Discussion:
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
Add Reply
Ironywaves
2003-09-29 07:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969

_________________________________________________________________

The close relationship between poetry and music scarcely needs to be
argued. Both are aural modes which employ rhythm, rime, and pitch as
major devices; to these the one adds linguistic meaning, connotation,
and various traditional figures, and the other can add, at least in
theory, all of these plus harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration
techniques. In English the two are closely bound his- torically.
Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry seems certainly to have been read or chanted
to a harpist's accompaniment; the verb used in Beowulf for such a
performance, the Finn episode, is singan, to sing, and the noun gyd,
song. A major source of the lyric tradition in English poetry is the
songs of the troubadours.

The distance between the gleomannes gyd in Beowulf or "Sumer is Icumen
In" and the songs of Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan may seem great, but is
one of time rather than aesthetics. The Iyric poem as a literary work
and the Iyrics of a popular song are both still essentially the same
thing: poetry. Whether the title of the work be "Gerontion," "You
Ain't Nothin' But a Hound Dog," or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," our
criteria for evaluating the work must remain the same.

The most important prerequisite for both a significant poem and
significant Iyrics in a popular song is that the writer be faithful to
his own personal vision or to the vision of the poem he is writing.
All the skill and craft generally believed necessary for writing
poetry are indeed necessary because these are the only means by which
a poet can preserve the integrity of this vision in the poem. Whether
writing for the hit parade or the little magazine, a poet must not,
either because of lack of skill or worship of a false muse-popularity,
wealth, or critical acclaim - go outside of his own or his own
poem's vision - on pain of writing only the derivative or the trivial.
Historically, the writers and singers of the lyrics of popular songs
have seemed often to be incapable of personal vision, and to have
confused both originality and morality with a servile compliance to
popular taste. Tiny Tim and Mrs. Miller have both been remarkable
chiefly as unconscious caricatures of this naivety.

Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen represent two highly contrasting
directions from which the attempt to restore significance and
integrity of vision to the popular song can be made. Bob Dylan is the
child runaway who became a professional songwriter by deliberate hard
work, and whose emergence as a poet of some talent seems to have been
accidental, almost as if he had unconsciously realized that good songs
have to contain reasonably good lyric poetry. Leonard Cohen is a
university-educated formalistic poet who has moved in an opposite
direction with his recent discovery that a good lyric poem could
equally be a good song. Dylan brings to poetry a spontaneity of rhythm
and a resourcefulness in imagery that had long been qualities of
American folk music, as in that of Huddie Ledbetter or of Dylan's own
idol, Woodie Guthrie. Cohen takes to the poem as popular song a
scholarly precision of language and an obsession for extemal form.

As lyricists these men stand far above the Carl Lee Perkinses, Richard
Whitings, Irving Berlins, and George Gershwins of the past. A close
look at either reveals a writer with individual experiences, ideas,
imagery, and vocabulary, a writer who projects his own self and its
circumstances rather than fabricating a persona from the offal of our
culture. In Bob Dylan's work it is the original imagery and the
intensely personal vision that is immediately obvious


I saw a new born baby with wild wolves all around it,
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a roomful of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,

I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a gonna fall.

While there is a definite rhythmical naivety in this passage, it is
nearly lost in the richness of its images. Dylan's stance here is the
stance of the visionary, of the prophet. His images are ones out of
our own society, but seen by his own eyes and not in any way as this
society might wish them to be seen.

There are many elements of interest in Bob Dylan's vision: his
awareness of both the miseries and virtues of the down-trodden, his
sense of the viciousness of the present United States society, his
hatred of war, his personal need for independence from a materialistic
culture's ties, and his feeling of the imminence of the apocalypse. In
fact, Dylan's vision is essentially apocalyptic; again and again he
tells of an evil world which is soon to be both punished and replaced
tomorrow, perhaps, when the ship comes in.

The world of Bob Dylan is a wor]d where the unemployed Hollis Brown,
his wife and their five children are allowed by their fellow
countrymen to starve in a filthy cabin and "the dirty driven rain"
("The Ballad of Hollis Brown"), where civil rights workers are
murdered ("Oxford Town"), where prisoners are abused by sadistic
guards ("The Walls of Red Wing"). It is a world of embittered
immigrants ("I Pity the Poor Tmmigrant"), of exploited tenants ("Dear
Landlord"), of frivolous and materialistic women ("Sad-Eyed Lady of
the Lowlands"). It is a world where white Americans systematically
destroy entire tribes of Indians, where each warring nation and
faction imagines smugly that God is on its side ("With God on Our
Side"), where the "masters of war" hide in their mansions "as young
people's blood/flows out of their bodies /and is buried in the mud"
("Masters of War"). The United States, to Dylan, is the country that
enjoys watching boxer kill boxer ("Who Killed Davey Moore"), the
country where a judge can coerce a young girl to intercourse on the
false promise that he will save her father from hanging ("Seven
Curses"), the country where poor whites are taught by the rich to hate
negroes ("Only a Pawn in their Game"), and the country where mine and
factory are opened and closed with little thought to the welfare of
the worker ("North Country Blues"). To the young, in Dylan's eyes, the
United States is an absurd, surrealistic place:


Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
get dressed, get blessed
try to be a success
Please her, please, him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift,
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid, they keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle, don't wear sandals
Try to avoid scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum.


("Subterranean Homesick Blues")

Dylan himself wants neither to chew gum nor please anyone. He is
against not only the kind of possessiveness and dominance of human
beings that the United States practices through its foreign policy,
its racial discrimination, its boxing syndicates, and its abuse of
workers, but also (at least until the recent album Nashville Sky-
line) against the possessiveness and dominance encouraged by romantic
love. In 'Don't Think Twice it's All Right" the speaker deserts a
woman because she required too much of him; "I gave her my heart but
she wanted my soul." In "It Ain't Me Babe" the speaker has encountered
a girl who wants "someone to close his eyes for" her, "someone to
close his heart. Someone who will die for" her, "and more." Again,
such demands, even though sanctioned by our culture, seem unreasonable
to him. Dylan expresses his own ideas on the ideal relationship
between people in his song "All I Really Want to Do." These ideas do
not apply merely to the relationship between man and woman, but in the
light of his other songs can be generalized to include the
relationship between worker and employer, citizen and policeman,
student and professor.


I ain't lookin, to compete with you,
Beat or cheat or mistreat you,.
Simplify you, classify you,
Deny, defy, or crucify you.
All I really want to do
Is Baby, be friends with you.

Dylan seeks the destruction of what is to him an inhumanly
competitive, exploitive, classifying, and confining society. Because
his vision is apocalyptic, however, he does not foresee revolution
occurring other than spontaneously, without apparent cause, as if by
divine act. That our contemporary society, its institutions, and its
values should not only be criticized and rejected but also escaped
seems to be his major piece of advice to us all. But man's own means
of escape are limited: one can murder one's starving wife and chil-
dren and commit suicide oneself, like Hollis Brown, so that "some-
where in the distance/There's seven new people born" ("Ballad of
Hollis Brown"), or one can follow "Mr. Tambourine Man" and through
marijuana, LSD, or hard narcotics come "to dance beneath the diamond
sky" ("Mr. Tambourine Man"). For change that will affect everyone
something larger must occur. A song such as "The Times They Are
A-Changin' " contains only a hint of the coming apocalypse.


The line is drawn
The curse is cast
The slow one now will
Later be fast.
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

And yet it is clearly the Christian apocalypse, with its conventional
raising of the meek and toppling of the mighty, that Dylan is
suggesting. Songs such as "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" or "A Hard
Rain's A Gonna Fall" present the surrealistic rush and confusion of a
judgement day already at hand. The last scene of Bergman's The Seventh
Seal sends men everywhere scurrying for a pennyworth of salvation,
"The Saints are coming through,/And It's all over now, Baby Blue." In
"I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine" the blessed saint himself comes down
to earth to offer man life after destruction. In four other songs
Dylan's vision of the all-arighting apocalypse is directly expressed.
In "Chimes of Freedom" Dylan pictures an exhilarating scene:


Thru the mad mystic hammering of the wild ripping hail
The sky cracked its poems in naked wonder
That the clanging of the church bells blew far into the breeze
Leaving only the bells of lightning and its thunder
Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind,
Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind
An' the unpawned painter behind beyond his rightful time
An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

In "Lay Down Your Weary Tune" he reports:


Struck by sounds before the sun,
I knew the night had gone,
The morning breeze like a bugle blew
Against the drums of dawn.

The ocean wild like an organ played
The seaweed's wove its strands,
The crashin waves like cymbals clashed
Against the rocks and sands.

I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws,
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause.

In "The Gates of Eden" Dylan develops a clear dichotomy between what
is possible on earth and what is possible in eternity.

Meaningless noise, ownership, kingship, time, metaphysics, lawcourts,
science, the dream of an earthly paradise - all, Dylan tells us, can
exist only outside the gates of Eden.


With a time rusted compass blade
Aladdin and his lamp
Sits with Utopian hermit monks
Sidesaddle on the Golden Calf
And on their promises of paradise
You will not hear a laugh
All except inside The Gates of Eden.

And some day, after the hard rain has fallen, perhaps - Dylan leaves
the entire physical circumstances of our society's cataclysmic
destruction intentionally vague-after the hard radioactive rain
following an atomic war, when indeed all is over for baby blue and
everyone else, these gates of Eden will open, and the hour will have
come, "the hour when the ship comes in."


O the time will come
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin'
Like the stillness in the wind
When the hurricane begins
The hour when the ship comes in.

O the sea will split
And the ship will hit
And the shoreline sands will be shaking
Then the tide will sound
and the wind will pound
And the morning will be breaking.

("When the Ship Comes In")

The corpus of Leonard Cohen's songs is nowhere as large as that of Bob
Dylan's. The total published number to this date is twenty songs - a
number superficially disproportionate to the notice they have received
in the various magazines of the record trade. When we examine these
songs, we find that unlike Dylan's they are for the most part love
songs. But once again we find that they are raised to considerable
significance and poetic integrity by the unique and intelligent vision
which informs them.

Cohen, however, gives little thought to any impending apocalypse. His
songs present a threatening, devouring world and men desperate to
delay their doom. All of his songs contain some implicit social
criticism, although only two, "The Old Revolution" and "Stories of the
Street," have an overt social commentary. The most nearly political of
his songs is "Stories of the Street," which begins:


The stories of the street are mine
The Spanish voices laugh
The cadillacs go creeping down
Through the night and the poison gas
I lean from my window sill
In this old hotel I chose.
Yes, one hand on my suicide
And one hand on the rose.

Cohen's vision here is of a society in imminent collapse because of
the greed and lust of its members.


I know you've heard it's over now
And war must surely come,
The cities they are broke in half
And the middle men are gone.
But let me ask you one more time
O children of the dust,
All these hunters who are shrieking now
Do they speak for us?

And where do all these highways go
Now that we are free?
Why are the armies marching still
That were coming home to me?
O lady with your legs so fine
O stranger at your wheel
You are locked into your suffering
And your pleasures are the seal.


The age of lust is giving birth
And both the parents ask the nurse
On both sides of the glass
Now the infant with his cord
Is hauled in like a kite
And one eye filled with blueprints
One eye filled with night.

Like Dylan, Cohen would escape a world unfeelingly ordered by highway
and blueprint, but this escape for him must be in the here and now.
And, if he cannot feel at home in his earthly refuge-here a
communalistic existence with other inhabitants of the natural
world-then he will have to accept, even though innocent, the fate of
his corrupt society.


O come with me my little one
And we will find that farm
And grow us grass and apples there
And keep the animals warm
And if by chance I wake at night
And I ask you who I am
O take me to the slaughter house
I will wait there with the lamb.

Man often lives in Cohen's world like Isaac upon his father's altar.
There is only one place for a man to be-where he is-and, if here
corruption and death are inevitable, man must accept these as parts of
his humanity.

In his love songs Cohen is, like Dylan, consistently concerned with
values rather than with the incessant "I want you, I need you, I love
you" theme of the average popular songwriter. Cohen seems to have come
to a realization that has so far escaped most of the writers for the
popular hit parade: that to get the girl into bed is quite easy, but
to get her there without endangering one's own integrity, or without
drawing oneself into the "poison gas" world, is a bit more difficult.
In "The Stranger Song" Cohen presents the cowardly lover, the lover
who is afraid to continue on his quest but wishes to exchange his
freedom for security, the lover "who is just some Joseph looking for a
manger," who "wants to trade the game he plays for shelter." Cohen
terms himself, the quester who still seeks significance, a "stranger;"
he terms the other man, who watches "for the card/that is so high and
wild/he'll never need to deal another," the "dealer." The "dealer,"
the bridegroom who wishes the toil and agony of courtship over, makes
an inadequate lover, Cohen tells us.
I know that kind of man
It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
Who's reaching for the sky just to surrender.

In "Winter Lady" and "Sisters of Mercy" Cohen presents the female
counterpart to the "stranger." This counterpart also has her freedom,
has not sold out to the easy life of guaranteed possession offered by
marriage. Aloof, independent, choosy, this "travelling lady" gives an
affection which Cohen feels should be far more to a man than a paper
contract. In "Sisters of Mercy" this woman waits to refresh the
questing stranger, ministering to his tiredness without plotting for
his being.


O the sisters of mercy
They are not departed or gone
They were waiting for me when I thought
That I just can't go on.

There is apparently no jealousy or possessiveness in his relationship
with these sisters; he can genuinely wish that they will be able to
aid other questing strangers like himself.


When I left they were sleeping
I hope you run into them soon.
Don't turn on the lights,
You can read their address by the moon;

And you won't make me jealous
If I hear that they've sweetened your night
We weren't lovers like that
And besides it would still be all right

There is merely a community of love where any may help any in his or
her quest for life's fulfillment.

Casual love between man and woman is,in Cohen's songs, a desirable
escape from the ordeal of existence. Domestic love is merely part of
the ordeal. In "So Long, Marianne" this contradiction which Cohen sees
between domesticity and personal freedom is explored at length. He
thought himself "some kind of gypsy boy," he tells Marianne, before he
let her take him home. Now, he says, "You make me forget so very
much/I forget to pray for the angel/ And then the angels forget to
pray for us." Here the woman desperately attempts to bind him: "your
fine spider web/Is fastening my ankle to a stone." She heretically
clings to him as if he were a substitute for the divine, holding him,
he says, "like I was a crucifix/ As we went kneeling through the
dark." In this song Cohen wavers, tempted by sentimentality as he
remembers their love "deep in the green lilac park" but is
fortuitously set free by her own possessive- ness, this time for
another man.


O you are really such a pretty one
I see youive gone and changed your name again
And just when I climbed this whole mountainside
To wash my eyelids in the rain.

"One of Us Cannot Be Wrong" is Cohen's ironic story of a pos- sessive
lover, both sadistic in his attempting to dominate the woman, and
masochistic in his yearning to be in turn dominated by her. The song
begins:


I lit a thin green candle
To make you jealous of me,

Then I took the dust of a long sleepless night
I put it in your little shoe.
And then I confess'd that I tortured the dress
That you wore for the world to look through.

The lover seeks the advice of a doctor who proves as frail as he,
locking "himself in a library shelf" with the details of their honey-
moon. He then visits a saint who teaches "that the duty of lovers is
to tarnish the golden rule," but the saint too proves frail. Reports
the lover,

And just when I was sure
That his teachings were pure
He drowned himself in the pool,
His body is gone, but back here on the lawn
His spirit continues to drool.

Nevertheless, our poor lover cannot learn by these sordid, possessive,
lascivious, and self-destroying examples and remains as blindly
masochistic as ever, as the last stanza demonstrates.

An Eskimo showed me a movie
He'd recently taken of you
The poor man could hardly stop shivering,
His lips and his fingers were blue.
I suppose that he froze
When the wind took your clothes
And I guess he just never got warm
But you stand there so nice
In your blizzard of ice
O please let me come into the storm.

The thing that all lovers must learn in Cohen's songs is how to say
goodbye, not because parting is good for its own sake but because ties
seem to Cohen to keep people from fulfilling their eesential manhood
or womanhood. Change is imperative for fulfillment in Cohen's
precarious world, and ties inhibit change, as is indicated by the song
"That's No Way to Say Goodbye."


I'm not looking for another
As I wander in my time,
Walk me to the corner
Our steps will always rhyme,
You know my love goes with you
As your love stays with me,
It's just the way it changes
Like the shoreline and the sea.

Cohen's most energetic condemnation of possessiveness in love is found
in "Master Song," a song about the poet's old sweetheart, who is
perhaps a personification of poetry herself, who has now come under
the control of an autocratic master. This new master is associated
throughout the song with images of violence and oppression: he is a
man "who had just come back from the war," who has given the woman "a
German shepherd to walk / With a collar of Ieather and nails," who
flies an aeroplane "without any hands," who "killed the lights in a
lonely lane" and made love to the woman in the guise of "an ape with
angel glands" to "the music of rubber bands." And in turn the woman
keeps the poet himself prisoner, not ever bringing herself to him, not
even bringing to him a sacramental surrogate of "wine and bread." This
song is one of intense disappointment and frustration, and is filled
with images of sterility and despair.

However, love does remain in the songs of Leonard Cohen the major
remedy to the callous possessiveness of our society. Cohen's song
"Suzanne" seems on one level to be another escape-through- drugs song
such as Dylan's "Mr Tambourine Man" or the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky
with Diamonds." But, as in this latter song, the escape is
ambivalently both female and hallucinogenic, and the speaker's entry
into the escape is clearly an entry into a love experience, so that
the song tells us simultaneously both that to turn on is to love and
that love is a turn-on. Even on first meeting the exotic Suzanne,
Cohen tells us, you will know

That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to trave! blind
And you think maybe you'll trust her
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.

As your experience with Suzanne deepens, he continues, you will want
not only to travel blind with her but also to walk upon the water with
the dead Jesus. By the end of the poem Suzanne has raised all the
various contradictory realities of this would-"the garbage and the
flowers"-to beauty, and has even through love brought ourselves to
perfection-"for she's touched your perfect body with her mind." A
further noteworthy aspect of Suzanne is that she can be approached or
abandoned at will-"you can spend the night beside her" (my italics);
both as an hallucinogenic and as a woman she acts only as a "sister of
mercy" and never as the grasping spouse.

The Cohen song where love serves most obviously as a panacea for
society's demand that one control, discipline, and enslave one's
environment and fellow man is the difficult and unpublished song,
"Love Tries to Call You by Your Name." Cohen's basic assumption in
this song is that in surrender to the materialism and generalism of
society one also surrenders one's personal identity. Only love, as the
title states, "tries to call you by your name." The song opens with
the speaker slowly losing himself in something much larger and less
real than he himself is.


I thought it would never happen
To all the people that I became
My body lost in these legends
And the beast so very tame
But here, right here
Between the birthmark and the stain
Between the ocean and the rain
Between the snowman and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.

From the wholeness and integrity of the ocean to the fragmentary
realities of the drops of rain, from the monolithic existence of the
snowman to the destructive rain which fragments that snowman, from the
birthmark which, when positively interpreted symbolises one's unique
being, to the birthmark pejoratively interpreted which now represents
a stain or blemish on the norm of general humanity, the speaker finds
himself pulled, while the "beast" of his individuality grows tamer and
love weakly calls on him to return.

Succeeding verses amplify Cohen's image of the man who is drawn into
self-annihilation and away from self-realization, a man much like the
"dealer" of "The Stranger Song." Such a man claws at "the halls of
fame," lives for "the age" rather than "the hour," for "the plain"
rather than "the sundial," and prefers the banality of the commonplace
to the demanding particularity of genuine love.


I leave the lady meditating on the very love
Which I do not wish to claim
I journey down these hundred steps
The street is still the same.

He abandons real lovers, real heroes, to follow society's broad high-
way to mediocrity, vulgarity, self-indulgence, and anonymity.
Especially here in this song it is self-indulgence which betrays the
indi- vidual away from the difficulties of one's own fulfillment and
into the easy chains of conformity.


Where are you Judy, where are you Ann
Where are all the paths all your heroes came
Wondering out loud as the bandage pulls away
Was I only limping or
Was I really lame;
O here, come over here
Between the windmill and the grain
Between the traitor and her pain
Between the sundial and the plain
Between the newsreel and your tiny pain
Between the snowmen and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.

The world that Cohen perceives in his songs is consistently
materialistic, sordid, and corrupting. Saints become lechers, lovers
become masochists, Cadillacs spread poison gas. Love can become "some
dust in an old man's cuff" ("Master Song"). Priests can trample the
grass of the shrines which they sene ("Priests"). God himself says to
man:


Sometimes I need you naked
Sometimes I need you wild
I need you to carry my children in
I need you to kill a child.

("You Know Who I Am")

Cohen shows man in this world clinging to whatever solace the moment
offers. The cowardly grasp one thing forever; the bolder move from
narcotic to narcotic, from woman to woman. And in "The Old Revolution"
Cohen shows everyone surrendering to this "furnace" that is life.


You who are broken by power
You who are absent all day
You who are kings for the sake of your children's story
The hand of your beggar is burdened down with money
The hand of your lover is clay
Into this furnace I ask you now to venture
You whom I cannot betray.

Cohen's is indeed a black world, illumined only by random loves, the
mystery of Suzanne, and the harsh light of the existential furnace.
Cohen has elsewhere been termed a "black romantic"-one who accepts the
evil and sordidness of this world and seeks revelation through
immersion in these. Such an interpretation of his work is certainly
supported by his songs. Dylan can be similarly interpreted,
particularly in view of his materialism's self-destruction, in such
songs as "A Hard Rain," as a gateway to Eden. Neither is an activist;
neither believes that utopia can be achieved through human action. And
both are thoroughly disinterested in purveying the old and simplistic
romantic lies whch so many of today's pop artists Donovan, the Bee
Gees, the Fifth Dimension, the Association consistently peddle. Both
instead try to do the poet's job present the world as the world
appears in the words and images which their separate visions demand.

Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
Emperor Bungle
2003-09-29 08:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ironywaves
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
<snipped incredibly boring dirge>

One long-winded self-absorbed tract deserves another. Here's mine:

1) Why can't you make your own defence of songwriters as poets instead of
relying on others?

2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?

The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies. They're the same people who insist on calling films
like "Once Upon a Time in America" operatic--who say 'film isn't
respectable, but if we start discussing it in the frame of reference of
another, higher, art form, it will become respectable'.

Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression, they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.

Why they do this only to pop music is beyond me. After all, nobody calls
hymns poetry even if the words can sometimes be subject to favourable
criticism in the same way as poetry. Nobody calls opera poetry. Or the
tensons, ballades and jeux partis of the troubadours.

There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.

All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
Ironywaves
2003-09-29 09:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Emperor Bungle
Post by Ironywaves
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
<snipped incredibly boring dirge>
1) Why can't you make your own defence of songwriters as poets instead of
relying on others?
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies. They're the same people who insist on calling films
like "Once Upon a Time in America" operatic--who say 'film isn't
respectable, but if we start discussing it in the frame of reference of
another, higher, art form, it will become respectable'.
Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression, they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.
Why they do this only to pop music is beyond me. After all, nobody calls
hymns poetry even if the words can sometimes be subject to favourable
criticism in the same way as poetry. Nobody calls opera poetry. Or the
tensons, ballades and jeux partis of the troubadours.
There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.
All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
I think you've got it, my man! Now let's dig on some poetry... maybe the
Beatles oe The Stones.
Will

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/
Emperor Bungle
2003-09-29 09:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ironywaves
Post by Ironywaves
poetry.
I think you've got it, my man! Now let's dig on some poetry... maybe the
Beatles oe The Stones.
Will
Does it concern you that you might be viewed as a retard?
Ironywaves
2003-09-29 14:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Emperor Bungle
Does it concern you that you might be viewed as a retard?
A person named "Emperor Bungle", at "bunghole.com", asks me that! Oh... it's
a British thing, right?
Will

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/
j***@webtv.net
2003-09-29 18:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I enjoyed this article, it is very good and well perceived....

~
as a music fan I always have 2nd reactions to music....It must be
because of the evening news and basic distrust.....of politicians...and
the business world and such...
~
as in at this point, I am sure that Woodie G. wrote all of Dylan's
music,,he gave him books of lyrics. ....showed him how to drop the g in
words, shorten them and add '...thus makin' it real dust bowl...and
grapes of wrath...stuff
~
and automatic writing....by Woodie G.
one has to look up Woodie G.
~
all the songs he "wrote" are old folk tunes recorded in the 50's by the
original folk singers on Electra records like Cynthia Gooding and T.
Bikel....like "where have you been.....and old Irish tunes that Sinead
O' Connor now sings in Sean Nos Nua...
~
all other songs are from Dylan Thomas lyrics, Rimbaud, french writers
and novels and such, poets ...I Ching..Japanese films and books and
Abraham Lincoln. This way he is sure that the writing is good and he
does not have to pay attention to critics. Like Woody Allen and a
Midsummer's Night comedy...we already it's good by W. Shakespeare.
~
his harmonica playing is great...and there are great songs because of
his singing.......

~
everything is geared towards his "glory"...and of course~ that's another
Woody G. song..
"bound for glory.........."only natural, I guess...



~
jn
Ironywaves
2003-09-29 19:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@webtv.net
I enjoyed this article, it is very good and well perceived....
~
as a music fan I always have 2nd reactions to music....It must be
because of the evening news and basic distrust.....of politicians...and
the business world and such...
~
as in at this point, I am sure that Woodie G. wrote all of Dylan's
music,,he gave him books of lyrics. ....showed him how to drop the g in
words, shorten them and add '...thus makin' it real dust bowl...and
grapes of wrath...stuff
~
and automatic writing....by Woodie G.
one has to look up Woodie G.
~
all the songs he "wrote" are old folk tunes recorded in the 50's by the
original folk singers on Electra records like Cynthia Gooding and T.
Bikel....like "where have you been.....and old Irish tunes that Sinead
O' Connor now sings in Sean Nos Nua...
~
all other songs are from Dylan Thomas lyrics, Rimbaud, french writers
and novels and such, poets ...I Ching..Japanese films and books and
Abraham Lincoln. This way he is sure that the writing is good and he
does not have to pay attention to critics. Like Woody Allen and a
Midsummer's Night comedy...we already it's good by W. Shakespeare.
~
his harmonica playing is great...and there are great songs because of
his singing.......
~
everything is geared towards his "glory"...and of course~ that's another
Woody G. song..
"bound for glory.........."only natural, I guess...
~
Post by j***@webtv.net
jn
I share your admiration of Woody Guthrie, a natural, pure poet, who also was
an obvious influence on the Beats, though he doesn't quite get that much
credit for it.
Will

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/
Chandra P. Das
2003-09-29 19:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ironywaves
Post by Emperor Bungle
Does it concern you that you might be viewed as a retard?
A person named "Emperor Bungle", at "bunghole.com", asks me that! Oh... it's
a British thing, right?
Dorkery, your new job for the rest of your life is to find a
functionally literate person who *doesn't* think you are a retard.
Get to work.
Post by Ironywaves
Will
Ironywaves
2003-09-29 19:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chandra P. Das
Post by Ironywaves
Post by Emperor Bungle
Does it concern you that you might be viewed as a retard?
A person named "Emperor Bungle", at "bunghole.com", asks me that! Oh... it's
a British thing, right?
Dorkery, your new job for the rest of your life is to find a
functionally literate person who *doesn't* think you are a retard.
Get to work.
Chandra, I don't accept your directions. I'm fine following my own path. Why
not find one of your own? Oh yeah, afraid, right?
Will

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/
Orlando Fiol
2003-10-13 05:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Emperor Bungle
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
As a sometimes singer/songwriter and distinct poet, I entirely agree.
Only rarely have I successfully set poems to music, whereas I've written
songs independently from poetry because they are so different.
Post by Emperor Bungle
The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies.
To me, all art attempts to describe or envision reality through a
stylistic language of gestures. Poetry's gestural vocabulary is usually
so arcane to modern readers that it ends up being an acquired taste.
Many obscure songwriters with equally obscure and obtuse references
remain cultish precisely because they are acquired tastes demanding
relistening and reinterpretation. Many ancient poets understood the
distinctions between ornate poetry and simpler song. For one, song is
intended to have its language digested upon the first listening, even if
the listener thinks about possible interpretations of metaphors and/or
symbolism afterwards.
Post by Emperor Bungle
Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression, they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.
I think the proposition was indeed explored in that piece. Dylan and
Cohen aren't typical songwriters; they're lyrical self expressionists,
far more complex than the courtly troubadours who may have inspired
them. They are, in a sense, pretentious because they ostensibly sought
to be poets but never published poetry before setting it to music.
Post by Emperor Bungle
There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.
I think Suzanne Vega, Randy Newman, Jonatha Brooke, Ani Difranco, David
Wilcox, Dar Williams and Jeff Buckley bothered.
Post by Emperor Bungle
All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
Absolutely. But I think there is popular and classical poetry, just as
there are popular and classical musics in many cultures. The
differences between them tend to be obvious. The popular is simpler,
less elegant, refined and indirect than the classical because its
communicative intend has to be more literal.

Orlando
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-13 13:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
For one thing, it was the only way to get the good pop and folk
songwriters past the school curriculum police. Textbook publishers were
helpful. There are analogies as well, including movies and jazz, and their
cultural triumphs. I'm surprised that "respectability" is still an issue
30-some years later.

Good exchange, guys.
Post by Orlando Fiol
As a sometimes singer/songwriter and distinct poet, I entirely agree.
Only rarely have I successfully set poems to music, whereas I've written
songs independently from poetry because they are so different.
Post by Emperor Bungle
The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies.
To me, all art attempts to describe or envision reality through a
stylistic language of gestures. Poetry's gestural vocabulary is usually
so arcane to modern readers that it ends up being an acquired taste.
Many obscure songwriters with equally obscure and obtuse references
remain cultish precisely because they are acquired tastes demanding
relistening and reinterpretation. Many ancient poets understood the
distinctions between ornate poetry and simpler song. For one, song is
intended to have its language digested upon the first listening, even if
the listener thinks about possible interpretations of metaphors and/or
symbolism afterwards.
Post by Emperor Bungle
Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression, they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.
I think the proposition was indeed explored in that piece. Dylan and
Cohen aren't typical songwriters; they're lyrical self expressionists,
far more complex than the courtly troubadours who may have inspired
them. They are, in a sense, pretentious because they ostensibly sought
to be poets but never published poetry before setting it to music.
Post by Emperor Bungle
There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.
I think Suzanne Vega, Randy Newman, Jonatha Brooke, Ani Difranco, David
Wilcox, Dar Williams and Jeff Buckley bothered.
Post by Emperor Bungle
All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
Absolutely. But I think there is popular and classical poetry, just as
there are popular and classical musics in many cultures. The
differences between them tend to be obvious. The popular is simpler,
less elegant, refined and indirect than the classical because its
communicative intend has to be more literal.
Orlando
Will Dockery
2018-07-24 17:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here you go Corey...

Read up, there will be a quiz later.

:)
Will Dockery
2019-07-31 22:08:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here you gom folks...

Read up, there will be a quiz later.

:)
General-Zod
2022-08-02 19:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/dylan-and-cohen-poets-of-rock-and-roll/introduction


*******************

Poets of a Generation
What remains true is that, if Dylan is, sui generis, the greatest song-writer of the age, Leonard Cohen is still the only name that can seriously he mentioned in the same breath.

Poetry is an evaluative descriptive word. It is descriptive in that it signifies an art form that, while being readily identifiable, retains a sufficient degree of ambiguity to have its meaning contested. To claim that something is poetry may often be to claim that it is authentic, that the voice of poetry has a greater claim to be heard than the nonpoetic. Paul Garon has made the emphatic and stipulative pronouncement that all blues is self-evidently poetry and that those who think otherwise must be mentally defective.[2] He argues that poetic art necessarily contains within itself elements of revolutionary ferment manifested as the struggle for freedom. Poetry liberates the mind from ideological structures and repressive constraints, projecting a vision of the possible beyond the actual. Surrealism, in Garon’s view, has facilitated this liberation by connecting the imagination to the blind spots of reality through stimulating and irritating nascent and latent faculties of thought by means of fantasy. Garon’s argument is stipulative and tautological. In defining poetry in this way, by definition those modes of expression that conform to the definition are more poetic than those that do not. Garon is contemptuously dismissive of those who do not agree with the surrealist position and completely hostile to academics in the formal sense, suggesting that the real business of thinking has to go on outside of the constraints of academia. Not only does Garon wish to compel us to accept that the blues is poetry, but that 2it is better poetry than that produced by T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, or Allen Ginsberg.[3]

One way to address the dilemma of resolving what is and what is not poetry is to subscribe to what Cohen says: poetry is a verdict rather than an intention, meaning that it is others who bestow the title of poetry on the poet or poem. If this is to be a criterion, it is undeniable that numerous critics do describe both Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen as lyric poets. To get a definitive answer to the question What makes Dylan Thomas’s “Vision and Prayer,” in which the words are shaped into a triangle, poetry? is just as elusive as getting agreement on whether Damien Hirst’s dismembered animals suspended in formaldehyde constitute art.

It is nevertheless the case that the concepts of poetry and art carry with them favorable evaluative connotations. They are what philosopher Maurice Cranston called “hooray words.” To call something poetic, or artistic, is deliberately to invoke this positive sense of approval. The positive is not, of course, universal, and for some, poetry, and the label poetry, may be tainted by unpleasant associations with school and the “high” culture of the establishment. Jonzi D., for example, found the term uncool and performance poetry too anal.[4] In an age when we all too readily manipulate evaluative descriptive terms in order to bask in their appraisive glory, profiteers in the music industry have not been reticent to extend the descriptive referent of poetry in order to capitalize on the evaluative element. A song lyric that might plausibly stand without its music is at risk of being packaged and sold as poetry. This dubious honor has been bestowed upon, among others, Joni Mitchell, Blixa Bargeld, Nick Cave, Marc Almond, and Shane MacGowan. In France, for example, there is a very strong tradition of the poet-singer, with Serge Gainsbourg, Jacques Brel, Charles Aznavour, Brasse, and Hugues Aufray. Brel, for example, strongly influenced Rod McKuen. This French tradition found in the songwriting circles of Montreal and Quebec was quickly identified as the milieu of Cohen’s artistry: “Intense, dark-haired Leonard Cohen, acclaimed by some as Canada’s leading poet, ends his poetry readings with guitar in hand, singing in the style of the French-Canadian chansonnier.”[5]

Poets themselves have not been averse to cross over into song. Homer, for example, was chanted, and so were the Scandinavian epics. Frank Davey argues that poetry and music have historically been closely allied. The heroic poetry of Anglo-Saxons is very likely to have been chanted to the accompaniment of a harpist.[6] Shakespeare liberally punctuated his plays with song. Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, for example, are sustained by intermittent interludes of song. William Blake’s Poetical Sketches includes eight poems with song in the title, with two of his most famous 3collections being Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. The San Francisco Beat poets fused jazz and poetry, and in his early career Cohen tried to emulate their style. One of the pioneers in the United States was Kenneth Rexroth, who had experimented in Chicago during the 1930s. He was one of the prime movers of the San Francisco Cellar jazz poetry scene. He was ecstatic about the potential that Dylan had to advance the movement. Fusing music and poetry in the way that Dylan had was not new, Rexroth conceded. In France and Germany it had been traditional since the time of Charlemagne. It was Dylan’s influence on the younger generation and their imitation of him that was the important factor.[7][8] Allen Ginsberg, a great admirer of Blake, sang “The Tiger” to harmonium accompaniment and recited some of his own poems, such as “Father Death,” to music. Much of the force of Ginsberg’s poetry is in the performance, and without the mantric intonation and musical accompaniment, the words often appear dead on the page. Inspired by Dylan and Happy Traum, a leading figure in the folk revival movement in the United States, Ginsberg wrote songs that folk music anthologist and fellow Beat artist and poet Harry Smith recorded him singing in the Chelsea Hotel around 1971. The album eventually appeared in 1981 as Allen Ginsberg: First Blues, Rags, Ballads and Harmonium Songs (Folkways FSS 37560). The Liverpool poets Roger McGough and Adrian Henry both sang their poetry when they were members of Scaffold and the Liverpool scene, respectively.

The book The Message: Crossing the Tracks between Poetry and Pop, which celebrated the theme of the 1999 National Poetry Day, spearheaded by the Poetry Society of Great Britain, explored the relation between pop lyrics and poetry, and the contributors, with varying degrees of equivocation, conclude that there is none. Lyrics are distinctive in their way, often gaining their particular force in the performance, the combination of intonation and notation, betraying a dependency on the music that is integral to their appeal. The banality of the lone lyric is atoned in the musical accompaniment, and the romantic death of the author may be positively redemptive. It is the event of the romanticized deaths of Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Marc Bolan at the height of their fame, for example, rather than the memory of any particular lyric, other than for their sheer banality, that made them enduring icons, whereas with Keats, the beauty of the poetry made his untimely death a tragedy. Stephen Troussé, for instance, suggests that the “splendid banality” of Marc Bolan’s lines “I drive a Rolls-Royce / Cos it’s good for my voice” is a more profound gift to the history of pop than the contributions of all of the sad-eyed singer-songwriters of the 1970s.[9] He calls it “the aesthetic of the artful artlessness.”

4
Indeed, there may be a great deal of mileage in Simon Reynold’s view that popular music gains its power not from the depth and meaning of its lyrics, but from its sheer noise.[10] The critics who analyze it import criteria from the higher culture in which they have been educated and impose rationality, aesthetic value, and depth of meaning on a form of expression devoid of all such things. Instead, it is the extralinguistic elements that refuse to succumb to content analysis that constitute the pop song—a driving bass line, earthy guitar, haunting Hammond organ, wistful wailing slide guitar, and rasping delivery of the lyrics. There has been what Troussé calls a critical shift from text to texture.[11] It would be a mistake to divorce Dylan and Cohen from such a characterization. Instead of making a category distinction in which the so-called poets of rock and roll are different in kind from other performers, they may be seen on a continuum representing the end at which text and texture are mutually supportive and inseparable. As Stephen Scobie points out, in themselves some of Dylan’s lyrics may appear awkward or even banal printed on the page, but the music and the phrasing give character and effect: “The music provides a rhythm, a beat, an emotional ambience.”[12] The arrangements of songs change, of course, and the mood conveyed, the images projected, and the context invoked take on different nuances, but Dylan is notorious for setting his lyrics to completely different accompaniments, transforming the effect, if not the content, of the words.

Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen have both been hailed as great poets of their generation. Donald Henahan, commenting on Cohen, asserts that “on the alienation scale, he rates somewhere between [Arthur] Schopenhauer and Bob Dylan, two other prominent poets of pessimism.”[13] Playboy described Cohen as both the minstrel and the poet laureate of his generation.[14] Harry Rasky, the filmmaker, who produced the film The Song of Leonard Cohen, bestowed on him the dubious honor of being “the first great, vaginal poet.”[15] Both Dylan and Cohen precipitated heated discussions among academics and practicing poets about whether their lyric poetry was truly poetry at all, let alone good poetry. Neil Corcoran argues that Dylan’s lyrics rarely stand alone as poetry. Lyric poetry is meant to be composed and thought of rhythmically. The centrality of music in Dylan’s songs means that they cannot be viewed unreservedly as poetry. Corcoran equivocates on Dylan’s claim to be a poet and rather evasively suggests that although Dylan is not a conventional poet, he has the same artistry of mind as would a great poet in the clarity of expressions, the forcefulness of the imagery, the gracefulness of the language, and the relevance of the words in different contexts.[16]

5
George Woodcock, for example, maintained in 1970 that Cohen had become something of an instant Keats, combining the romanticism with the fame that Keats did not enjoy until a half century after his death. Woodcock held that Cohen’s poetry had virtues that would keep it alive as “good minor poetry.” Combining pop singing with poetry, however, was barely compatible, and the former had had a deleterious affect on Cohen’s poetic development. Woodcock cites an interview with Cohen in Saturday Night in which he says that he no longer thinks about the words, because in themselves they are completely empty and any emotion can be poured into them. Woodcock argues that Cohen’s popular songs have ceased to be poetry because they are merely forms of words that receive life and meaning in the performance of the singer.[17]

Acknowledged poets such as Arthur Rimbaud, Ezra Pound, and Federico García Lorca had sought to restore poetry’s place among the lived experiences of the everyday life of a community. The Beat poets emulated them in this aspiration. Kenneth Rexroth declared that intellectuals, that is, college professors, had hijacked poetry, taking it out of the hands of the people. Poetry in the oral traditions of Homer and Beowulf were show business, and the Beat poets aspired to reestablish the connection. Lawrence Ferlinghetti complained that the voice of poetry was being drowned by the competition of the mass media, traceable to Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press.[18] None succeeded in achieving the aim of reconnecting poetry with the masses, but the irony is that, Rimbaud, Pound, Lorca, and Ferlinghetti, through their influence on Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, came to the attention of a much wider reading public than was traditionally associated with poetic appreciation. Although Ferlinghetti acknowledged Dylan’s achievement, he was nevertheless resentful of Dylan’s success. Once, after attending a Dylan concert in Berkeley, California, with Ginsberg and Ken Kesey, Ferlinghetti was embittered, ranting about a stringy kid with an electric guitar drawing a bigger audience than a major poet such as himself.[19] In an interview with Robert Shelton, Ferlinghetti acknowledged that Dylan has a poet’s imagination, but added, “I still think he needs that guitar.”[20] In the March 1966 issue of Ramparts, Ralph J. Gleason praised Dylan for doing the impossible: for taking poetry out of the classroom and bringing it to the jukebox, from reaching a small circle of friends to having a worldwide audience. The importance of intruding art into popular culture was affirmed by Cohen in acknowledging that what Dylan had done was to put “the word back into the jukebox, which is really where you have to have it, or at least where I like to have it.”[21]

What is undoubtedly the case, whether one confirms or denies Dylan’s and Cohen’s claims to be poets, is that they achieved what their mentors 6failed to accomplish. They introduced a new audience to the world of poetry, an audience whose horizons were broadened and who contributed to a significant increase in the sales of poetry books. Rexroth acknowledged that “the importance of Dylan is that he is imitated right and left. It is a very important phenomenon that in the new-leisure society of barefoot boys and girls, poetry is dissolving into the community.”[22]

The 1999 National Poetry Day, October 7, had as one of its principal themes the relation between poetry and song lyrics. Andrew Motion chose as his favorite lyric of all time the opening lines from Bob Dylan’s “Visions of Johanna”: “Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks when you’re trying to be so quiet.” (Incidentally, it is also Bono’s favorite line from a Dylan song.[23]) The Poetry Society of Great Britain commissioned Roddy Lumsden to explore the relation between pop lyrics and poetry and between their respective “industries.” The project drew upon the musings of a disparate crowd of commentators, including Motion, who commented on Bob Dylan’s work. The general consensus was that pop lyrics have their own integrity within the much broader texture of music, image, performance, and “attitude.” There are exceptions to the rule, and occasionally a successful lyricist produces words capable of being read and divorced from their texture. In Motion’s view, Bob Dylan is one such exception who does not need to lean on the crutch of his guitar. Despite this, Dylan worked hard at the texture, consciously crafting musical forms to coincide with his obsession with change.

Very early in Dylan’s career Robert Shelton, the folk music critic of the New York Times, described him as “one of the musical-poetic geniuses of our time.”[24] The literary critic Frank Kermode caused a stir in the 1960s when he compared Dylan with Keats and Wordsworth.[25] Paul Williams described Dylan’s work as “great art.”[26] Leonard Cohen suggested in 1985 that Dylan “is the Picasso of song,” and in 1988 in an interview in the Musician Magazine, he again likened Dylan to Picasso in his “exuberance, range and assimilation of the whole history of music.”[27]

The claim that Dylan was a great poet of his generation precipitated a heated debate to which critics and academics contributed. Many academics were disdainful of the claim, suggesting that Dylan was a self-conscious second-rate imitator of Jack Kerouac, who appealed to the feebleminded who knew nothing of poetry. Whatever the merits of the counterclaims, it cannot be denied that Dylan made poetry popular, elevated from its secluded shade in a corner of academia, into the horizon of a new and inquisitive audience, hitherto not renowned for its cultural and artistic discernment. Henrietta Yurchenco argued in 1966 that “if Dylan has done nothing else, he is responsible for the present widespread interest in 7poetry.” She went on to say: “He has given poetry a significance and stature which it has never had in American life. Furthermore, he is a bard—a singing poet in an ancient but thoroughly neglected tradition.”[28] Adrian Rawlings, commenting on Dylan’s 1966 Australian tour, proclaimed that he had rescued poetry from obscurity “in a way that neither Eliot nor Pound nor the American poetry and jazz movement ever could.”[29]

At about the same time that Bob Dylan was listening to American folk and blues he started reading Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, Philip Whalen, and Frank O’Hara. Dylan had come to lyric poetry through Woody Guthrie, who Billy Bragg has suggested is the best American lyric poet since Walt Whitman. In 1960, a friend in Minneapolis, Dave Whitaker, who is credited with having brought about Dylan’s first great transformation, from the reluctant university fraternity boy on the margins of the in crowd to one of the coolest men in town, is most likely to have introduced him to Kerouac and the Beat poets, particularly Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti. It was at this time that Dylan read Guthrie’s Bound for Glory, the effect of which was to metamorphose him into a seasoned traveler with an Oklahoma accent, as well as a new past.

In Greenwich Village the poetic influences were extended. Folk musician Dave Van Ronk stimulated Dylan’s interest in the work of the French symbolists. He particularly liked Rimbaud. Rimbaud was a rebel who wanted to reach a wider popular audience with his poetry, in which he questioned all types of establishment authority, including church and state. Like Woody Guthrie, he almost lived the life of a vagrant and drank very heavily. In addition, Rimbaud indulged heavily in marijuana and opium. He claimed that, in order to transform the poet into a seer or visionary, the senses must become disordered or disturbed by a prolonged process of disorientation. Blake, whom both Ginsberg and Dylan admired, expressed similar sentiments in more restrained terms: “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom” (from Proverbs of Hell). Dylan’s own well-documented drunkenness and excessive abuse of drugs coincide with the development of his abstract, almost surreal, poetic phase, or what he described himself as “hallucination . . . atery” songs. Van Ronk also got him interested in Villiers and Bertholt Brecht. Suze Rotolo, who appears on the cover of The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan in a pose almost identical to that in a photograph of Dylan and Caitlin Thomas on the same New York street, was involved with a group of actors who staged Brecht plays at the Circle in the Square Theatre in Greenwich Village. She helped out by painting the scenery for a production of Brecht on Brecht, and Dylan would go down and watch the six performers rehearsing the poems and the songs Brecht wrote with Kurt Weill. Rotolo has commented that Dylan was most affected by Lotte 8Lenya’s signature song, “Pirate Jenny.”[30] On the album The Times They Are A-Changin’, which includes the beautiful “Boots of Spanish Leather,” a lament on Suze’s lost love, her presence is also indirect: her connection to Brecht is felt in the structure and verse pattern of “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” which is based on Brecht’s The Black Freighter.[31]

Rotolo was widely read and introduced Dylan to such poets as François Villon, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, and Robert Graves, whom he met in London when the BBC flew Dylan over to appear in Madhouse on Castle Street. Graves wasn’t really interested in a pushy, scruffy little American trying to thrust his poetry under his nose. Dylan was deeply offended and went back to New York, describing Graves as an “old bastard.” Graves, in fact, had been very rude by turning to four musicians and starting a conversation while Dylan was singing “Hollis Brown.”[32]

Dylan consciously tried to go beyond the rhyming of words that was typical of most song forms. He once said in an interview that he wrote his songs so that they could be read or recited even without the beat or melody.[33] As early as 1963 he found the song form restrictive, a medium through which he felt that he was no longer fully able to express his thoughts and feelings, or in which he could draw upon the wealth of influences to which he had now become exposed. Initially his response was to turn away from song, particularly the finger-pointing genre that was coming to stereotype him. Throughout 1963, but with more intensity during the last two months, which partially coincides with his first meeting with Ginsberg in December of that year, and in early 1964, he increasingly expressed himself in free form verse and prose, rarely revising it, and some of which he published not only on the back of his own albums, such as the “Eleven Outlined Epitaphs” on the sleeve cover of The Times They Are A-Changin’, but also on albums by Joan Baez and Peter, Paul, and Mary. One of his tributes to poet Dave “Tony” Glover was printed in the program for the 1963 Newport Folk Festival. Much of the early work is loosely autobiographical, including his “Life in a Stolen Moment,” printed on the Town Hall concert program, and “Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie,” which he recited as an encore to the concert and culminates in print in his 1966 book Tarantula. In the dust jacket notes by Michael Gray the book is described as “surrealism on speed, a phantasmagoric trip through America.” Scattered throughout are the more readable prose poems in the form of letters, as well as an epitaph, once again to Bob Dylan, starting with “Here lies bob dylan / murdered.”

Dylan even experimented with writing plays at the end of 1963, as a letter from him to Broadside magazine testifies, and what appears to be a fragment of the utterly unmemorable play he refers to was discovered....

********************************************
W.Dockery
2022-08-03 04:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General-Zod
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/dylan-and-cohen-poets-of-rock-and-roll/introduction
*******************
Poets of a Generation
What remains true is that, if Dylan is, sui generis, the greatest song-writer of the age, Leonard Cohen is still the only name that can seriously he mentioned in the same breath.
Poetry is an evaluative descriptive word. It is descriptive in that it signifies an art form that, while being readily identifiable, retains a sufficient degree of ambiguity to have its meaning contested. To claim that something is poetry may often be to claim that it is authentic, that the voice of poetry has a greater claim to be heard than the nonpoetic. Paul Garon has made the emphatic and stipulative pronouncement that all blues is self-evidently poetry and that those who think otherwise must be mentally defective.[2] He argues that poetic art necessarily contains within itself elements of revolutionary ferment manifested as the struggle for freedom. Poetry liberates the mind from ideological structures and repressive constraints, projecting a vision of the possible beyond the actual. Surrealism, in Garon’s view, has facilitated this liberation by connecting the imagination to the blind spots of reality through stimulating and irritating nascent and latent faculties of thought by means of fantasy. Garon’s argument is stipulative and tautological. In defining poetry in this way, by definition those modes of expression that conform to the definition are more poetic than tho
se that do not. Garon is contemptuously dismissive of those who do not agree with the surrealist position and completely hostile to academics in the formal sense, suggesting that the real business of thinking has to go on outside of the constraints of academia. Not only does Garon wish to compel us to accept that the blues is poetry, but that 2it is better poetry than that produced by T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, or Allen Ginsberg.[3]
One way to address the dilemma of resolving what is and what is not poetry is to subscribe to what Cohen says: poetry is a verdict rather than an intention, meaning that it is others who bestow the title of poetry on the poet or poem. If this is to be a criterion, it is undeniable that numerous critics do describe both Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen as lyric poets. To get a definitive answer to the question What makes Dylan Thomas’s “Vision and Prayer,” in which the words are shaped into a triangle, poetry? is just as elusive as getting agreement on whether Damien Hirst’s dismembered animals suspended in formaldehyde constitute art.
It is nevertheless the case that the concepts of poetry and art carry with them favorable evaluative connotations. They are what philosopher Maurice Cranston called “hooray words.” To call something poetic, or artistic, is deliberately to invoke this positive sense of approval. The positive is not, of course, universal, and for some, poetry, and the label poetry, may be tainted by unpleasant associations with school and the “high” culture of the establishment. Jonzi D., for example, found the term uncool and performance poetry too anal.[4] In an age when we all too readily manipulate evaluative descriptive terms in order to bask in their appraisive glory, profiteers in the music industry have not been reticent to extend the descriptive referent of poetry in order to capitalize on the evaluative element. A song lyric that might plausibly stand without its music is at risk of being packaged and sold as poetry. This dubious honor has been bestowed upon, among others, Joni Mitchell, Blixa Bargeld, Nick Cave, Marc Almond, and Shane MacGowan. In France, for example, there is a very strong tradition of the poet-singer, with Serge Gainsbourg, Jacques Brel, Charles Aznavour, Brasse
, and Hugues Aufray. Brel, for example, strongly influenced Rod McKuen. This French tradition found in the songwriting circles of Montreal and Quebec was quickly identified as the milieu of Cohen’s artistry: “Intense, dark-haired Leonard Cohen, acclaimed by some as Canada’s leading poet, ends his poetry readings with guitar in hand, singing in the style of the French-Canadian chansonnier.”[5]
Poets themselves have not been averse to cross over into song. Homer, for example, was chanted, and so were the Scandinavian epics. Frank Davey argues that poetry and music have historically been closely allied. The heroic poetry of Anglo-Saxons is very likely to have been chanted to the accompaniment of a harpist.[6] Shakespeare liberally punctuated his plays with song. Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, for example, are sustained by intermittent interludes of song. William Blake’s Poetical Sketches includes eight poems with song in the title, with two of his most famous 3collections being Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. The San Francisco Beat poets fused jazz and poetry, and in his early career Cohen tried to emulate their style. One of the pioneers in the United States was Kenneth Rexroth, who had experimented in Chicago during the 1930s. He was one of the prime movers of the San Francisco Cellar jazz poetry scene. He was ecstatic about the potential that Dylan had to advance the movement. Fusing music and poetry in the way that Dylan had was not new, Rexroth conceded. In France and Germany it had been traditional since the time of Charlemagne. It was
Dylan’s influence on the younger generation and their imitation of him that was the important factor.[7][8] Allen Ginsberg, a great admirer of Blake, sang “The Tiger” to harmonium accompaniment and recited some of his own poems, such as “Father Death,” to music. Much of the force of Ginsberg’s poetry is in the performance, and without the mantric intonation and musical accompaniment, the words often appear dead on the page. Inspired by Dylan and Happy Traum, a leading figure in the folk revival movement in the United States, Ginsberg wrote songs that folk music anthologist and fellow Beat artist and poet Harry Smith recorded him singing in the Chelsea Hotel around 1971. The album eventually appeared in 1981 as Allen Ginsberg: First Blues, Rags, Ballads and Harmonium Songs (Folkways FSS 37560). The Liverpool poets Roger McGough and Adrian Henry both sang their poetry when they were members of Scaffold and the Liverpool scene, respectively.
The book The Message: Crossing the Tracks between Poetry and Pop, which celebrated the theme of the 1999 National Poetry Day, spearheaded by the Poetry Society of Great Britain, explored the relation between pop lyrics and poetry, and the contributors, with varying degrees of equivocation, conclude that there is none. Lyrics are distinctive in their way, often gaining their particular force in the performance, the combination of intonation and notation, betraying a dependency on the music that is integral to their appeal. The banality of the lone lyric is atoned in the musical accompaniment, and the romantic death of the author may be positively redemptive. It is the event of the romanticized deaths of Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Marc Bolan at the height of their fame, for example, rather than the memory of any particular lyric, other than for their sheer banality, that made them enduring icons, whereas with Keats, the beauty of the poetry made his untimely death a tragedy. Stephen Troussé, for instance, suggests that the “splendid banality” of Marc Bolan’s lines “I drive a Rolls-Royce / Cos it’s good for my voice” is a more profound gift to the hist
ory of pop than the contributions of all of the sad-eyed singer-songwriters of the 1970s.[9] He calls it “the aesthetic of the artful artlessness.”
4
Indeed, there may be a great deal of mileage in Simon Reynold’s view that popular music gains its power not from the depth and meaning of its lyrics, but from its sheer noise.[10] The critics who analyze it import criteria from the higher culture in which they have been educated and impose rationality, aesthetic value, and depth of meaning on a form of expression devoid of all such things. Instead, it is the extralinguistic elements that refuse to succumb to content analysis that constitute the pop song—a driving bass line, earthy guitar, haunting Hammond organ, wistful wailing slide guitar, and rasping delivery of the lyrics. There has been what Troussé calls a critical shift from text to texture.[11] It would be a mistake to divorce Dylan and Cohen from such a characterization. Instead of making a category distinction in which the so-called poets of rock and roll are different in kind from other performers, they may be seen on a continuum representing the end at which text and texture are mutually supportive and inseparable. As Stephen Scobie points out, in themselves some of Dylan’s lyrics may appear awkward or even banal printed on the page, but the music and the phrasi
ng give character and effect: “The music provides a rhythm, a beat, an emotional ambience.”[12] The arrangements of songs change, of course, and the mood conveyed, the images projected, and the context invoked take on different nuances, but Dylan is notorious for setting his lyrics to completely different accompaniments, transforming the effect, if not the content, of the words.
Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen have both been hailed as great poets of their generation. Donald Henahan, commenting on Cohen, asserts that “on the alienation scale, he rates somewhere between [Arthur] Schopenhauer and Bob Dylan, two other prominent poets of pessimism.”[13] Playboy described Cohen as both the minstrel and the poet laureate of his generation.[14] Harry Rasky, the filmmaker, who produced the film The Song of Leonard Cohen, bestowed on him the dubious honor of being “the first great, vaginal poet.”[15] Both Dylan and Cohen precipitated heated discussions among academics and practicing poets about whether their lyric poetry was truly poetry at all, let alone good poetry. Neil Corcoran argues that Dylan’s lyrics rarely stand alone as poetry. Lyric poetry is meant to be composed and thought of rhythmically. The centrality of music in Dylan’s songs means that they cannot be viewed unreservedly as poetry. Corcoran equivocates on Dylan’s claim to be a poet and rather evasively suggests that although Dylan is not a conventional poet, he has the same artistry of mind as would a great poet in the clarity of expressions, the forcefulness of the imagery, the gracefuln
ess of the language, and the relevance of the words in different contexts.[16]
5
George Woodcock, for example, maintained in 1970 that Cohen had become something of an instant Keats, combining the romanticism with the fame that Keats did not enjoy until a half century after his death. Woodcock held that Cohen’s poetry had virtues that would keep it alive as “good minor poetry.” Combining pop singing with poetry, however, was barely compatible, and the former had had a deleterious affect on Cohen’s poetic development. Woodcock cites an interview with Cohen in Saturday Night in which he says that he no longer thinks about the words, because in themselves they are completely empty and any emotion can be poured into them. Woodcock argues that Cohen’s popular songs have ceased to be poetry because they are merely forms of words that receive life and meaning in the performance of the singer.[17]
Acknowledged poets such as Arthur Rimbaud, Ezra Pound, and Federico García Lorca had sought to restore poetry’s place among the lived experiences of the everyday life of a community. The Beat poets emulated them in this aspiration. Kenneth Rexroth declared that intellectuals, that is, college professors, had hijacked poetry, taking it out of the hands of the people. Poetry in the oral traditions of Homer and Beowulf were show business, and the Beat poets aspired to reestablish the connection. Lawrence Ferlinghetti complained that the voice of poetry was being drowned by the competition of the mass media, traceable to Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press.[18] None succeeded in achieving the aim of reconnecting poetry with the masses, but the irony is that, Rimbaud, Pound, Lorca, and Ferlinghetti, through their influence on Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, came to the attention of a much wider reading public than was traditionally associated with poetic appreciation. Although Ferlinghetti acknowledged Dylan’s achievement, he was nevertheless resentful of Dylan’s success. Once, after attending a Dylan concert in Berkeley, California, with Ginsberg and Ken Kesey, Ferlinghetti was
embittered, ranting about a stringy kid with an electric guitar drawing a bigger audience than a major poet such as himself.[19] In an interview with Robert Shelton, Ferlinghetti acknowledged that Dylan has a poet’s imagination, but added, “I still think he needs that guitar.”[20] In the March 1966 issue of Ramparts, Ralph J. Gleason praised Dylan for doing the impossible: for taking poetry out of the classroom and bringing it to the jukebox, from reaching a small circle of friends to having a worldwide audience. The importance of intruding art into popular culture was affirmed by Cohen in acknowledging that what Dylan had done was to put “the word back into the jukebox, which is really where you have to have it, or at least where I like to have it.”[21]
What is undoubtedly the case, whether one confirms or denies Dylan’s and Cohen’s claims to be poets, is that they achieved what their mentors 6failed to accomplish. They introduced a new audience to the world of poetry, an audience whose horizons were broadened and who contributed to a significant increase in the sales of poetry books. Rexroth acknowledged that “the importance of Dylan is that he is imitated right and left. It is a very important phenomenon that in the new-leisure society of barefoot boys and girls, poetry is dissolving into the community.”[22]
The 1999 National Poetry Day, October 7, had as one of its principal themes the relation between poetry and song lyrics. Andrew Motion chose as his favorite lyric of all time the opening lines from Bob Dylan’s “Visions of Johanna”: “Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks when you’re trying to be so quiet.” (Incidentally, it is also Bono’s favorite line from a Dylan song.[23]) The Poetry Society of Great Britain commissioned Roddy Lumsden to explore the relation between pop lyrics and poetry and between their respective “industries.” The project drew upon the musings of a disparate crowd of commentators, including Motion, who commented on Bob Dylan’s work. The general consensus was that pop lyrics have their own integrity within the much broader texture of music, image, performance, and “attitude.” There are exceptions to the rule, and occasionally a successful lyricist produces words capable of being read and divorced from their texture. In Motion’s view, Bob Dylan is one such exception who does not need to lean on the crutch of his guitar. Despite this, Dylan worked hard at the texture, consciously crafting musical forms to coincide with his obses
sion with change.
Very early in Dylan’s career Robert Shelton, the folk music critic of the New York Times, described him as “one of the musical-poetic geniuses of our time.”[24] The literary critic Frank Kermode caused a stir in the 1960s when he compared Dylan with Keats and Wordsworth.[25] Paul Williams described Dylan’s work as “great art.”[26] Leonard Cohen suggested in 1985 that Dylan “is the Picasso of song,” and in 1988 in an interview in the Musician Magazine, he again likened Dylan to Picasso in his “exuberance, range and assimilation of the whole history of music.”[27]
The claim that Dylan was a great poet of his generation precipitated a heated debate to which critics and academics contributed. Many academics were disdainful of the claim, suggesting that Dylan was a self-conscious second-rate imitator of Jack Kerouac, who appealed to the feebleminded who knew nothing of poetry. Whatever the merits of the counterclaims, it cannot be denied that Dylan made poetry popular, elevated from its secluded shade in a corner of academia, into the horizon of a new and inquisitive audience, hitherto not renowned for its cultural and artistic discernment. Henrietta Yurchenco argued in 1966 that “if Dylan has done nothing else, he is responsible for the present widespread interest in 7poetry.” She went on to say: “He has given poetry a significance and stature which it has never had in American life. Furthermore, he is a bard—a singing poet in an ancient but thoroughly neglected tradition.”[28] Adrian Rawlings, commenting on Dylan’s 1966 Australian tour, proclaimed that he had rescued poetry from obscurity “in a way that neither Eliot nor Pound nor the American poetry and jazz movement ever could.”[29]
At about the same time that Bob Dylan was listening to American folk and blues he started reading Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, Philip Whalen, and Frank O’Hara. Dylan had come to lyric poetry through Woody Guthrie, who Billy Bragg has suggested is the best American lyric poet since Walt Whitman. In 1960, a friend in Minneapolis, Dave Whitaker, who is credited with having brought about Dylan’s first great transformation, from the reluctant university fraternity boy on the margins of the in crowd to one of the coolest men in town, is most likely to have introduced him to Kerouac and the Beat poets, particularly Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti. It was at this time that Dylan read Guthrie’s Bound for Glory, the effect of which was to metamorphose him into a seasoned traveler with an Oklahoma accent, as well as a new past.
In Greenwich Village the poetic influences were extended. Folk musician Dave Van Ronk stimulated Dylan’s interest in the work of the French symbolists. He particularly liked Rimbaud. Rimbaud was a rebel who wanted to reach a wider popular audience with his poetry, in which he questioned all types of establishment authority, including church and state. Like Woody Guthrie, he almost lived the life of a vagrant and drank very heavily. In addition, Rimbaud indulged heavily in marijuana and opium. He claimed that, in order to transform the poet into a seer or visionary, the senses must become disordered or disturbed by a prolonged process of disorientation. Blake, whom both Ginsberg and Dylan admired, expressed similar sentiments in more restrained terms: “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom” (from Proverbs of Hell). Dylan’s own well-documented drunkenness and excessive abuse of drugs coincide with the development of his abstract, almost surreal, poetic phase, or what he described himself as “hallucination . . . atery” songs. Van Ronk also got him interested in Villiers and Bertholt Brecht. Suze Rotolo, who appears on the cover of The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan i
n a pose almost identical to that in a photograph of Dylan and Caitlin Thomas on the same New York street, was involved with a group of actors who staged Brecht plays at the Circle in the Square Theatre in Greenwich Village. She helped out by painting the scenery for a production of Brecht on Brecht, and Dylan would go down and watch the six performers rehearsing the poems and the songs Brecht wrote with Kurt Weill. Rotolo has commented that Dylan was most affected by Lotte 8Lenya’s signature song, “Pirate Jenny.”[30] On the album The Times They Are A-Changin’, which includes the beautiful “Boots of Spanish Leather,” a lament on Suze’s lost love, her presence is also indirect: her connection to Brecht is felt in the structure and verse pattern of “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” which is based on Brecht’s The Black Freighter.[31]
Rotolo was widely read and introduced Dylan to such poets as François Villon, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, and Robert Graves, whom he met in London when the BBC flew Dylan over to appear in Madhouse on Castle Street. Graves wasn’t really interested in a pushy, scruffy little American trying to thrust his poetry under his nose. Dylan was deeply offended and went back to New York, describing Graves as an “old bastard.” Graves, in fact, had been very rude by turning to four musicians and starting a conversation while Dylan was singing “Hollis Brown.”[32]
Dylan consciously tried to go beyond the rhyming of words that was typical of most song forms. He once said in an interview that he wrote his songs so that they could be read or recited even without the beat or melody.[33] As early as 1963 he found the song form restrictive, a medium through which he felt that he was no longer fully able to express his thoughts and feelings, or in which he could draw upon the wealth of influences to which he had now become exposed. Initially his response was to turn away from song, particularly the finger-pointing genre that was coming to stereotype him. Throughout 1963, but with more intensity during the last two months, which partially coincides with his first meeting with Ginsberg in December of that year, and in early 1964, he increasingly expressed himself in free form verse and prose, rarely revising it, and some of which he published not only on the back of his own albums, such as the “Eleven Outlined Epitaphs” on the sleeve cover of The Times They Are A-Changin’, but also on albums by Joan Baez and Peter, Paul, and Mary. One of his tributes to poet Dave “Tony” Glover was printed in the program for the 1963 Newport Folk Festival.
Much of the early work is loosely autobiographical, including his “Life in a Stolen Moment,” printed on the Town Hall concert program, and “Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie,” which he recited as an encore to the concert and culminates in print in his 1966 book Tarantula. In the dust jacket notes by Michael Gray the book is described as “surrealism on speed, a phantasmagoric trip through America.” Scattered throughout are the more readable prose poems in the form of letters, as well as an epitaph, once again to Bob Dylan, starting with “Here lies bob dylan / murdered.”
Dylan even experimented with writing plays at the end of 1963, as a letter from him to Broadside magazine testifies, and what appears to be a fragment of the utterly unmemorable play he refers to was discovered....
********************************************
Good find.
Will Dockery
2018-07-24 18:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
IOW: You've been pulling this "Fuck poetry -- let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen" shit for decades.
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
Rule of Thumb:

If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.

If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're an English expert, Michael...

Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
Will Dockery
2018-07-27 14:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
IOW: You've been pulling this "Fuck poetry -- let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen" shit for decades.
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology

The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF

Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.

The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."

"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."

Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.

In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.

In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.

The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.

In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.

During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?

She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.

Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.

Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.

In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)

Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."

Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.

As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.

Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.

Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."

"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.

Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.

In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.

The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."

Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."

That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."

That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.

The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.

As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.

Pub Date: 4/17/98

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fascinating read, thanks, Earl.
Will Dockery
2019-07-17 07:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
IOW: You've been pulling this "Fuck poetry -- let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen" shit for decades.
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology

The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF

Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.

The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."

"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."

Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.

In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.

In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.

The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.

In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.

During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?

She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.

Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.

Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.

In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)

Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."

Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.

As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.

Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.

Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."

"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.

Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.

In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.

The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."

Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."

That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."

That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.

The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.

As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.

Pub Date: 4/17/98

----------------------------------------------------

Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
W.Dockery
2022-07-27 21:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.


And so it goes.

https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
----------------------------------------------------
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
Zod @news.novabbs.com (Zod )
2022-08-05 18:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
Quite an interesting think piece....
W-Dockery
2022-08-07 20:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zod @news.novabbs.com (Zod )
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
Quite an interesting think piece....
Good afternoon, agreed.
Victor H.
2022-08-10 21:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
I still haven't looked up Pat Boone's 1975 hit record...
Post by W.Dockery
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
----------------------------------------------------
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
W-Dockery
2022-08-12 09:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Victor H.
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
I still haven't looked up Pat Boone's 1975 hit record...
"Indiana Girl", a pretty good song, actually.
Post by Victor H.
Post by W.Dockery
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
----------------------------------------------------
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
General-Zod
2022-08-14 20:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
----------------------------------------------------
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
Again, excellent read....
W-Dockery
2022-08-16 15:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General-Zod
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
----------------------------------------------------
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
Again, excellent read....
Agreed.
General-Zod
2022-08-30 22:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto and his apostrophe disability.
A shame Pen has to be so blatant in his insincerity.....
Post by W.Dockery
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great number of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
*************************************************************
W.Dockery
2024-11-16 23:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General-Zod
Post by W.Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen".
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith
and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved
with
So, Michael Pendragon and his ignorance about Leonard Cohen is long
standing, one error of his that seems as uncorrectable as Jim Senetto
and his apostrophe disability.
A shame Pen has to be so blatant in his insincerity.....
Post by W.Dockery
And so it goes.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry.
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an English expert, Michael...
Do you know why the phrase "rule of thumb" is offensive to a great
number
of
people?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-04-17/news/1998107056_1_rule-of-thumb-phrase-rule-false-etymology
The misunderstood 'rule of thumb'
Misconception: Many feminists for years thought the phrase "rule of thumb"
referred to British common law's tolerance of wife-beating.
Sun Journal, April 17, 1998|By Stephanie Shapiro | Stephanie Shapiro,SUN
STAFF
Sharon Fenick first heard the figure of speech "rule of thumb" cited as a
sexist pejorative during her freshman year at Harvard seven years ago.
The phrase was invoked in a lecture as an example of domestic abuse
permitted by British common law. The rule of thumb, according to the
professor, was a law that allowed a man to beat his wife so long as the rod
used was no thicker than his thumb. But over the centuries, the term had
evolved into vernacular for an "approximate measure."
"It sounded very believable to me," says the 24-year-old Fenick, now in her
third year of law school at the University of Chicago. "I was having my
first contact with feminist thought and [the explanation] was very
impressive to me. It was one of those things I really remember that spread
around. I can't remember when I found out it wasn't true."
Unlike Fenick, untold historians, feminists and legal experts are unaware
that the folk etymology for "rule of thumb" is false. For them, the notion
of a "rule of thumb" makes perfect sense, originating as it allegedly does
from a legal system they see as misogynistic.
In January, wordsmith William Safire debunked "the rule of thumb's" false
etymology in his New York Times Magazine column. The phrase had been called
to his attention by the president of George Washington University, where a
female student had denounced its use by an administrator remarking on budget
problems in the student newspaper.
In gender- and women's-studies courses across the country, the phrase is
still cited as an example of unconscious acceptance and tacit condoning of
sexist policy. A computer search for the use of "rule of thumb" and "wife"
in the same newspaper sentence reveals many letters to the editor in recent
years from women irate about the casual appearance of the figure of speech
in news articles. In a televised news analysis about domestic violence in
1994, even commentator Cokie Roberts noted the misconception.
The false etymology persists despite the Oxford English Dictionary
definition: "A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical
method." The OED dates the phrase's first reference to 1692.
In the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "rule of thumb" is
additionally defined as a method by which brewers once tested the
temperature of a batch of beer: They dipped a thumb in the brew.
During her first year of law school, Fenick, a wordsmith herself, was
determined to unravel the history of the "rule of thumb." Did the phrase
stem from a specific rule? Was there such a rule? Even if there wasn't a
rule, did an infamous judge's ruling establish "thumbstick" guidelines for
would-be wife beaters?
She discovered that while "rule of thumb" was not accepted law, there was
evidence aplenty that the British legal system and the American legal system
it inspired were unkind to women. "I found out that in the 1800s [wife
beating] really was a debatable proposition," she says.
Wife beating is acknowledged in Blackstone's "Commentaries," and many court
rulings sanctioned the practice. But whether the "rule of thumb" was
accepted as law was a separate matter.
Fenick traced the earliest possible reference to the 17th century, when one
Dr. Marmaduke Coghill, an Irish judge, held that a man who had beaten his
wife "with such a switch as the one he held in his hand" was within his
matrimonial privilege.
In the 18th century a judge named Francis Buller, dubbed "Judge Thumb" by
the famous caricaturist James Gillray, was said to have allowed that a man
could beat his wife, as long as the punitive stick was no thicker than his
thumb. (A witty countess was said to have asked the judge to measure her
husband's thumb exactly, so that she might know the precise extent of his
privilege.)
Fenick also found three 19th-century cases in America that mention the "rule
of thumb," including an 1868 ruling in North Carolina that "the defendant
had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb."
Buller's "thumbstick" opinion and the three American rulings Fenick found
were intriguing -- and damning -- but did not constitute definitive proof
that the rule of thumb was derived from British common law.
As Fenick, encouraged by a law professor, considered publishing her
findings, she found that Henry Ansgar Kelly, a University of California
English professor, had beaten her to the punch. His "Rule of Thumb and the
Folklaw of the Husband's Stick" appeared in the September 1994 Journal of
Legal Education.
Kelly, much to Fenick's disappointment, had covered the same territory as
she. (Although she proudly observes that his article overlooked the earliest
reference to "rule of thumb" by Coghill.) Three and half years later, Safire
would rely entirely on Kelly's article to make his case in his column.
Fenick's efforts were not in vain, however. In response to a query from a
correspondent to the alt.folkore.urban newsgroup linked to the Urban Legends
Web site, Fenick posted her article where it is now part of the site's
permanent archives. Since its inception, the site has expanded its mission
from probing the genesis and spread of urban legends to "confirming or
disproving beliefs and facts of all kinds, including origin of vernacular."
"Rule of thumb" and other figures of speech can work much the same way that
urban legends do: They may appear mysteriously, spread spontaneously and
contain elements of humor or horror. And, like urban legends, a figure of
speech may contain a grain of emotional, if not actual, truth.
Thus it was easy at first for Fenick and others to believe that the "rule of
thumb" was founded in common law. Patricia A. Turner, a University of
California at Davis folklorist, well understands how a falsehood can acquire
the mantle of truth.
In "I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture,"
Turner examines the way allegations of forced birth control, corporate
collusion with the Ku Klux Klan, drug distribution targeted at urban areas
and other anti-black conspiracy theories circulating in the
African-American
community are based on racist realities and serve as a form of resistance
against white oppression.
The same theory can be applied to the rule of thumb, Turner says. A text may
be proved to be inaccurate or false, but "if it reflects some deeper truth
in society, it doesn't go away." The term "rule of thumb" may "not have that
specific etymological origin, but men have dominated women in workplaces and
in homes and in virtually every setting. It speaks to a deeper truth."
Students of women's history who want to research possibly apocryphal ideas
are also at a disadvantage because they "don't have the paper trail that
more mainstream areas of academic discipline have," Turner says. "Sometimes
it's more difficult to get to the bottom of something."
That said, Turner acknowledges that it is "very sloppy for an academic to
pass on misinformation." Once a theory such as the inaccurate history of the
"rule of thumb" has been debunked, it can backfire on those promoting it,
she says. "If someone has read it who knows it is false, everything gets
discredited on that level. So based on one falsehood, a whole history can be
challenged."
That is what concerned scholars and social critics say happened when
Christina Hoff Sommers debunked the "rule of thumb" in her 1994 book, "Who
Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women." Sommers finds the earliest
misuse of the phrase in a 1976 National Organization for Women report and
uses it to bolster her case against domestic-violence statistics.
The feminist rush to brandish the "rule of thumb" as justification for their
crusade, Turner suggests, may inadvertently have provided Sommers and her
sympathizers with the ideal ammunition to discredit the same cause.
As for Fenick, she received a nice letter from Kelly, who learned RTC of her
research after the Safire piece ran. She has written him back, and hopes to
hear soon what he thinks about her Coghill reference.
Pub Date: 4/17/98
Found in my drafts file, worth archiving.
*************************************************************
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Will Dockery
2019-07-30 00:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
IOW: You've been pulling this "Fuck poetry -- let's all talk about Bob
Dylan, Patti Smith, Lenny Cohen" shit for decades.
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
I'm with Stuart on this one. Folk rock and poetry are entirely
different categories. You and your friends seem to think that excluding
folkies from the title of "poet" constitutes some sort of negative,
qualitative judgement. It is nothing of the sort. Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie. He's not a good poet. He's not a bad poet.
He's not a poet at all.
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry
Exactly, as does the lyrics of Dylan and Cohen.
W.Dockery
2022-08-01 06:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
Post by Ironywaves
Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry
That's true, as do the lyrics of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, to name two obvious examples.

HTH and HAND.
General-Zod
2023-12-07 22:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
Post by Ironywaves
Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry
That's true, as do the lyrics of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, to name two obvious examples.
HTH and HAND.
Exactly, and a fusion of poetry and song therefore....
W.Dockery
2025-01-15 07:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
We can leave Dylan out for now, since you prefer it, but both Smith and
Cohen were poets, published poets, long before they became involved with
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Patti_Smith
"Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American
poet, singer-songwriter, and visual artist..."
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"Leonard Norman Cohen, CC, GOQ (September 21, 1934 - November 7, 2016) was
a Canadian poet, singer-songwriter, musician, and novelist. His work often
explores religion, isolation, sexuality and interpersonal
relationships..."
Post by Ironywaves
Bob Dylan is a
highly influential folkie
https://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan
"Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is an American poet, singer-songwriter,
musician, and painter..."
If a song lyric can stand on its own, it's poetry
That's true, as do the lyrics of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, to name
two obvious examples.
HTH and HAND.
If we’re going to label things, then let’s compare apples to apples and
oranges to oranges.
Dylan and Cohen are obvious examples of writers who have written both
poetry and song lyrics,
but every song lyric did not come from a poem, and every poem does not
become a song lyric.
Okay, so consider poems like apples, and song lyrics like oranges. Both
are fruit of the imagination,
as are the labels applied to categorize and contain them in tidy little
packages for sale to the public.
I certainly wouldn’t call this response to your comment a song lyric, so
how do you like them apples?
Interesting, I wonder whatever happened to Corey?

Will Dockery
2019-07-30 13:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
If it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.

:)
W-Dockery
2022-07-28 11:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.

HTH and HAND.

🙂
General-Zod
2022-07-28 22:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
I am not too big of a fan of Pat Boone...!

My drawing of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg...

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159616377009363&set=g.629438503762910
W.Dockery
2022-07-29 22:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General-Zod
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
I am not too big of a fan of Pat Boone...!
My drawing of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159616377009363&set=g.629438503762910
I do kind of love Pat Boone's cover of John Stewart:


Victor H.
2022-08-03 22:39:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W.Dockery
Post by General-Zod
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
I am not too big of a fan of Pat Boone...!
My drawing of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159616377009363&set=g.629438503762910
http://youtu.be/XSpj3l-_MQY
Yes that is classic....
W-Dockery
2022-08-06 12:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Victor H.
Post by W.Dockery
Post by General-Zod
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
I am not too big of a fan of Pat Boone...!
My drawing of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159616377009363&set=g.629438503762910
http://youtu.be/XSpj3l-_MQY
Yes that is classic....
Pat Boone was approved by Uncle Jed and Granny, how could he fail?
W.Dockery
2024-12-17 11:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General-Zod
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably
a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
I am not too big of a fan of Pat Boone...!
My drawing of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159616377009363&set=g.629438503762910
Not sure if this link still works.
Rocky Stoneberg
2022-10-03 21:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
Pat Boone is pretty dismal listening, usually... but...

I love this one from P.B.


http://youtu.be/XSpj3l-_MQY
W-Dockery
2022-10-30 04:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rocky Stoneberg
Post by W-Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
If it can be sung in a nasally voice, it's a folk song.
Like I've said before, if it is sickly sweet and sappy... it is probably a Pat Boone song.
HTH and HAND.
🙂
Pat Boone is pretty dismal listening, usually... but...
I love this one from P.B.
http://youtu.be/XSpj3l-_MQY
Agreed, even a putrid vocalist like Pat Boone can accidentally record a good song occasionally.

🙂
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-13 19:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi Orlando.

I know this is off the subject, but just wanted to say hi and how are
you?


Angel
Dennis M. Hammes
2003-10-14 01:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
As a sometimes singer/songwriter and distinct poet, I entirely agree.
Only rarely have I successfully set poems to music, whereas I've written
songs independently from poetry because they are so different.
Neither has anybody else, and this is the standing critical opinion,
not "mine."
Even when "legitimate" composers attempt music for "good" pomes,
and attempt to /keep the pomes/, the result is more often an
atrocity than a song (melody).
In opera or oratorio, the lyric is completely subordinated to the
music, chopped up and distributed and repeated wherever /it/ will
fit; it is merely a syllable to be formed as a pitch, with the
melody, not the syllable, determining that pitch.
In song, the melody is simplified to the needs of keeping the
lyric together, the lyric subordinated to the needs of the melody.
The combined structure can only be so complex, i.e., not very.
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies.
There's a "movement" in the student body of every art, but esp.
among the wannabes, that a tyro has achieved the limits of the art.
Heh.
Post by Orlando Fiol
To me, all art attempts to describe or envision reality through a
stylistic language of gestures. Poetry's gestural vocabulary is usually
so arcane to modern readers that it ends up being an acquired taste.
Many obscure songwriters with equally obscure and obtuse references
remain cultish precisely because they are acquired tastes demanding
relistening and reinterpretation. Many ancient poets understood the
distinctions between ornate poetry and simpler song. For one, song is
intended to have its language digested upon the first listening, even if
the listener thinks about possible interpretations of metaphors and/or
symbolism afterwards.
Song actually aids those with such poor language (Index) that they
don't really dare rmember the words, but can remember the melodies.
It's not too far out to say that for them the melodies keep the
words, thus the ideas, in order.
(This is a class of people whose language is entirely subordinated
to their fantasies. Please to remember that our species is only
40,000 years old, our language about 20,000, and "civilisation" only
7000, whereas the cat was sponging off us as soon as we showed up.)
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression, they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.
There's all that, yes, but the limit reason is that a
highly-connotative "poetic" language requires that the /whole set/
be kept in order, and most people have at least one fantasy that
must be protected from Touching The Earth. The pond-ripple effect
(each protective ring must itself be protected) fouls pretty much
their whole language where part is not isolated by being
"technical," but you just /can't/ write poetry in technical language
because the associations have been restricted precisely to protect
them from being washed away by the fantasies.
(Actually, you /can/ write pomes in technical languages; having
utterly no connotations, they're called "equations.")
Post by Orlando Fiol
I think the proposition was indeed explored in that piece. Dylan and
Cohen aren't typical songwriters; they're lyrical self expressionists,
far more complex than the courtly troubadours who may have inspired
them. They are, in a sense, pretentious because they ostensibly sought
to be poets but never published poetry before setting it to music.
I think (I didn't particularly study for a statistic) that Paul
Simon took lyric about as far as it can go in a song recently, with
the Victorian patter-songs and the Roaring [-20s] "rhyme-lyrics"
being two other somewhat-related directions.
Paul McCartney and George Gershwin (of the "recent greats") paid
rather more attention to the music. And most of George's lyrics
were written by Ira; the songwriter-lyricist teams (whose arts must
be studied separately) really cannot be beaten by single artists.
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.
Heh. Pop music has Dionysian attributes, to be sure, but it isn't
even on that yardstick; both ends belong to poetry. Even
"classical" music isn't on it.
Post by Orlando Fiol
I think Suzanne Vega, Randy Newman, Jonatha Brooke, Ani Difranco, David
Wilcox, Dar Williams and Jeff Buckley bothered.
Post by Emperor Bungle
All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
Teh neets of teh audiences keep them that way.
Post by Orlando Fiol
Absolutely. But I think there is popular and classical poetry, just as
there are popular and classical musics in many cultures. The
differences between them tend to be obvious. The popular is simpler,
less elegant, refined and indirect than the classical because its
communicative intend has to be more literal.
/fu'ryu'-no hajime ya oku-no ta-ue-uta/

Kulchur's feet
country's
rice-planting song

-- Basho' (1689), tr. Hammes

It should not be forgotten that the "difference" has been developing
not in the current generation, but over the lifetime of the art(s).
Or that the main difference is that "formal" or "classical" art
tends to diverge throughout the toolbox, "popular" art to converge
on the audience. Thus Shapiro's Buick is a woman and cummings'
woman is a Buick, while the pop song's Buick is a Ford with a
divorced dawg in it.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The moving cursor writes, and having writ,
blinks on.
http://scrawlmark.org
Peter J Ross
2003-10-14 01:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 01:05:18 GMT, Dennis M. Hammes wrote in
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
As a sometimes singer/songwriter and distinct poet, I entirely agree.
Only rarely have I successfully set poems to music, whereas I've written
songs independently from poetry because they are so different.
Neither has anybody else, and this is the standing critical opinion,
not "mine."
Even when "legitimate" composers attempt music for "good" pomes,
and attempt to /keep the pomes/, the result is more often an
atrocity than a song (melody).
Das Veilchen (Goethe/Mozart)
Wandrers Nachtlied (Goethe/Schubert)
Ich grolle nicht (Heine/Schumann)

Many combinations of Baudelaire/Verlaine with Fauré/Duparc/Debussy.

But in English, good words and good music don't seem to go together -
possibly because there are so few English composers who are really
good.
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
In opera or oratorio, the lyric is completely subordinated to the
music, chopped up and distributed and repeated wherever /it/ will
fit; it is merely a syllable to be formed as a pitch, with the
melody, not the syllable, determining that pitch.
Wagner and Debussy, in their different ways, put the melody mostly in
the accompaniment so that the words could be declaimed naturally.
However, Wagner was hardly a great poet, and IIRC the libretto of
Pélleas et Melisande is prose.
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
In song, the melody is simplified to the needs of keeping the
lyric together, the lyric subordinated to the needs of the melody.
The combined structure can only be so complex, i.e., not very.
The musical complexity of a song may be limited by its length, not by
having words. However, it's true that long songs tend to be sectional
or repetitive.

<snip>

The rest seems about right to me, and in any case I'm pointing out
exceptions rather than arguing against your general rules.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Dennis M. Hammes
2003-10-14 17:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 01:05:18 GMT, Dennis M. Hammes wrote in
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
Post by Orlando Fiol
Post by Emperor Bungle
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
As a sometimes singer/songwriter and distinct poet, I entirely agree.
Only rarely have I successfully set poems to music, whereas I've written
songs independently from poetry because they are so different.
Neither has anybody else, and this is the standing critical opinion,
not "mine."
Even when "legitimate" composers attempt music for "good" pomes,
and attempt to /keep the pomes/, the result is more often an
atrocity than a song (melody).
Das Veilchen (Goethe/Mozart)
Wandrers Nachtlied (Goethe/Schubert)
Ich grolle nicht (Heine/Schumann)
Many combinations of Baudelaire/Verlaine with Fauré/Duparc/Debussy.
But in English, good words and good music don't seem to go together -
possibly because there are so few English composers who are really
good.
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
In opera or oratorio, the lyric is completely subordinated to the
music, chopped up and distributed and repeated wherever /it/ will
fit; it is merely a syllable to be formed as a pitch, with the
melody, not the syllable, determining that pitch.
Wagner and Debussy, in their different ways, put the melody mostly in
the accompaniment so that the words could be declaimed naturally.
However, Wagner was hardly a great poet, and IIRC the libretto of
Pélleas et Melisande is prose.
Post by Dennis M. Hammes
In song, the melody is simplified to the needs of keeping the
lyric together, the lyric subordinated to the needs of the melody.
The combined structure can only be so complex, i.e., not very.
The musical complexity of a song may be limited by its length, not by
having words. However, it's true that long songs tend to be sectional
or repetitive.
<snip>
The rest seems about right to me, and in any case I'm pointing out
exceptions rather than arguing against your general rules.
--
PJR :-)
Heh. I /wuZ/ gonna remark up there that your exceptions tended
rather to prove, well, that they were exceptions.
And I'm one who thinks worlds of what Beethoven did to the
"tochter aus Elysium."
MPR's "New Releases" is on occasion full of horrid musickings of
good-old-standard pomes from both sides of the pond. Seems to have
been Movements to go after /A Shropshire Lad/ and many of Robinson's
personae recently.
Puling and squealing, to be sure, but I was actually speaking of
the rather restricted limits on fairly /successful/ meldings.
Which you know.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The moving cursor writes, and having writ,
blinks on.
http://scrawlmark.org
W.Dockery
2025-01-14 17:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Emperor Bungle
Post by Ironywaves
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
<snipped incredibly boring dirge>
1) Why can't you make your own defence of songwriters as poets instead
of
relying on others?
2) Why this pathetic need to give songwriters respectability by
classifying
them as poets? Why can't you just let them exist on their own terms, as
singer-songwriters?
The answer to the latter is snobbery and idleness. Snobbery, because
people
who say songwriting is really poetry see poetry as a higher art with all the
cachet that implies. They're the same people who insist on calling films
like "Once Upon a Time in America" operatic--who say 'film isn't
respectable, but if we start discussing it in the frame of reference of
another, higher, art form, it will become respectable'.
Idleness, because if poetry is the form that songwriting secretly aspires
to, why don't they go and try to find out about the best poetry? Because
they can't be bothered; the best poetry takes too much effort to read and
understand. For all their relativistic bleating about self-expression,
they
have a vague feeling, an instinct that there's a scale of values in all art
forms, but their only solution to that is to see pop music as poetry, but
they're unwilling to actually explore that proposition.
There's a third reason as well (and one that is ably demonstrated by
"Ironywaves," a.k.a., Will Donkey on a daily basis): ignorance. The
people who demand that pop/rock/folk music be included as forms of
poetry do so because 1) it more or less rhymes, 2) more or less has a
recognizable meter
And the fact that poetry evolved from song.
When those same people write "poetry" as well, they have a personal
stake in the argument, viz. that their "poems" read like lyrics to
popular/folk/rock songs.
Post by Emperor Bungle
Why they do this only to pop music is beyond me. After all, nobody calls
hymns poetry even if the words can sometimes be subject to favourable
criticism in the same way as poetry. Nobody calls opera poetry. Or the
tensons, ballades and jeux partis of the troubadours.
They hone in on pop/folk/rock music for the same reasons: ignorance and
stupidity. They are possess only a rough idea as to what hymns and
opera are, and have no interest in trying to learn about them. They
like the music they get drunk/stoned to with their friends, and want to
write music in a similar vein. The problem is that they don't
understand the first thing about music, can't play a musical instrument,
and as virtually every 14-year old on the planet dreams of becoming a
rock star, they have too much competition from those who are musically
talented. So they decide that the song lyrics they write are "poetry."
All that they need to do is to print up a few copies, staple them
together, and pass them out to their friends, or post them online -- and
they can claim that they've been "published."
Post by Emperor Bungle
There's a good reason why pop music isn't poetry. It's too far from the
Apollonian and too close to the Dionysian. Its mimesis takes place at
that
end of the scale where jouissance is found. It appeals to the heart far more
than it appeals to the brain. Poetry, even oral poetry, tries to balance
its appeals; pop music doesn't bother.
It's also a different art form, as music requires singing/and or musical
instruments, whereas a poem need only be recited/read aloud. IOW: A
poem can stand alone on its own merits, whereas a song lyric requires a
musical format and presentation.
Agreed, different but similar.
Post by Emperor Bungle
All of which seems to suggest that poetry must be better than pop music.
But that's something I don't agree with. Pop music is different from
poetry.
Agreed.
Michael Pendragon
“This is poem takes place way ahead in the future, by the way, written
in 1996 about the events of 1995.”
-- Will Dockery, prognosticator extraordinaire.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt
Will Dockery
2019-02-15 18:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ironywaves
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
_________________________________________________________________
The close relationship between poetry and music scarcely needs to be
argued. Both are aural modes which employ rhythm, rime, and pitch as
major devices; to these the one adds linguistic meaning, connotation,
and various traditional figures, and the other can add, at least in
theory, all of these plus harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration
techniques. In English the two are closely bound his- torically.
Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry seems certainly to have been read or chanted
to a harpist's accompaniment; the verb used in Beowulf for such a
performance, the Finn episode, is singan, to sing, and the noun gyd,
song. A major source of the lyric tradition in English poetry is the
songs of the troubadours.
The distance between the gleomannes gyd in Beowulf or "Sumer is Icumen
In" and the songs of Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan may seem great, but is
one of time rather than aesthetics. The Iyric poem as a literary work
and the Iyrics of a popular song are both still essentially the same
thing: poetry. Whether the title of the work be "Gerontion," "You
Ain't Nothin' But a Hound Dog," or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," our
criteria for evaluating the work must remain the same.
The most important prerequisite for both a significant poem and
significant Iyrics in a popular song is that the writer be faithful to
his own personal vision or to the vision of the poem he is writing.
All the skill and craft generally believed necessary for writing
poetry are indeed necessary because these are the only means by which
a poet can preserve the integrity of this vision in the poem. Whether
writing for the hit parade or the little magazine, a poet must not,
either because of lack of skill or worship of a false muse-popularity,
wealth, or critical acclaim - go outside of his own or his own
poem's vision - on pain of writing only the derivative or the trivial.
Historically, the writers and singers of the lyrics of popular songs
have seemed often to be incapable of personal vision, and to have
confused both originality and morality with a servile compliance to
popular taste. Tiny Tim and Mrs. Miller have both been remarkable
chiefly as unconscious caricatures of this naivety.
Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen represent two highly contrasting
directions from which the attempt to restore significance and
integrity of vision to the popular song can be made. Bob Dylan is the
child runaway who became a professional songwriter by deliberate hard
work, and whose emergence as a poet of some talent seems to have been
accidental, almost as if he had unconsciously realized that good songs
have to contain reasonably good lyric poetry. Leonard Cohen is a
university-educated formalistic poet who has moved in an opposite
direction with his recent discovery that a good lyric poem could
equally be a good song. Dylan brings to poetry a spontaneity of rhythm
and a resourcefulness in imagery that had long been qualities of
American folk music, as in that of Huddie Ledbetter or of Dylan's own
idol, Woodie Guthrie. Cohen takes to the poem as popular song a
scholarly precision of language and an obsession for extemal form.
As lyricists these men stand far above the Carl Lee Perkinses, Richard
Whitings, Irving Berlins, and George Gershwins of the past. A close
look at either reveals a writer with individual experiences, ideas,
imagery, and vocabulary, a writer who projects his own self and its
circumstances rather than fabricating a persona from the offal of our
culture. In Bob Dylan's work it is the original imagery and the
intensely personal vision that is immediately obvious
I saw a new born baby with wild wolves all around it,
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a roomful of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a gonna fall.
While there is a definite rhythmical naivety in this passage, it is
nearly lost in the richness of its images. Dylan's stance here is the
stance of the visionary, of the prophet. His images are ones out of
our own society, but seen by his own eyes and not in any way as this
society might wish them to be seen.
There are many elements of interest in Bob Dylan's vision: his
awareness of both the miseries and virtues of the down-trodden, his
sense of the viciousness of the present United States society, his
hatred of war, his personal need for independence from a materialistic
culture's ties, and his feeling of the imminence of the apocalypse. In
fact, Dylan's vision is essentially apocalyptic; again and again he
tells of an evil world which is soon to be both punished and replaced
tomorrow, perhaps, when the ship comes in.
The world of Bob Dylan is a wor]d where the unemployed Hollis Brown,
his wife and their five children are allowed by their fellow
countrymen to starve in a filthy cabin and "the dirty driven rain"
("The Ballad of Hollis Brown"), where civil rights workers are
murdered ("Oxford Town"), where prisoners are abused by sadistic
guards ("The Walls of Red Wing"). It is a world of embittered
immigrants ("I Pity the Poor Tmmigrant"), of exploited tenants ("Dear
Landlord"), of frivolous and materialistic women ("Sad-Eyed Lady of
the Lowlands"). It is a world where white Americans systematically
destroy entire tribes of Indians, where each warring nation and
faction imagines smugly that God is on its side ("With God on Our
Side"), where the "masters of war" hide in their mansions "as young
people's blood/flows out of their bodies /and is buried in the mud"
("Masters of War"). The United States, to Dylan, is the country that
enjoys watching boxer kill boxer ("Who Killed Davey Moore"), the
country where a judge can coerce a young girl to intercourse on the
false promise that he will save her father from hanging ("Seven
Curses"), the country where poor whites are taught by the rich to hate
negroes ("Only a Pawn in their Game"), and the country where mine and
factory are opened and closed with little thought to the welfare of
the worker ("North Country Blues"). To the young, in Dylan's eyes, the
Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
get dressed, get blessed
try to be a success
Please her, please, him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift,
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid, they keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle, don't wear sandals
Try to avoid scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum.
("Subterranean Homesick Blues")
Dylan himself wants neither to chew gum nor please anyone. He is
against not only the kind of possessiveness and dominance of human
beings that the United States practices through its foreign policy,
its racial discrimination, its boxing syndicates, and its abuse of
workers, but also (at least until the recent album Nashville Sky-
line) against the possessiveness and dominance encouraged by romantic
love. In 'Don't Think Twice it's All Right" the speaker deserts a
woman because she required too much of him; "I gave her my heart but
she wanted my soul." In "It Ain't Me Babe" the speaker has encountered
a girl who wants "someone to close his eyes for" her, "someone to
close his heart. Someone who will die for" her, "and more." Again,
such demands, even though sanctioned by our culture, seem unreasonable
to him. Dylan expresses his own ideas on the ideal relationship
between people in his song "All I Really Want to Do." These ideas do
not apply merely to the relationship between man and woman, but in the
light of his other songs can be generalized to include the
relationship between worker and employer, citizen and policeman,
student and professor.
I ain't lookin, to compete with you,
Beat or cheat or mistreat you,.
Simplify you, classify you,
Deny, defy, or crucify you.
All I really want to do
Is Baby, be friends with you.
Dylan seeks the destruction of what is to him an inhumanly
competitive, exploitive, classifying, and confining society. Because
his vision is apocalyptic, however, he does not foresee revolution
occurring other than spontaneously, without apparent cause, as if by
divine act. That our contemporary society, its institutions, and its
values should not only be criticized and rejected but also escaped
seems to be his major piece of advice to us all. But man's own means
of escape are limited: one can murder one's starving wife and chil-
dren and commit suicide oneself, like Hollis Brown, so that "some-
where in the distance/There's seven new people born" ("Ballad of
Hollis Brown"), or one can follow "Mr. Tambourine Man" and through
marijuana, LSD, or hard narcotics come "to dance beneath the diamond
sky" ("Mr. Tambourine Man"). For change that will affect everyone
something larger must occur. A song such as "The Times They Are
A-Changin' " contains only a hint of the coming apocalypse.
The line is drawn
The curse is cast
The slow one now will
Later be fast.
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
And yet it is clearly the Christian apocalypse, with its conventional
raising of the meek and toppling of the mighty, that Dylan is
suggesting. Songs such as "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" or "A Hard
Rain's A Gonna Fall" present the surrealistic rush and confusion of a
judgement day already at hand. The last scene of Bergman's The Seventh
Seal sends men everywhere scurrying for a pennyworth of salvation,
"The Saints are coming through,/And It's all over now, Baby Blue." In
"I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine" the blessed saint himself comes down
to earth to offer man life after destruction. In four other songs
Dylan's vision of the all-arighting apocalypse is directly expressed.
Thru the mad mystic hammering of the wild ripping hail
The sky cracked its poems in naked wonder
That the clanging of the church bells blew far into the breeze
Leaving only the bells of lightning and its thunder
Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind,
Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind
An' the unpawned painter behind beyond his rightful time
An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
Struck by sounds before the sun,
I knew the night had gone,
The morning breeze like a bugle blew
Against the drums of dawn.
The ocean wild like an organ played
The seaweed's wove its strands,
The crashin waves like cymbals clashed
Against the rocks and sands.
I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws,
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause.
In "The Gates of Eden" Dylan develops a clear dichotomy between what
is possible on earth and what is possible in eternity.
Meaningless noise, ownership, kingship, time, metaphysics, lawcourts,
science, the dream of an earthly paradise - all, Dylan tells us, can
exist only outside the gates of Eden.
With a time rusted compass blade
Aladdin and his lamp
Sits with Utopian hermit monks
Sidesaddle on the Golden Calf
And on their promises of paradise
You will not hear a laugh
All except inside The Gates of Eden.
And some day, after the hard rain has fallen, perhaps - Dylan leaves
the entire physical circumstances of our society's cataclysmic
destruction intentionally vague-after the hard radioactive rain
following an atomic war, when indeed all is over for baby blue and
everyone else, these gates of Eden will open, and the hour will have
come, "the hour when the ship comes in."
O the time will come
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin'
Like the stillness in the wind
When the hurricane begins
The hour when the ship comes in.
O the sea will split
And the ship will hit
And the shoreline sands will be shaking
Then the tide will sound
and the wind will pound
And the morning will be breaking.
("When the Ship Comes In")
The corpus of Leonard Cohen's songs is nowhere as large as that of Bob
Dylan's. The total published number to this date is twenty songs - a
number superficially disproportionate to the notice they have received
in the various magazines of the record trade. When we examine these
songs, we find that unlike Dylan's they are for the most part love
songs. But once again we find that they are raised to considerable
significance and poetic integrity by the unique and intelligent vision
which informs them.
Cohen, however, gives little thought to any impending apocalypse. His
songs present a threatening, devouring world and men desperate to
delay their doom. All of his songs contain some implicit social
criticism, although only two, "The Old Revolution" and "Stories of the
Street," have an overt social commentary. The most nearly political of
The stories of the street are mine
The Spanish voices laugh
The cadillacs go creeping down
Through the night and the poison gas
I lean from my window sill
In this old hotel I chose.
Yes, one hand on my suicide
And one hand on the rose.
Cohen's vision here is of a society in imminent collapse because of
the greed and lust of its members.
I know you've heard it's over now
And war must surely come,
The cities they are broke in half
And the middle men are gone.
But let me ask you one more time
O children of the dust,
All these hunters who are shrieking now
Do they speak for us?
And where do all these highways go
Now that we are free?
Why are the armies marching still
That were coming home to me?
O lady with your legs so fine
O stranger at your wheel
You are locked into your suffering
And your pleasures are the seal.
The age of lust is giving birth
And both the parents ask the nurse
On both sides of the glass
Now the infant with his cord
Is hauled in like a kite
And one eye filled with blueprints
One eye filled with night.
Like Dylan, Cohen would escape a world unfeelingly ordered by highway
and blueprint, but this escape for him must be in the here and now.
And, if he cannot feel at home in his earthly refuge-here a
communalistic existence with other inhabitants of the natural
world-then he will have to accept, even though innocent, the fate of
his corrupt society.
O come with me my little one
And we will find that farm
And grow us grass and apples there
And keep the animals warm
And if by chance I wake at night
And I ask you who I am
O take me to the slaughter house
I will wait there with the lamb.
Man often lives in Cohen's world like Isaac upon his father's altar.
There is only one place for a man to be-where he is-and, if here
corruption and death are inevitable, man must accept these as parts of
his humanity.
In his love songs Cohen is, like Dylan, consistently concerned with
values rather than with the incessant "I want you, I need you, I love
you" theme of the average popular songwriter. Cohen seems to have come
to a realization that has so far escaped most of the writers for the
popular hit parade: that to get the girl into bed is quite easy, but
to get her there without endangering one's own integrity, or without
drawing oneself into the "poison gas" world, is a bit more difficult.
In "The Stranger Song" Cohen presents the cowardly lover, the lover
who is afraid to continue on his quest but wishes to exchange his
freedom for security, the lover "who is just some Joseph looking for a
manger," who "wants to trade the game he plays for shelter." Cohen
terms himself, the quester who still seeks significance, a "stranger;"
he terms the other man, who watches "for the card/that is so high and
wild/he'll never need to deal another," the "dealer." The "dealer,"
the bridegroom who wishes the toil and agony of courtship over, makes
an inadequate lover, Cohen tells us.
I know that kind of man
It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
Who's reaching for the sky just to surrender.
In "Winter Lady" and "Sisters of Mercy" Cohen presents the female
counterpart to the "stranger." This counterpart also has her freedom,
has not sold out to the easy life of guaranteed possession offered by
marriage. Aloof, independent, choosy, this "travelling lady" gives an
affection which Cohen feels should be far more to a man than a paper
contract. In "Sisters of Mercy" this woman waits to refresh the
questing stranger, ministering to his tiredness without plotting for
his being.
O the sisters of mercy
They are not departed or gone
They were waiting for me when I thought
That I just can't go on.
There is apparently no jealousy or possessiveness in his relationship
with these sisters; he can genuinely wish that they will be able to
aid other questing strangers like himself.
When I left they were sleeping
I hope you run into them soon.
Don't turn on the lights,
You can read their address by the moon;
And you won't make me jealous
If I hear that they've sweetened your night
We weren't lovers like that
And besides it would still be all right
There is merely a community of love where any may help any in his or
her quest for life's fulfillment.
Casual love between man and woman is,in Cohen's songs, a desirable
escape from the ordeal of existence. Domestic love is merely part of
the ordeal. In "So Long, Marianne" this contradiction which Cohen sees
between domesticity and personal freedom is explored at length. He
thought himself "some kind of gypsy boy," he tells Marianne, before he
let her take him home. Now, he says, "You make me forget so very
much/I forget to pray for the angel/ And then the angels forget to
pray for us." Here the woman desperately attempts to bind him: "your
fine spider web/Is fastening my ankle to a stone." She heretically
clings to him as if he were a substitute for the divine, holding him,
he says, "like I was a crucifix/ As we went kneeling through the
dark." In this song Cohen wavers, tempted by sentimentality as he
remembers their love "deep in the green lilac park" but is
fortuitously set free by her own possessive- ness, this time for
another man.
O you are really such a pretty one
I see youive gone and changed your name again
And just when I climbed this whole mountainside
To wash my eyelids in the rain.
"One of Us Cannot Be Wrong" is Cohen's ironic story of a pos- sessive
lover, both sadistic in his attempting to dominate the woman, and
masochistic in his yearning to be in turn dominated by her. The song
I lit a thin green candle
To make you jealous of me,
Then I took the dust of a long sleepless night
I put it in your little shoe.
And then I confess'd that I tortured the dress
That you wore for the world to look through.
The lover seeks the advice of a doctor who proves as frail as he,
locking "himself in a library shelf" with the details of their honey-
moon. He then visits a saint who teaches "that the duty of lovers is
to tarnish the golden rule," but the saint too proves frail. Reports
the lover,
And just when I was sure
That his teachings were pure
He drowned himself in the pool,
His body is gone, but back here on the lawn
His spirit continues to drool.
Nevertheless, our poor lover cannot learn by these sordid, possessive,
lascivious, and self-destroying examples and remains as blindly
masochistic as ever, as the last stanza demonstrates.
An Eskimo showed me a movie
He'd recently taken of you
The poor man could hardly stop shivering,
His lips and his fingers were blue.
I suppose that he froze
When the wind took your clothes
And I guess he just never got warm
But you stand there so nice
In your blizzard of ice
O please let me come into the storm.
The thing that all lovers must learn in Cohen's songs is how to say
goodbye, not because parting is good for its own sake but because ties
seem to Cohen to keep people from fulfilling their eesential manhood
or womanhood. Change is imperative for fulfillment in Cohen's
precarious world, and ties inhibit change, as is indicated by the song
"That's No Way to Say Goodbye."
I'm not looking for another
As I wander in my time,
Walk me to the corner
Our steps will always rhyme,
You know my love goes with you
As your love stays with me,
It's just the way it changes
Like the shoreline and the sea.
Cohen's most energetic condemnation of possessiveness in love is found
in "Master Song," a song about the poet's old sweetheart, who is
perhaps a personification of poetry herself, who has now come under
the control of an autocratic master. This new master is associated
throughout the song with images of violence and oppression: he is a
man "who had just come back from the war," who has given the woman "a
German shepherd to walk / With a collar of Ieather and nails," who
flies an aeroplane "without any hands," who "killed the lights in a
lonely lane" and made love to the woman in the guise of "an ape with
angel glands" to "the music of rubber bands." And in turn the woman
keeps the poet himself prisoner, not ever bringing herself to him, not
even bringing to him a sacramental surrogate of "wine and bread." This
song is one of intense disappointment and frustration, and is filled
with images of sterility and despair.
However, love does remain in the songs of Leonard Cohen the major
remedy to the callous possessiveness of our society. Cohen's song
"Suzanne" seems on one level to be another escape-through- drugs song
such as Dylan's "Mr Tambourine Man" or the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky
with Diamonds." But, as in this latter song, the escape is
ambivalently both female and hallucinogenic, and the speaker's entry
into the escape is clearly an entry into a love experience, so that
the song tells us simultaneously both that to turn on is to love and
that love is a turn-on. Even on first meeting the exotic Suzanne,
Cohen tells us, you will know
That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to trave! blind
And you think maybe you'll trust her
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.
As your experience with Suzanne deepens, he continues, you will want
not only to travel blind with her but also to walk upon the water with
the dead Jesus. By the end of the poem Suzanne has raised all the
various contradictory realities of this would-"the garbage and the
flowers"-to beauty, and has even through love brought ourselves to
perfection-"for she's touched your perfect body with her mind." A
further noteworthy aspect of Suzanne is that she can be approached or
abandoned at will-"you can spend the night beside her" (my italics);
both as an hallucinogenic and as a woman she acts only as a "sister of
mercy" and never as the grasping spouse.
The Cohen song where love serves most obviously as a panacea for
society's demand that one control, discipline, and enslave one's
environment and fellow man is the difficult and unpublished song,
"Love Tries to Call You by Your Name." Cohen's basic assumption in
this song is that in surrender to the materialism and generalism of
society one also surrenders one's personal identity. Only love, as the
title states, "tries to call you by your name." The song opens with
the speaker slowly losing himself in something much larger and less
real than he himself is.
I thought it would never happen
To all the people that I became
My body lost in these legends
And the beast so very tame
But here, right here
Between the birthmark and the stain
Between the ocean and the rain
Between the snowman and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.
From the wholeness and integrity of the ocean to the fragmentary
realities of the drops of rain, from the monolithic existence of the
snowman to the destructive rain which fragments that snowman, from the
birthmark which, when positively interpreted symbolises one's unique
being, to the birthmark pejoratively interpreted which now represents
a stain or blemish on the norm of general humanity, the speaker finds
himself pulled, while the "beast" of his individuality grows tamer and
love weakly calls on him to return.
Succeeding verses amplify Cohen's image of the man who is drawn into
self-annihilation and away from self-realization, a man much like the
"dealer" of "The Stranger Song." Such a man claws at "the halls of
fame," lives for "the age" rather than "the hour," for "the plain"
rather than "the sundial," and prefers the banality of the commonplace
to the demanding particularity of genuine love.
I leave the lady meditating on the very love
Which I do not wish to claim
I journey down these hundred steps
The street is still the same.
He abandons real lovers, real heroes, to follow society's broad high-
way to mediocrity, vulgarity, self-indulgence, and anonymity.
Especially here in this song it is self-indulgence which betrays the
indi- vidual away from the difficulties of one's own fulfillment and
into the easy chains of conformity.
Where are you Judy, where are you Ann
Where are all the paths all your heroes came
Wondering out loud as the bandage pulls away
Was I only limping or
Was I really lame;
O here, come over here
Between the windmill and the grain
Between the traitor and her pain
Between the sundial and the plain
Between the newsreel and your tiny pain
Between the snowmen and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.
The world that Cohen perceives in his songs is consistently
materialistic, sordid, and corrupting. Saints become lechers, lovers
become masochists, Cadillacs spread poison gas. Love can become "some
dust in an old man's cuff" ("Master Song"). Priests can trample the
grass of the shrines which they sene ("Priests"). God himself says to
Sometimes I need you naked
Sometimes I need you wild
I need you to carry my children in
I need you to kill a child.
("You Know Who I Am")
Cohen shows man in this world clinging to whatever solace the moment
offers. The cowardly grasp one thing forever; the bolder move from
narcotic to narcotic, from woman to woman. And in "The Old Revolution"
Cohen shows everyone surrendering to this "furnace" that is life.
You who are broken by power
You who are absent all day
You who are kings for the sake of your children's story
The hand of your beggar is burdened down with money
The hand of your lover is clay
Into this furnace I ask you now to venture
You whom I cannot betray.
Cohen's is indeed a black world, illumined only by random loves, the
mystery of Suzanne, and the harsh light of the existential furnace.
Cohen has elsewhere been termed a "black romantic"-one who accepts the
evil and sordidness of this world and seeks revelation through
immersion in these. Such an interpretation of his work is certainly
supported by his songs. Dylan can be similarly interpreted,
particularly in view of his materialism's self-destruction, in such
songs as "A Hard Rain," as a gateway to Eden. Neither is an activist;
neither believes that utopia can be achieved through human action. And
both are thoroughly disinterested in purveying the old and simplistic
romantic lies whch so many of today's pop artists Donovan, the Bee
Gees, the Fifth Dimension, the Association consistently peddle. Both
instead try to do the poet's job present the world as the world
appears in the words and images which their separate visions demand.
Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
Leonard Cohen was a poet of great magnitude up near my way, Bill and Susie
had his albums...… and Lou Reed...…….
Agreed on all counts there, Zod.
W.Dockery
2025-01-05 16:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ironywaves
"Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan : Poetry and the Popular Song."
by Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
_________________________________________________________________
The close relationship between poetry and music scarcely needs to be
argued. Both are aural modes which employ rhythm, rime, and pitch as
major devices; to these the one adds linguistic meaning, connotation,
and various traditional figures, and the other can add, at least in
theory, all of these plus harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration
techniques. In English the two are closely bound his- torically.
Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry seems certainly to have been read or chanted
to a harpist's accompaniment; the verb used in Beowulf for such a
performance, the Finn episode, is singan, to sing, and the noun gyd,
song. A major source of the lyric tradition in English poetry is the
songs of the troubadours.
The distance between the gleomannes gyd in Beowulf or "Sumer is Icumen
In" and the songs of Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan may seem great, but is
one of time rather than aesthetics. The Iyric poem as a literary work
and the Iyrics of a popular song are both still essentially the same
thing: poetry. Whether the title of the work be "Gerontion," "You
Ain't Nothin' But a Hound Dog," or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," our
criteria for evaluating the work must remain the same.
The most important prerequisite for both a significant poem and
significant Iyrics in a popular song is that the writer be faithful to
his own personal vision or to the vision of the poem he is writing.
All the skill and craft generally believed necessary for writing
poetry are indeed necessary because these are the only means by which
a poet can preserve the integrity of this vision in the poem. Whether
writing for the hit parade or the little magazine, a poet must not,
either because of lack of skill or worship of a false muse-popularity,
wealth, or critical acclaim - go outside of his own or his own
poem's vision - on pain of writing only the derivative or the trivial.
Historically, the writers and singers of the lyrics of popular songs
have seemed often to be incapable of personal vision, and to have
confused both originality and morality with a servile compliance to
popular taste. Tiny Tim and Mrs. Miller have both been remarkable
chiefly as unconscious caricatures of this naivety.
Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen represent two highly contrasting
directions from which the attempt to restore significance and
integrity of vision to the popular song can be made. Bob Dylan is the
child runaway who became a professional songwriter by deliberate hard
work, and whose emergence as a poet of some talent seems to have been
accidental, almost as if he had unconsciously realized that good songs
have to contain reasonably good lyric poetry. Leonard Cohen is a
university-educated formalistic poet who has moved in an opposite
direction with his recent discovery that a good lyric poem could
equally be a good song. Dylan brings to poetry a spontaneity of rhythm
and a resourcefulness in imagery that had long been qualities of
American folk music, as in that of Huddie Ledbetter or of Dylan's own
idol, Woodie Guthrie. Cohen takes to the poem as popular song a
scholarly precision of language and an obsession for extemal form.
As lyricists these men stand far above the Carl Lee Perkinses, Richard
Whitings, Irving Berlins, and George Gershwins of the past. A close
look at either reveals a writer with individual experiences, ideas,
imagery, and vocabulary, a writer who projects his own self and its
circumstances rather than fabricating a persona from the offal of our
culture. In Bob Dylan's work it is the original imagery and the
intensely personal vision that is immediately obvious
I saw a new born baby with wild wolves all around it,
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a roomful of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a gonna fall.
While there is a definite rhythmical naivety in this passage, it is
nearly lost in the richness of its images. Dylan's stance here is the
stance of the visionary, of the prophet. His images are ones out of
our own society, but seen by his own eyes and not in any way as this
society might wish them to be seen.
There are many elements of interest in Bob Dylan's vision: his
awareness of both the miseries and virtues of the down-trodden, his
sense of the viciousness of the present United States society, his
hatred of war, his personal need for independence from a materialistic
culture's ties, and his feeling of the imminence of the apocalypse. In
fact, Dylan's vision is essentially apocalyptic; again and again he
tells of an evil world which is soon to be both punished and replaced
tomorrow, perhaps, when the ship comes in.
The world of Bob Dylan is a wor]d where the unemployed Hollis Brown,
his wife and their five children are allowed by their fellow
countrymen to starve in a filthy cabin and "the dirty driven rain"
("The Ballad of Hollis Brown"), where civil rights workers are
murdered ("Oxford Town"), where prisoners are abused by sadistic
guards ("The Walls of Red Wing"). It is a world of embittered
immigrants ("I Pity the Poor Tmmigrant"), of exploited tenants ("Dear
Landlord"), of frivolous and materialistic women ("Sad-Eyed Lady of
the Lowlands"). It is a world where white Americans systematically
destroy entire tribes of Indians, where each warring nation and
faction imagines smugly that God is on its side ("With God on Our
Side"), where the "masters of war" hide in their mansions "as young
people's blood/flows out of their bodies /and is buried in the mud"
("Masters of War"). The United States, to Dylan, is the country that
enjoys watching boxer kill boxer ("Who Killed Davey Moore"), the
country where a judge can coerce a young girl to intercourse on the
false promise that he will save her father from hanging ("Seven
Curses"), the country where poor whites are taught by the rich to hate
negroes ("Only a Pawn in their Game"), and the country where mine and
factory are opened and closed with little thought to the welfare of
the worker ("North Country Blues"). To the young, in Dylan's eyes, the
Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
get dressed, get blessed
try to be a success
Please her, please, him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift,
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid, they keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle, don't wear sandals
Try to avoid scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum.
("Subterranean Homesick Blues")
Dylan himself wants neither to chew gum nor please anyone. He is
against not only the kind of possessiveness and dominance of human
beings that the United States practices through its foreign policy,
its racial discrimination, its boxing syndicates, and its abuse of
workers, but also (at least until the recent album Nashville Sky-
line) against the possessiveness and dominance encouraged by romantic
love. In 'Don't Think Twice it's All Right" the speaker deserts a
woman because she required too much of him; "I gave her my heart but
she wanted my soul." In "It Ain't Me Babe" the speaker has encountered
a girl who wants "someone to close his eyes for" her, "someone to
close his heart. Someone who will die for" her, "and more." Again,
such demands, even though sanctioned by our culture, seem unreasonable
to him. Dylan expresses his own ideas on the ideal relationship
between people in his song "All I Really Want to Do." These ideas do
not apply merely to the relationship between man and woman, but in the
light of his other songs can be generalized to include the
relationship between worker and employer, citizen and policeman,
student and professor.
I ain't lookin, to compete with you,
Beat or cheat or mistreat you,.
Simplify you, classify you,
Deny, defy, or crucify you.
All I really want to do
Is Baby, be friends with you.
Dylan seeks the destruction of what is to him an inhumanly
competitive, exploitive, classifying, and confining society. Because
his vision is apocalyptic, however, he does not foresee revolution
occurring other than spontaneously, without apparent cause, as if by
divine act. That our contemporary society, its institutions, and its
values should not only be criticized and rejected but also escaped
seems to be his major piece of advice to us all. But man's own means
of escape are limited: one can murder one's starving wife and chil-
dren and commit suicide oneself, like Hollis Brown, so that "some-
where in the distance/There's seven new people born" ("Ballad of
Hollis Brown"), or one can follow "Mr. Tambourine Man" and through
marijuana, LSD, or hard narcotics come "to dance beneath the diamond
sky" ("Mr. Tambourine Man"). For change that will affect everyone
something larger must occur. A song such as "The Times They Are
A-Changin' " contains only a hint of the coming apocalypse.
The line is drawn
The curse is cast
The slow one now will
Later be fast.
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
And yet it is clearly the Christian apocalypse, with its conventional
raising of the meek and toppling of the mighty, that Dylan is
suggesting. Songs such as "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" or "A Hard
Rain's A Gonna Fall" present the surrealistic rush and confusion of a
judgement day already at hand. The last scene of Bergman's The Seventh
Seal sends men everywhere scurrying for a pennyworth of salvation,
"The Saints are coming through,/And It's all over now, Baby Blue." In
"I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine" the blessed saint himself comes down
to earth to offer man life after destruction. In four other songs
Dylan's vision of the all-arighting apocalypse is directly expressed.
Thru the mad mystic hammering of the wild ripping hail
The sky cracked its poems in naked wonder
That the clanging of the church bells blew far into the breeze
Leaving only the bells of lightning and its thunder
Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind,
Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind
An' the unpawned painter behind beyond his rightful time
An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
Struck by sounds before the sun,
I knew the night had gone,
The morning breeze like a bugle blew
Against the drums of dawn.
The ocean wild like an organ played
The seaweed's wove its strands,
The crashin waves like cymbals clashed
Against the rocks and sands.
I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws,
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause.
In "The Gates of Eden" Dylan develops a clear dichotomy between what
is possible on earth and what is possible in eternity.
Meaningless noise, ownership, kingship, time, metaphysics, lawcourts,
science, the dream of an earthly paradise - all, Dylan tells us, can
exist only outside the gates of Eden.
With a time rusted compass blade
Aladdin and his lamp
Sits with Utopian hermit monks
Sidesaddle on the Golden Calf
And on their promises of paradise
You will not hear a laugh
All except inside The Gates of Eden.
And some day, after the hard rain has fallen, perhaps - Dylan leaves
the entire physical circumstances of our society's cataclysmic
destruction intentionally vague-after the hard radioactive rain
following an atomic war, when indeed all is over for baby blue and
everyone else, these gates of Eden will open, and the hour will have
come, "the hour when the ship comes in."
O the time will come
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin'
Like the stillness in the wind
When the hurricane begins
The hour when the ship comes in.
O the sea will split
And the ship will hit
And the shoreline sands will be shaking
Then the tide will sound
and the wind will pound
And the morning will be breaking.
("When the Ship Comes In")
The corpus of Leonard Cohen's songs is nowhere as large as that of Bob
Dylan's. The total published number to this date is twenty songs - a
number superficially disproportionate to the notice they have received
in the various magazines of the record trade. When we examine these
songs, we find that unlike Dylan's they are for the most part love
songs. But once again we find that they are raised to considerable
significance and poetic integrity by the unique and intelligent vision
which informs them.
Cohen, however, gives little thought to any impending apocalypse. His
songs present a threatening, devouring world and men desperate to
delay their doom. All of his songs contain some implicit social
criticism, although only two, "The Old Revolution" and "Stories of the
Street," have an overt social commentary. The most nearly political of
The stories of the street are mine
The Spanish voices laugh
The cadillacs go creeping down
Through the night and the poison gas
I lean from my window sill
In this old hotel I chose.
Yes, one hand on my suicide
And one hand on the rose.
Cohen's vision here is of a society in imminent collapse because of
the greed and lust of its members.
I know you've heard it's over now
And war must surely come,
The cities they are broke in half
And the middle men are gone.
But let me ask you one more time
O children of the dust,
All these hunters who are shrieking now
Do they speak for us?
And where do all these highways go
Now that we are free?
Why are the armies marching still
That were coming home to me?
O lady with your legs so fine
O stranger at your wheel
You are locked into your suffering
And your pleasures are the seal.
The age of lust is giving birth
And both the parents ask the nurse
On both sides of the glass
Now the infant with his cord
Is hauled in like a kite
And one eye filled with blueprints
One eye filled with night.
Like Dylan, Cohen would escape a world unfeelingly ordered by highway
and blueprint, but this escape for him must be in the here and now.
And, if he cannot feel at home in his earthly refuge-here a
communalistic existence with other inhabitants of the natural
world-then he will have to accept, even though innocent, the fate of
his corrupt society.
O come with me my little one
And we will find that farm
And grow us grass and apples there
And keep the animals warm
And if by chance I wake at night
And I ask you who I am
O take me to the slaughter house
I will wait there with the lamb.
Man often lives in Cohen's world like Isaac upon his father's altar.
There is only one place for a man to be-where he is-and, if here
corruption and death are inevitable, man must accept these as parts of
his humanity.
In his love songs Cohen is, like Dylan, consistently concerned with
values rather than with the incessant "I want you, I need you, I love
you" theme of the average popular songwriter. Cohen seems to have come
to a realization that has so far escaped most of the writers for the
popular hit parade: that to get the girl into bed is quite easy, but
to get her there without endangering one's own integrity, or without
drawing oneself into the "poison gas" world, is a bit more difficult.
In "The Stranger Song" Cohen presents the cowardly lover, the lover
who is afraid to continue on his quest but wishes to exchange his
freedom for security, the lover "who is just some Joseph looking for a
manger," who "wants to trade the game he plays for shelter." Cohen
terms himself, the quester who still seeks significance, a "stranger;"
he terms the other man, who watches "for the card/that is so high and
wild/he'll never need to deal another," the "dealer." The "dealer,"
the bridegroom who wishes the toil and agony of courtship over, makes
an inadequate lover, Cohen tells us.
I know that kind of man
It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
Who's reaching for the sky just to surrender.
In "Winter Lady" and "Sisters of Mercy" Cohen presents the female
counterpart to the "stranger." This counterpart also has her freedom,
has not sold out to the easy life of guaranteed possession offered by
marriage. Aloof, independent, choosy, this "travelling lady" gives an
affection which Cohen feels should be far more to a man than a paper
contract. In "Sisters of Mercy" this woman waits to refresh the
questing stranger, ministering to his tiredness without plotting for
his being.
O the sisters of mercy
They are not departed or gone
They were waiting for me when I thought
That I just can't go on.
There is apparently no jealousy or possessiveness in his relationship
with these sisters; he can genuinely wish that they will be able to
aid other questing strangers like himself.
When I left they were sleeping
I hope you run into them soon.
Don't turn on the lights,
You can read their address by the moon;
And you won't make me jealous
If I hear that they've sweetened your night
We weren't lovers like that
And besides it would still be all right
There is merely a community of love where any may help any in his or
her quest for life's fulfillment.
Casual love between man and woman is,in Cohen's songs, a desirable
escape from the ordeal of existence. Domestic love is merely part of
the ordeal. In "So Long, Marianne" this contradiction which Cohen sees
between domesticity and personal freedom is explored at length. He
thought himself "some kind of gypsy boy," he tells Marianne, before he
let her take him home. Now, he says, "You make me forget so very
much/I forget to pray for the angel/ And then the angels forget to
pray for us." Here the woman desperately attempts to bind him: "your
fine spider web/Is fastening my ankle to a stone." She heretically
clings to him as if he were a substitute for the divine, holding him,
he says, "like I was a crucifix/ As we went kneeling through the
dark." In this song Cohen wavers, tempted by sentimentality as he
remembers their love "deep in the green lilac park" but is
fortuitously set free by her own possessive- ness, this time for
another man.
O you are really such a pretty one
I see youive gone and changed your name again
And just when I climbed this whole mountainside
To wash my eyelids in the rain.
"One of Us Cannot Be Wrong" is Cohen's ironic story of a pos- sessive
lover, both sadistic in his attempting to dominate the woman, and
masochistic in his yearning to be in turn dominated by her. The song
I lit a thin green candle
To make you jealous of me,
Then I took the dust of a long sleepless night
I put it in your little shoe.
And then I confess'd that I tortured the dress
That you wore for the world to look through.
The lover seeks the advice of a doctor who proves as frail as he,
locking "himself in a library shelf" with the details of their honey-
moon. He then visits a saint who teaches "that the duty of lovers is
to tarnish the golden rule," but the saint too proves frail. Reports
the lover,
And just when I was sure
That his teachings were pure
He drowned himself in the pool,
His body is gone, but back here on the lawn
His spirit continues to drool.
Nevertheless, our poor lover cannot learn by these sordid, possessive,
lascivious, and self-destroying examples and remains as blindly
masochistic as ever, as the last stanza demonstrates.
An Eskimo showed me a movie
He'd recently taken of you
The poor man could hardly stop shivering,
His lips and his fingers were blue.
I suppose that he froze
When the wind took your clothes
And I guess he just never got warm
But you stand there so nice
In your blizzard of ice
O please let me come into the storm.
The thing that all lovers must learn in Cohen's songs is how to say
goodbye, not because parting is good for its own sake but because ties
seem to Cohen to keep people from fulfilling their eesential manhood
or womanhood. Change is imperative for fulfillment in Cohen's
precarious world, and ties inhibit change, as is indicated by the song
"That's No Way to Say Goodbye."
I'm not looking for another
As I wander in my time,
Walk me to the corner
Our steps will always rhyme,
You know my love goes with you
As your love stays with me,
It's just the way it changes
Like the shoreline and the sea.
Cohen's most energetic condemnation of possessiveness in love is found
in "Master Song," a song about the poet's old sweetheart, who is
perhaps a personification of poetry herself, who has now come under
the control of an autocratic master. This new master is associated
throughout the song with images of violence and oppression: he is a
man "who had just come back from the war," who has given the woman "a
German shepherd to walk / With a collar of Ieather and nails," who
flies an aeroplane "without any hands," who "killed the lights in a
lonely lane" and made love to the woman in the guise of "an ape with
angel glands" to "the music of rubber bands." And in turn the woman
keeps the poet himself prisoner, not ever bringing herself to him, not
even bringing to him a sacramental surrogate of "wine and bread." This
song is one of intense disappointment and frustration, and is filled
with images of sterility and despair.
However, love does remain in the songs of Leonard Cohen the major
remedy to the callous possessiveness of our society. Cohen's song
"Suzanne" seems on one level to be another escape-through- drugs song
such as Dylan's "Mr Tambourine Man" or the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky
with Diamonds." But, as in this latter song, the escape is
ambivalently both female and hallucinogenic, and the speaker's entry
into the escape is clearly an entry into a love experience, so that
the song tells us simultaneously both that to turn on is to love and
that love is a turn-on. Even on first meeting the exotic Suzanne,
Cohen tells us, you will know
That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to trave! blind
And you think maybe you'll trust her
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.
As your experience with Suzanne deepens, he continues, you will want
not only to travel blind with her but also to walk upon the water with
the dead Jesus. By the end of the poem Suzanne has raised all the
various contradictory realities of this would-"the garbage and the
flowers"-to beauty, and has even through love brought ourselves to
perfection-"for she's touched your perfect body with her mind." A
further noteworthy aspect of Suzanne is that she can be approached or
abandoned at will-"you can spend the night beside her" (my italics);
both as an hallucinogenic and as a woman she acts only as a "sister of
mercy" and never as the grasping spouse.
The Cohen song where love serves most obviously as a panacea for
society's demand that one control, discipline, and enslave one's
environment and fellow man is the difficult and unpublished song,
"Love Tries to Call You by Your Name." Cohen's basic assumption in
this song is that in surrender to the materialism and generalism of
society one also surrenders one's personal identity. Only love, as the
title states, "tries to call you by your name." The song opens with
the speaker slowly losing himself in something much larger and less
real than he himself is.
I thought it would never happen
To all the people that I became
My body lost in these legends
And the beast so very tame
But here, right here
Between the birthmark and the stain
Between the ocean and the rain
Between the snowman and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.
From the wholeness and integrity of the ocean to the fragmentary
realities of the drops of rain, from the monolithic existence of the
snowman to the destructive rain which fragments that snowman, from the
birthmark which, when positively interpreted symbolises one's unique
being, to the birthmark pejoratively interpreted which now represents
a stain or blemish on the norm of general humanity, the speaker finds
himself pulled, while the "beast" of his individuality grows tamer and
love weakly calls on him to return.
Succeeding verses amplify Cohen's image of the man who is drawn into
self-annihilation and away from self-realization, a man much like the
"dealer" of "The Stranger Song." Such a man claws at "the halls of
fame," lives for "the age" rather than "the hour," for "the plain"
rather than "the sundial," and prefers the banality of the commonplace
to the demanding particularity of genuine love.
I leave the lady meditating on the very love
Which I do not wish to claim
I journey down these hundred steps
The street is still the same.
He abandons real lovers, real heroes, to follow society's broad high-
way to mediocrity, vulgarity, self-indulgence, and anonymity.
Especially here in this song it is self-indulgence which betrays the
indi- vidual away from the difficulties of one's own fulfillment and
into the easy chains of conformity.
Where are you Judy, where are you Ann
Where are all the paths all your heroes came
Wondering out loud as the bandage pulls away
Was I only limping or
Was I really lame;
O here, come over here
Between the windmill and the grain
Between the traitor and her pain
Between the sundial and the plain
Between the newsreel and your tiny pain
Between the snowmen and the rain
Once again and again
Love tries to call you by your name.
The world that Cohen perceives in his songs is consistently
materialistic, sordid, and corrupting. Saints become lechers, lovers
become masochists, Cadillacs spread poison gas. Love can become "some
dust in an old man's cuff" ("Master Song"). Priests can trample the
grass of the shrines which they sene ("Priests"). God himself says to
Sometimes I need you naked
Sometimes I need you wild
I need you to carry my children in
I need you to kill a child.
("You Know Who I Am")
Cohen shows man in this world clinging to whatever solace the moment
offers. The cowardly grasp one thing forever; the bolder move from
narcotic to narcotic, from woman to woman. And in "The Old Revolution"
Cohen shows everyone surrendering to this "furnace" that is life.
You who are broken by power
You who are absent all day
You who are kings for the sake of your children's story
The hand of your beggar is burdened down with money
The hand of your lover is clay
Into this furnace I ask you now to venture
You whom I cannot betray.
Cohen's is indeed a black world, illumined only by random loves, the
mystery of Suzanne, and the harsh light of the existential furnace.
Cohen has elsewhere been termed a "black romantic"-one who accepts the
evil and sordidness of this world and seeks revelation through
immersion in these. Such an interpretation of his work is certainly
supported by his songs. Dylan can be similarly interpreted,
particularly in view of his materialism's self-destruction, in such
songs as "A Hard Rain," as a gateway to Eden. Neither is an activist;
neither believes that utopia can be achieved through human action. And
both are thoroughly disinterested in purveying the old and simplistic
romantic lies whch so many of today's pop artists Donovan, the Bee
Gees, the Fifth Dimension, the Association consistently peddle. Both
instead try to do the poet's job present the world as the world
appears in the words and images which their separate visions demand.
Frank Davey, in Alphabet No. 17, December 1969
I just read it again... ha ha.
I haven't read it in a few years but intend to when time permits.
:)
Same here...!
Maybe in 2025.

🙂
Loading...