[ Join Free! ]
(No Spam mail)

  • RolePlay
  • Join Us
  • Writings
  • Shoutbox
  • Community
  • Digg Mashup
  • Mp3 Search
  • Online Education
  • My Youtube
  • Ear Training
  • Funny Pics
  • nav

  • Role Play
  • Piano Music
  • Free Videos
  • Web 2.0
  • nav

    << | >>

    dots Submission Name: Music and Wordsdots

    Author: Lerlim
    ASL Info:    48/M/France
    Elite Ratio:    8 - 110/58/18
    Words: 198
    Class/Type: Poetry/Serious
    Total Views: 1543
    Average Vote:    5.0000
    Bytes: 1636

       Hi! I suggest that you skip these remarks until you've read the poem. If you're intrigued by the references to Auden and Cummings, you can read more about them here after.

    So, Auden wrote an interesting prose piece called "Dichtung und Wahrheit" (don't worry, it's not in German ;-). Number five in this says:

    If I were a composer, I believe I could produce a piece of music which would express to a listener what I mean when I think the word love, but it would be impossible for me to compose it in such a way that he would know that this love was felt for You (not for God, or my mother, or the decimal system). The language of music is, as it were, intransitive, and it is just this intransitivity which makes it meaningless for a listener to ask — "Does the composer really mean what he says, or is he only pretending?".

    The reference to Cummings is double. First to his wonderful piece "A poet's advice to students", which any aspiring poet must read (This is the most important part, not the whole thing):

    "A poet is somebody who feels, and who expresses his feelings through words. This may sound easy. It isn't. A lot of people think or believe or know they feel — but that's thinking or believing or knowing; not feeling. And poetry is feeling — not knowing or believing or thinking. Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can be taught to feel. Why? Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you're a lot of other people: but the moment you feel, you're nobody-but-yourself. To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else — means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a little harder than anybody who isn't a poet can possibly imagine. Why? Because nothing is quite as easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us do exactly this nearly all of the time — and whenever we do it, we are not poets."

    And, second, his lovely poem "since feeling is first":

    since feeling is first
    who pays any attention
    to the syntax of things
    will never wholly kiss you;

    wholly to be a fool
    while Spring is in the world

    my blood approves,
    and kisses are a better fate
    than wisdom
    lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
    -- the best gesture of my brain is less than
    your eyelids' flutter which says

    we are for each other; then
    laugh, leaning back in my arms
    for life's not a paragraph

    And death i think is no parenthesis

    I'm also quite proud (as a linguist) to have gotten the words "intransitive, syntax, and semantics" into a poem ;-)

    Make the font bigger!! Double Spacing Back to recent posts.

    dotsMusic and Wordsdots

    Music and Words
    For Joachim

    You said that music cannot lie
        while words permit deceit,
    a melody reveals the soul.
        Correct but ... incomplete.

    For music is intransitive,
        as Auden pointed out,
    expressing feelings faithfully
        but not what they're about.

    If I were Mozart I might sing
        just what I mean by 'love'.
    But without phrases how to say
        it's you I'm thinking of?

    And music has no 'there' nor 'then',
        no 'what if?' no 'perhaps'.
    Emotions of the here and now
        in timeless truth it traps.

    "Feeling is first", as Cummings said,
        and common words but tell
    of knowledge, thought, belief banal:
        for love a swarming hell.

    Yet there are provinces of feeling,
        beyond the here and now,
    that only syntax and semantics
        will readily avow.

    My verse is but a weak attempt
        to keep the compass right
    between the reefs of commonplace
        and music's ideal flight.

    Since you are you and I am me
        this compact I propose:
    Envelope me in music sweet,
        just add a rose of prose.

    Submitted on 2007-01-06 07:22:45     Terms of Service / Copyright Rules
    Submissions: [ Previous ] [ Next ]

    Rate This Submission

    1: >_<
    2: I dunno...
    3: meh!
    4: Pretty cool
    5: Wow!

    ||| Comments |||
      I've been following your work when I can and I felt I could best sum up my thoughts on many of them by coming out and commenting on this particular poem.

    Sonnets . . . metrical poetry, well you know these are old forms and they have their place, but to me they are mechanical forms and I never could quite get myself to think let alone fall in love with iambs and anapests and blah be blahs, googagoos. Poetry should be timeless yet rooted in its own time, and far too many sonnets and the like come across as horribly anachronistic and banal. One should never confuse imitation with art. The desire to express oneself is, however, noble, and even Picasso mastered the forms before he turned to the surreal pathworks of his famous work.

    So, what's my point?

    I guess what I am saying is I'd love to see you stretch yourself into other forms, maybe pick up a copy of the New Book of Forms if you don't have one, and go after some of those if you love the structure. To me there's validity in any structure, so long as it doesn't prove an ill container for your thoughts. Sometimes you try to cram 10 liters into a 5 liter jar, but more often than not, it rings untrue, forced, and loses me as a reader.

    On the metaphorical level . . . again, I say that Auden, Mozart, Cummings, roses, and the transpositioning of words like "music sweet" make me want to punch the screen.

    You have much to say and I would beg you to find a way to say it in the world you see around you, stretch your wings, and fly.

    I'll be watching.

    | Posted on 2007-02-13 00:00:00 | by Vancrown | [ Reply to This ]
      It's breath-taking. I love this. A fascinating line of reasoning put into meter.

    If I did not have exams now, I would surely give some intelligent criticism.

    Let me just say: You have evolved a lot since your initial poetry. And I'm sure, given your dedication, you'll go a lot further.

    All the best.

    [I did not understand this line: " for love a swarming hell."]
    | Posted on 2007-01-14 00:00:00 | by albery rinash | [ Reply to This ]
      The overall impression I get from this
    poem is one of a pleasing tune but more of
    something heard in the background.
    A tune that accompanies a spring
    breeze but does not demand attention.
    I find that paradoxical, if the words are
    read for meaning I am enjoined to a
    discourse but the flow being of a light
    melody gives me the impression we are
    to place but little significance on the words
    themselves. Is this then referring to the
    intransitive nature of music and how
    music can affect our mood even effect
    a mood. One contrary to the nature of
    our circumstance. Or is it the intransitive
    nature of words to be so affected by music
    regardless of their meaning or any concrete
    nature they might otherwise possess, that
    their own musicality can belie their import.
    like an insult with a smile. Or a yes with
    a shrug. So in the end even if we pen
    words to music it seems to be the nature
    of music to overcome mere words. Which
    I then surmise makes the sound of a word
    and its interaction with the sounds of the
    words that surround it of the utmost importance to
    a poet. For regardless of what he says
    the music of saying it has the power to
    either enhance or detract from the meaning
    he wishes to convey. Well then this was
    a fascinating poem to have revealed all of
    that. I think I quite like it.


    | Posted on 2007-01-07 00:00:00 | by DaleP | [ Reply to This ]
      Wow, this is really great. Ugh... very great, indeed. The fact that you used a rhyme scheme... well, I don't think it would have worked to write a poem about words and music without the rhyme to give it that musical, rhythmic feel. I find no real fault in this at all, but there is one thing, and it's something I think you did for effect, but still, it doesn't sit quite right with me, and that would be the repitition of the words "here and now" in those two stanzas. I think they are too near each other. The echo of the first hasn't left me by time I arrive at the second, and therefore, to me, it sounds a bit awkward. But I'm sure this is a personal preference.

    Beyond this though, I think this poem is splendid. How very true; and that's why we have songs--music and lyrics.

    | Posted on 2007-01-06 00:00:00 | by IamYourTragedy | [ Reply to This ]
      This was beautiful. The rhythm is excellent, and you have successfully used rhyme, which is a feat in and of itself. I know that this is just praise, with no constructive criticism, but I dont feel it needs critiquing.
    | Posted on 2007-01-06 00:00:00 | by Clarkie | [ Reply to This ]
      Well, you should be prouder of the fact the poem overall ‘works’, more than the fact that you got “syntax”, etc. into it. This is one of your better writes. One of the problems of rhyme / meter is the difficulty of expressing feeling well within the confines of their regular structure; and also to keep the structure from distorting the essentially unstructured nature of emotion. In other words, to use a structure of logic to express unstructured, often illogical, feelings. This poem expresses its thoughts well. You make your point effectively. It contains some phrases that are excellent, particularly the last line. All these are good things, which raise this above most poetry I’ve read. But does it fully convey emotion? Probably not. Shakespeare’s sonnets are nice, but they are more musical and clever than truly emotional.
    In summation, I like the poem, but disagree with the notion that poetry must convey well a feeling. Instead, it is often enough, as in this write, that the words tell us ABOUT feeling. The verses you quote in Cummins 2nd poem, in fact, are in free-verse. They convey feeling more than they would if they were ABOUT emotion.
    | Posted on 2007-01-06 00:00:00 | by fredmelden | [ Reply to This ]

    Think Feedback more than Compliments :: [ Guidelines ]

    1. Be honest.
    2. Try not to give only compliments.
    3. How did it make you feel?
    4. Why did it make you feel that way?
    5. Which parts?
    6. What distracted from the piece?
    7. What was unclear?
    8. What does it remind you of?
    9. How could it be improved?
    10. What would you have done differently?
    11. What was your interpretation of it?
    12. Does it feel original?


    Be kind, take a few minutes to review the hard work of others <3
    It means a lot to them, as it does to you.




    User Name:


    [ Quick Signup ]
    [ Lost Password ]

    January 10 07
    131,497 Poems

    I have 14,000+ Subscribers on Youtube. See my Video Tutorials

    [ Angst Poetry ]
    [ Cutters ]
    [ Famous Poetry ]
    [ Poetry Scams ]

    [ Smaller ] [ Bigger ]