Leonard Cohen
Ray Thomas
?...is currently on the final leg of his world tour (Canada, Europe, New
Zealand-Australia) before he gets to NY in mid Feb 09. I saw him a few days
ago in a vineyard south of Adelaide, South Australia giving a soulful, two
hour plus performance of his best loved works. For set lists check out:
http://users.telenet.be/maarten.massa/documents/LC_stagelists_2008-2009.pdf
Donald Davison
news:4982df04$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
> Arguably North America's greatest living poet ...
If you found yourself in that argument, who would be the other 4 or 5 top
contenders?
Zuke
> Arguably North America's greatest living poet ... Canada's North America
Tell me you are joking? Good songwriter but poet? I've tried to read
some of his novels and poems. He doesn't even get out of the starting
box in my book.
really real
>
> Tell me you are joking? Good songwriter but poet? I've tried to read
> some of his novels and poems. He doesn't even get out of the starting
> box in my book.
I find Leonard Cohen's songs to be more poetic than Dylan's. Dylan's
songs are full of poetic imagery but they're more songlike than Leonard's.
I like a song to be more songlike than a poem, though Leonard has
certainly written some incredible ones, like The Future And Democracy is
Coming to the USA.
Gnostic Jumbo
> > Tell me you are joking? Good songwriter but poet? I've tried to read
> > some of his novels and poems. He doesn't even get out of the starting
> > box in my book.
>
> I find Leonard Cohen's songs to be more poetic than Dylan's.
But what does this mean? In what way? Is Keats "more poetic" than
Wordsworth? Is Coleridge more or less poetic than Wordsworth? Milton?
I don't get how something can be more or less poetic. It either sings
or it doesn't.
really real
>
> But what does this mean? In what way? Is Keats "more poetic" than
> Wordsworth? Is Coleridge more or less poetic than Wordsworth? Milton?
>
> I don't get how something can be more or less poetic. It either sings
> or it doesn't.
I was comparing Dylan's songs to Leonard Cohen's songs. Did Keats and
Wordsworth write songs too? I thought they were just poets.
You wouldn't compare poets as being more or less poetic than each other.
I like Wordsworth better than Keats and Milton, but it's probably
because I like Wordsworth's view of pantheism.
Some songs are more poetic than others though. Donovan's "I Love My
Shirt" is less poetic than "A Whiter Shade of Pale."
Joe South's "Walk A Mile in My Shoe" is less poetic than Desolation Row.
Mr. Rick
doesn't.
You either believe in my religion or you don't.
Gnostic Jumbo
>
> > I don't get how something can be more or less poetic. It either sings
> > or it doesn't.
>
> I was comparing Dylan's songs to Leonard Cohen's songs.
I know.
> Did Keats and
> Wordsworth write songs too?
Possibly.
> I thought they were just poets.
What difference would it make?
> You wouldn't compare poets as being more or less poetic than each other.
No, I wouldn't. Nor songwriters.
> Some songs are more poetic than others though. Donovan's "I Love My
> Shirt" is less poetic than "A Whiter Shade of Pale."
Ah, now I get you. You mean "fancy-language" = poetry. But the
language of "good" poetry is accommodated to its message. In which
case, "A Whiter Shade of Pale", great as it is musically, is pretty
duff as poetry, whereas "I Love My shirt", though not aspiring to any
great profundities, manages to say what it needs to say. In which
case, it might be better poetry than AWSOPale. But saying one is more
"poetic" than the other is fuzzy.
> Joe South's "Walk A Mile in My Shoe" is less poetic than Desolation Row.
Again, I'd say its lyrics were more consistently adequate to its
intentions, and so it's better poetry. Though Desolation Row has
single lines, couplets and verses which are excellent, it also has
some very redundant parts.
Gnostic Jumbo
That seems extremely dogmatic. What's your religion?
really real
>
> Ah, now I get you. You mean "fancy-language" = poetry. But the
> language of "good" poetry is accommodated to its message. In which
> case, "A Whiter Shade of Pale", great as it is musically, is pretty
> duff as poetry, whereas "I Love My shirt", though not aspiring to any
> great profundities, manages to say what it needs to say. In which
> case, it might be better poetry than AWSOPale. But saying one is more
> "poetic" than the other is fuzzy.
Do you think a good advertising jingle is poetry?
>> Joe South's "Walk A Mile in My Shoe" is less poetic than Desolation Row.
>
> Again, I'd say its lyrics were more consistently adequate to its
> intentions, and so it's better poetry. Though Desolation Row has
> single lines, couplets and verses which are excellent, it also has
> some very redundant parts.
What is redundant in Desolation Row?
Gnostic Jumbo
> > Ah, now I get you. You mean "fancy-language" = poetry. But the
> > language of "good" poetry is accommodated to its message. In which
> > case, "A Whiter Shade of Pale", great as it is musically, is pretty
> > duff as poetry, whereas "I Love My shirt", though not aspiring to any
> > great profundities, manages to say what it needs to say. In which
> > case, it might be better poetry than AWSOPale. But saying one is more
> > "poetic" than the other is fuzzy.
>
> Do you think a good advertising jingle is poetry?
If it uses language inventively and expresses its message well, why
not? Would a good line of poetry used in an advertising jingle cease
to be a line of poetry?
>
> >> Joe South's "Walk A Mile in My Shoe" is less poetic than Desolation Row.
>
> > Again, I'd say its lyrics were more consistently adequate to its
> > intentions, and so it's better poetry. Though Desolation Row has
> > single lines, couplets and verses which are excellent, it also has
> > some very redundant parts.
>
> What is redundant in Desolation Row?
Well, I read somewhere that some weirdo said it would work just as
well if it was shortened,
really real
>> Do you think a good advertising jingle is poetry?
>
> If it uses language inventively and expresses its message well, why
> not? Would a good line of poetry used in an advertising jingle cease
> to be a line of poetry?
A line from an advertising jingle would also make a good line of poetry,
if done right. And I remember a Pepsi advertisement that was used in a
high school advertisement as an example of found poetry.
But a good advertising jingle is not poetry. There is a reason for
poetry, and advertising a product isn't it.
>> What is redundant in Desolation Row?
>
> Well, I read somewhere that some weirdo said it would work just as
> well if it was shortened
I would disagree. I wouldn't take a word out of Desolation Row or
Visions of Johanna, unless I were constructing a medley.
I would, however, drastically shorten Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands
Gnostic Jumbo
> But a good advertising jingle is not poetry.
Why not?
> There is a reason for
> poetry, and advertising a product isn't it.
What is the "reason" for poetry?
>
> >> What is redundant in Desolation Row?
>
> > Well, I read somewhere that some weirdo said it would work just as
> > well if it was shortened
>
> I would disagree. I wouldn't take a word out of Desolation Row or
> Visions of Johanna, unless I were constructing a medley.
So... if words can be taken out for medley purposes, they must be
redundant, or the medley is a desecration.
> I would, however, drastically shorten Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands
Me too. By about 11 minutes.
really real
>
>> But a good advertising jingle is not poetry.
>
> Why not?
Well, an advertising jingle is poetry in a metaphorical sense. A rainbow
is poetic. Clouds are poetry. Everything is poetry.
>
>> There is a reason for
>> poetry, and advertising a product isn't it.
>
> What is the "reason" for poetry?
Poetry communicates the kind of things that prose cannot.
Gnostic Jumbo
> >> But a good advertising jingle is not poetry.
>
> > Why not?
>
> Well, an advertising jingle is poetry in a metaphorical sense. A rainbow
> is poetic. Clouds are poetry. Everything is poetry.
No. Poetry is made by people. It's what the word means (from *poein*,
to make).
>
>
> >> There is a reason for
> >> poetry, and advertising a product isn't it.
>
> > What is the "reason" for poetry?
>
> Poetry communicates the kind of things that prose cannot.
Nonsense. There is nothing that poetry can communicate that prose
cannot. It's the manner not the matter that distinguishes poetry from
prose.
really real
>
> No. Poetry is made by people. It's what the word means (from *poein*,
> to make).
Okay, then everything made by people is poetry, in a metaphoric sense.
That's what the Hopi would say. Your song, your carpentry, your farming
(do the Hopi's farm?) and even, I suppose, your defecation
>
>
> Nonsense. There is nothing that poetry can communicate that prose
> cannot. It's the manner not the matter that distinguishes poetry from
> prose.
Okay, if you insist. At least you seem to be recognizing the existence
of prose, which is definitely not poetry. Are you so sure there can be
something like prose which isn't poetry?
Gnostic Jumbo
> > No. Poetry is made by people. It's what the word means (from *poein*,
> > to make).
>
> Okay, then everything made by people is poetry, in a metaphoric sense.
> That's what the Hopi would say. Your song, your carpentry, your farming
> (do the Hopi's farm?) and even, I suppose, your defecation
Do you understand English? I didn't say that everything people make is
poetry. I said poetry is made by people.
Try this sentence: sandwiches are made by people.
That doesn't mean "everything" is a sandwich.
Good grief, man.
>
> > Nonsense. There is nothing that poetry can communicate that prose
> > cannot. It's the manner not the matter that distinguishes poetry from
> > prose.
>
> Okay, if you insist. At least you seem to be recognizing the existence
> of prose, which is definitely not poetry.
Of course. See above. Prose is when I don't choose an end-stop.
> Are you so sure there can be
> something like prose which isn't poetry?
Sounds like a good question. But I don't understand it.
really real
> Do you understand English? I didn't say that everything people make is
> poetry. I said poetry is made by people.
>
> Try this sentence: sandwiches are made by people.
>
> That doesn't mean "everything" is a sandwich.
>
> Good grief, man.
I've been trying to get you to read English. Because you were saying
that advertising jingles were poetry I suggested that you might want to
call everything poetry in a metaphoric sense.
A beautiful sandwich is poetry in the eyes of a metaphorist, like the
Hopis who don't distinguish between art and non-art
If you want to say that only traditional poetry and advertising jingles
are poetry, that is fine too. Call poetry anything you like, I won't
deny it.
Mr. Rick
and advertising a product isn't it.
Are you saying that the "Castro Convertible" song isn't poetry but "Viva
Fidel Castro" is?
Babs
Leonard Cohen writes beautiful naked people.
Jumbo
> Because you were saying
> that advertising jingles were poetry
No, I said they could be, in answer to your question as to whether
they could.
E.g.
"If music be the food of love,
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so, die..."
Attached to an ipod ad would still be poetry.
> I suggested that you might want to
> call everything poetry in a metaphoric sense.
No, I wanted to call poetry poetry in a literal sense.
> A beautiful sandwich is poetry in the eyes of a metaphorist,
A beautiful sandwich isn't poetry. Saying "a beautiful sandwich is
poetry" might be poetry, if it was in a poem.
> like the
> Hopis who don't distinguish between art and non-art
Do they distinguish between "more poetic" and "less poetic", or do you
split from the Hopis on that one?
> If you want to say that only traditional poetry and advertising jingles
> are poetry, that is fine too.
Why must you put words in my mouth to make a point? When did I use the
word "traditional"? I want to say that poetry is poetry. And that no
poem is more poetic than another poem, though, of course, it might be
"better poetry" in some people's minds.
> Call poetry anything you like, I won't
> deny it.
I know language has no real objective meaning for you. But language is
prescriptive, and humanists must be aware of that.
really real
>> If you want to say that only traditional poetry and advertising jingles
>> are poetry, that is fine too.
>
> Why must you put words in my mouth to make a point? When did I use the
> word "traditional"? I want to say that poetry is poetry. And that no
> poem is more poetic than another poem, though, of course, it might be
> "better poetry" in some people's minds.
>
I put words in your mouth to try to figure out what you are saying.
Okay, now I see that for you, "poetry is poetry." This say sit all,
doesn't it?
In some peoples minds, one poem may be better than another. Do you
include yourself as the kind of person who can distinguish between
better poetry and lesser poetry?
And for you, all poems are equally poetic. How would you define a poem
then? You've admitted there is such a thing as prose, which means
something that is not poetry. Is there such a thing as doggerel that
isn't poetry?
Mr. Rick
might be "better poetry" in some people's minds.
It might be "better poetry" going by widely accepted standards for poetry.
And when it comes to throwing out artistic masterpieces I think the burden
of proof is on the garbageman. There are good reasons for Shakespeare's
massive popularity and relevance through the ages.
really real
>
> It might be "better poetry" going by widely accepted standards for poetry.
I agree. I think Jumbo is heading for trouble trying to say definitive
things about what poetry is and isn't.
> And when it comes to throwing out artistic masterpieces I think the burden
> of proof is on the garbageman. There are good reasons for Shakespeare's
> massive popularity and relevance through the ages.
It's definitely true that the more years something remains popular, the
greater chance it has of being any good. That's why I scoffed at
Ghostface Killah. I knew he wouldn't be around for very long.
Jumbo
>
> I put words in your mouth to try to figure out what you are saying.
I gather that's the only means you have.
> Okay, now I see that for you, "poetry is poetry." This say sit all,
> doesn't it?
Yep. Music is music, poetry is poetry, prose is prose. Let's get back
to what *you* said. x is more poetic than y. By that stripe of genius,
we could say x piece of music is more "musical" than y piece of music.
Hmmm. Or x table is more table-esque than y table.
> In some peoples minds, one poem may be better than another. Do you
> include yourself as the kind of person who can distinguish between
> better poetry and lesser poetry?
No. Like everyone else, I have opinions about it. Except maybe
yourself, who just "know".
> And for you, all poems are equally poetic.
All poems are poems. "Poetic" is a meaningless adjective. It's your
word, not mine, and you're welcome to it.
> How would you define a poem
> then? You've admitted there is such a thing as prose, which means
> something that is not poetry.
You basically don't understand anything I've said. I told you earlier
the difference between prose and poetry. Go back and see.
Jumbo
> >And that no poem is more poetic than another poem, though, of course, it
>
> might be "better poetry" in some people's minds.
>
> It might be "better poetry" going by widely accepted standards for poetry.
Sure. Where did I imply I disagreed with that?
> And when it comes to throwing out artistic masterpieces I think the burden
> of proof is on the garbageman.
Personally, I agree. But why insist on this term "masterpieces"?
> There are good reasons for Shakespeare's
> massive popularity and relevance through the ages.
Of course. He's a great poet.
Jumbo
> > It might be "better poetry" going by widely accepted standards for poetry.
>
> I agree. I think Jumbo is heading for trouble trying to say definitive
> things about what poetry is and isn't.
Right. I said poetry is distinct from prose. Really heading for
trouble, I guess.
really real
>
> Yep. Music is music, poetry is poetry, prose is prose. Let's get back
> to what *you* said. x is more poetic than y. By that stripe of genius,
> we could say x piece of music is more "musical" than y piece of music.
> Hmmm. Or x table is more table-esque than y table.
I've always said that "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry"
is more musical than Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.
> All poems are poems. "Poetic" is a meaningless adjective. It's your
> word, not mine, and you're welcome to it.
You seem to suffer from adjectiphobia, an unnatural fear of adjectives.
Which other nouns do you think can only be turned into "meaningless"
adjectives? Musical, you seem to be saying, is also a meaningless
adjective. Can a picture be picturesque?
How about that last supper? Now there was a table! A possitively
tablesque table.
Jumbo
> > Yep. Music is music, poetry is poetry, prose is prose. Let's get back
> > to what *you* said. x is more poetic than y. By that stripe of genius,
> > we could say x piece of music is more "musical" than y piece of music.
> > Hmmm. Or x table is more table-esque than y table.
>
> I've always said that "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry"
> is more musical than Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.
It sounds dumb to me. They both have music. They are both musical. The
problem is the comparative. See below.
>
> > All poems are poems. "Poetic" is a meaningless adjective. It's your
> > word, not mine, and you're welcome to it.
>
> You seem to suffer from adjectiphobia, an unnatural fear of adjectives.
Not at all. But some adjectives are absolutes and therefore don't
really work in comparative forms. E.g. Boiling. Great adjective. Love
it. It's boiling today, says x. Yes, says y, more boiling than
yesterday. Don't be a dope, says x.
> Which other nouns do you think can only be turned into "meaningless"
> adjectives?
None whatsoever. The problem is which adjectives sound dumb as
comparatives.
> Musical, you seem to be saying, is also a meaningless
> adjective.
Not at all. I love musicals. The Sound of Music is a great musical
musical. More musical than Grease.
> How about that last supper? Now there was a table! A possitively
> tablesque table.
For a host of reasons.
Mr. Rick
more musical than Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.
I'm curious about what you mean by that.
really real
>> I've always said that "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" is
> more musical than Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.
>
> I'm curious about what you mean by that.
Try humming a few bars
really real
> Not at all. But some adjectives are absolutes and therefore don't
> really work in comparative forms. E.g. Boiling. Great adjective. Love
> it. It's boiling today, says x. Yes, says y, more boiling than
> yesterday. Don't be a dope, says x.
very excellent anaylsis. It's pretty perfect, I think.
>
>> Musical, you seem to be saying, is also a meaningless
>> adjective.
>
> Not at all. I love musicals. The Sound of Music is a great musical
> musical. More musical than Grease.
but the lyrics of Grease or more poetic
Mr. Rick
That doesn't help me understand what you are hearing.
really real
>> Try humming a few bars
>
> That doesn't help me understand what you are hearing.
Okay, maybe "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" is a bad
example. It's shorter and more of a song but it's not all that melodic.
Jokerman is very musical, perhaps too musical.
Fourth Time Around is very musical, especially with Charlie McCoy's
melodic guitar work.