreciate the lyrics, but working out accents, stresses, and meters get a little obscured in how I "hear" the line(s) in my head. eg, In that first line from Lucy, I hear 'sky' and 'dia' as being multisyllabic.

This gets a little into linguistics and phonetics, which I know even less about than meter, but the long "i" in "sky" is a diphthong, which is a blend of two vowel sounds into a single vowel, often indicated phonetically as an aɪ blend. (If I slow it way down, it kind of sounds like "ah-ee" smushed together.) I don't think that changes the syllabification, though; "sky" is still monosyllabic.

"Diamond" is different. First off, Merriam-Webster's definition shows it as three syllables: di·a·mond, but most things I've seen online indicate that it is usually pronounced in American English as two syllables (like "di·mond" with maybe a little slur into a schwa at the end of the first vowel). The long "i" is a blend, though, so it might be treated like a tripthong (aɪə).

Grace Kelly pronounces it pretty clearly as three syllables in To Catch a Thief:

But sung, it often sounds distinctly as two syllables, as with Shirley Bassey:

or Marilyn Monroe:

so it could probably be treated either as disyllabic or trisyllabic, depending upon the context.

 

[12oclocktales]

This gets a little into linguistics and phonetics, which I know even less about than meter, but the long "i" in "sky" is a diphthong, which is a blend of two vowel sounds into a single vowel, often indicated phonetically as an aɪ blend. (If I slow it way down, it kind of sounds like "ah-ee" smushed together.) I don't think that changes the syllabification, though; "sky" is still monosyllabic.

"Diamond" is different. First off, Merriam-Webster's definition shows it as three syllables: di·a·mond, but most things I've seen online indicate that it is usually pronounced in American English as two syllables (like "di·mond" with maybe a little slur into a schwa at the end of the first vowel). The long "i" is a blend, though, so it might be treated like a tripthong (aɪə).

Grace Kelly pronounces it pretty clearly as three syllables in To Catch a Thief:

But sung, it often sounds distinctly as two syllables, as with Shirley Bassey:

or Marilyn Monroe:

so it could probably be treated wither as disyllabic or trisyllabic, depending upon the context.

As an aside, I noticed that Webster’s also treats the word diaper the same way, giving it 3 syllables; I’ve never heard that word pronounced with 3 syllables, except perhaps humorously by someone very intoxicated.

 

[Angeline]

This gets a little into linguistics and phonetics, which I know even less about than meter, but the long "i" in "sky" is a diphthong, which is a blend of two vowel sounds into a single vowel, often indicated phonetically as an aɪ blend. (If I slow it way down, it kind of sounds like "ah-ee" smushed together.) I don't think that changes the syllabification, though; "sky" is still monosyllabic.

"Diamond" is different. First off, Merriam-Webster's definition shows it as three syllables: di·a·mond, but most things I've seen online indicate that it is usually pronounced in American English as two syllables (like "di·mond" with maybe a little slur into a schwa at the end of the first vowel). The long "i" is a blend, though, so it might be treated like a tripthong (aɪə).

Grace Kelly pronounces it pretty clearly as three syllables in To Catch a Thief:

But sung, it often sounds distinctly as two syllables, as with Shirley Bassey:

or Marilyn Monroe:

so it could probably be treated either as disyllabic or trisyllabic, depending upon the context.

I've totally lost the conversation on meter after watching Grace Kelly, Cary Grant and Marilyn!

 

[Angeline]

Now that I've recovered from the intoxicating allure of old school Hollywood glamour I can return to my excellent adventures in meter.

I started by writing what I hope are lines of trochaic tetrameter.

Hear me, hear us cry and hustle
Marching feet and moving bustle
Women, children, men with purpose
Join the movement, join our circus

They didn't have to rhyme: I could have made them blank verse but what the hell. I can do rhymes. No joke this was hard. It took me near an hour to come up with lines that sound correct, have a logical flow and present an image if not a story.

Then I tried to do the same thing with iambs: same number of feet (4) and use end rhymes. Here's the result.

I dreamt an empty afternoon
Was painted gray in lifeless tones
Until I saw another room
Was bright and I was not alone
For here was satin shiny red
And gleaming walls of royal blue
A world in which nothing is dead
But lit with Sun and filled with you

Clearly this was much easier for me. I think I got the meter right, not 100% on line 7 but we'll see. I wrote twice as much as the trochaic lines and this sounds a lot more like poetry to me. Why is that? It's not that one meter is better than another, although I think trochaic lines are harder to sustain than iambic ones. Mainly it's a matter of practice and learning to easily hear the differences.

As to tone and pace, trochaic lines sound like chanting to me, whereas iambic lines sound like normal speech. Trochaic lines sound distinctly measured while iambic ones flow more. So that tells me there are specific ways I could use trochees for effect (like Shakespeare did with the witches in Macbeth). Of course Tzara explained all this but practicing helped me understand it, understand what it feels like to write them myself. If anyone else is interested I encourage you to try doing the same.

I think next I want to write alternating lines of trochees and iambs in the same piece to try and learn how to combine them. And to continue practicing. If there are other ways to practice I'm open to suggestion! And somewhere down the line (maybe later in the week or next week) I'll tackle anapests...just not yet lol.

 

[12oclocktales]

Now that I've recovered from the intoxicating allure of old school Hollywood glamour I can return to my excellent adventures in meter.

I started by writing what I hope are lines of trochaic tetrameter.

Hear me, hear us cry and hustle
Marching feet and moving bustle
Women, children, men with purpose
Join the movement, join our circus

They didn't have to rhyme: I could have made them blank verse but what the hell. I can do rhymes. No joke this was hard. It took me near an hour to come up with lines that sound correct, have a logical flow and present an image if not a story.

Then I tried to do the same thing with iambs: same number of feet (4) and use end rhymes. Here's the result.

I dreamt an empty afternoon
Was painted gray in lifeless tones
Until I saw another room
Was bright and I was not alone
For here was satin shiny red
And gleaming walls of royal blue
A world in which nothing is dead
But lit with Sun and filled with you

Clearly this was much easier for me. I think I got the meter right, not 100% on line 7 but we'll see. I wrote twice as much as the trochaic lines and this sounds a lot more like poetry to me. Why is that? It's not that one meter is better than another, although I think trochaic lines are harder to sustain than iambic ones. Mainly it's a matter of practice and learning to easily hear the differences.

As to tone and pace, trochaic lines sound like chanting to me, whereas iambic lines sound like normal speech. Trochaic lines sound distinctly measured while iambic ones flow more. So that tells me there are specific ways I could use trochees for effect (like Shakespeare did with the witches in Macbeth). Of course Tzara explained all this but practicing helped me understand it, understand what it feels like to write them myself. If anyone else is interested I encourage you to try doing the same.

I think next I want to write alternating lines of trochees and iambs in the same piece to try and learn how to combine them. And to continue practicing. If there are other ways to practice I'm open to suggestion! And somewhere down the line (maybe later in the week or next week) I'll tackle anapests...just not yet lol.

In line 7, would splitting "nothing' into two words (no thing) work for you?

 

[Angeline]

In line 7, would splitting "nothing' into two words (no thing) work for you?

I thought about that but wanted to see what Tzara or Waeponwifestre had to say. I'm not sure it's necessary. But yes that was the word that made me question the line!

I'm reading "nothing" as the first syllable is unstressed. Í think that would still be true if it were the word "no" were used. In either case the stress still falls on "thing." But maybe I'm wrong and both are stressed in which case it's a spondee, not an iamb.

 

[Tzara]

Now that I've recovered from the intoxicating allure of old school Hollywood glamour I can return to my excellent adventures in meter.

I started by writing what I hope are lines of trochaic tetrameter.

Hear me, hear us cry and hustle
Marching feet and moving bustle
Women, children, men with purpose
Join the movement, join our circus

They didn't have to rhyme: I could have made them blank verse but what the hell. I can do rhymes. No joke this was hard. It took me near an hour to come up with lines that sound correct, have a logical flow and present an image if not a story.

Then I tried to do the same thing with iambs: same number of feet (4) and use end rhymes. Here's the result.

I dreamt an empty afternoon
Was painted gray in lifeless tones
Until I saw another room
Was bright and I was not alone
For here was satin shiny red
And gleaming walls of royal blue
A world in which nothing is dead
But lit with Sun and filled with you

Clearly this was much easier for me. I think I got the meter right, not 100% on line 7 but we'll see. I wrote twice as much as the trochaic lines and this sounds a lot more like poetry to me. Why is that? It's not that one meter is better than another, although I think trochaic lines are harder to sustain than iambic ones. Mainly it's a matter of practice and learning to easily hear the differences.

As to tone and pace, trochaic lines sound like chanting to me, whereas iambic lines sound like normal speech. Trochaic lines sound distinctly measured while iambic ones flow more. So that tells me there are specific ways I could use trochees for effect (like Shakespeare did with the witches in Macbeth). Of course Tzara explained all this but practicing helped me understand it, understand what it feels like to write them myself. If anyone else is interested I encourage you to try doing the same.

I think next I want to write alternating lines of trochees and iambs in the same piece to try and learn how to combine them. And to continue practicing. If there are other ways to practice I'm open to suggestion! And somewhere down the line (maybe later in the week or next week) I'll tackle anapests...just not yet lol.

The trochaic example scans correctly (i.e. fully trochaic) to me. I agree it is kind of difficult to write in trochaics. I had a hard time with my little example as well.

The iambic example is good except for line seven, which (to me) has a trochaic substitution in the third foot:

A world / in which / noth·ing / is dead​

One of the things I have a lot of trouble with is getting seduced by whatever the dominant rhythm is and to use that to override how a word—especially a polysyllabic word—is pronounced. It's a common error; think of how Sting mispronounces "Nabokov" in "Don't Stand So Close to Me" to sync with the beat of the song. Merriam-Webster indicates that "nothing" is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable rather than the second as implied in your example (i.e. as noth·ing, rather then noth·ing or no·thing). I haven't yet talked about scansion, but my teachers suggested starting starting to mark scansion in a line by marking the stresses in polysyllabic words, I think in part to avoid this problem.

I think 12oclocktales's suggestion of substituting "no thing" for "nothing" in the line would remove the trochee, but it kind of changes the connotation of the line. I'd suggest as an alternative that you move the word "nothing" up in the line and change the wording a bit. Something like this:

A world / where noth / ing's simp / ly dead​

though "simply" might not be what you want to say, but some kind of two syllable word with the accent on the first syllable would work.

 

[Angeline]

The trochaic example scans correctly (i.e. fully trochaic) to me. I agree it is kind of difficult to write in trochaics. I had a hard time with my little example as well.

The iambic example is good except for line seven, which (to me) has a trochaic substitution in the third foot:

​

A world / in which / noth·ing / is dead​

One of the things I have a lot of trouble with is getting seduced by whatever the dominant rhythm is and to use that to override how a word—especially a polysyllabic word—is pronounced. It's a common error; think of how Sting mispronounces "Nabokov" in "Don't Stand So Close to Me" to sync with the beat of the song. Merriam-Webster indicates that "nothing" is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable rather than the second as implied in your example (i.e. as noth·ing, rather then noth·ing or no·thing). I haven't yet talked about scansion, but my teachers suggested starting starting to mark scansion in a line by marking the stresses in polysyllabic words, I think in part to avoid this problem.

I think 12oclocktales's suggestion of substituting "no thing" for "nothing" in the line would remove the trochee, but it kind of changes the connotation of the line. I'd suggest as an alternative that you move the word "nothing" up in the line and change the wording a bit. Something like this:

​

A world / where noth / ing's simp / ly dead​

though "simply" might not be what you want to say, but some kind of two syllable word with the accent on the first syllable would work.

Thanks for the feedback T-Zed. Yes I think I got caught up in the writing and just didn't hear the word correctly because when I say it now it seems obvious the stress is on the first syllable. I have to keep reminding myself to say the lines out loud. I get turned around when I just read them!

I'm thinking ~

A world where nothing's wholly dead

works better for me though I've no idea what, if anything, I'd do with those lines. But it is iambic!