So motW has some pretty serious writers/literary people, right? (long bullshit post)

Nagle

poser, not guitarist
Aug 19, 2002
548
0
16
42
Philadelphia, PA
bathotaxe.com
So... I've been thinking about the way I go about writing vocal parts for my band and I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty half-assed when compared with how we treat writing for the instruments. Basically, we'll have one part of a song that's easier than the others to play and that's where the vocals will be. Then we scribble some very dry lyrics about everyday life experiences that sometimes come out jokey and growl them over the music in whatever rhythm we feel like growling in.

I want to take greater care with vocal and lyric writing in the future so that it's more integrated into the compositional process that we use when writing our music. I've already catalogued various pitches of death vocals that I can produce and figured out how to notate them on the staff and now I want to write the vocals on the same score as the rest of the music. Thus the aural side of improving the vocal parts is well on its way to being taken care of. I have ideas for lyrical content that I think are halfway decent as well. The only problem is that I lack technique as a writer of poetry/lyrics. Anyway, I know there are a lot of literature and poetry buffs in maudlin and the motW entourage so I was wondering if any of you could suggest technical books on poetry dealing with form, meter, rhyme schemes, etc. - particularly ones that focus on the science of it (as my brain is more apt to understand technical/mathematical/scientific empiricism than the comparably vague musings of critics or philosophers) - to help me along in my endeavor to become a better lyricist. What are your suggestions?

I'm also open to suggestions as to good poetry itself. I'm pretty ignorant to that whole art form as I'm mostly inclined towards mathematical, scientific or muso-academic things though I've been getting into the work of William Carlos Williams a lot. In fact, he's the only poet I've ever read who's really resonated with me. I think I'll investigate Ezra Pound soon too. I guess I'll probably end up liking the modernist stuff the most but feel free to suggest earlier poetry to me as well.
 
as a poet extrordinaire (sp???) and all around erudite cognoscenti of the finest arts in town, I say if the lyrics ain't coming from THIS *points to chest* then it's crap. What come from this *points to head* is secondary, my man. :cool:
 
i really, really like your lyrics as they are currently, as far as subject matter. As is, I don't get to read that often, but my current poet of choice is Charles Bukowski.

As far as technical aspects of writing, I have never read any such reference book nor has byron, I'm sure. I think his style, in the past, came from a faithful emulation/hybrid of his favorite romantics, and mine came from a complete lack of literary knowledge at all.

Byron's new lyrics are a lot different.. I don't know if I could compare them to anything, so I think what that tells us is that it takes a long time to find your own voice... same as in music. A person can't expect to pick up a guitar, be playing it for one year and be able to write something that is representative of their own, true voice. Even a person who has been playing for 10 years.. if they never wrote anything before, the first stuff they write isn't going to be representative of their true voice, either.
 
That's true, Toby but for me, formalized technique is essential. I think art at its best is the coupling of technique and unique vision. You know my feelings on the subject, I'm sure...
 
on the serious tip, I'm not much of poet and i'm not well read, but I feel that "technique" is something that comes out of the uniqe vision. That is, if you understand a subject more than "tensionally", and your grasp of the "vision" is crystal, what you write about it would, let's say, by law be a well formed poem.

"technique" seems like a false construct, you know? In my mind, what counts is actually knowing what you're talking about. that's the impression I'm getting these days anyway.
 
Yeah, but lyrics that come ONLY from here (heart) without any regard to the head are crappy, as well.

I think you could get a better idea of meter and stuff by reading a bunch of poets than by reading an actual technical textbook, but it would be very helpful to have the textbook to refer to and flip through (if not read cover-to-cover). I would read some Shakespeare poetry (even if you don't like Shakespeare) just to appreciate the way he uses cadence and meter.

I'd be really careful about starting with postmodernist poets. The funky shit they do with meter grows out of earlier traditions of meter and they knew it. If you start backwards you might miss a lot of what they're saying when they screw with traditions.

I'm not a big poetry buff, but I like Wallace Stevens, and you can never go wrong going back to the Romantics.
 
Yeah, but lyrics that come ONLY from here (heart) without any regard to the head are crappy, as well.

I need to better articulate my ideas. The writing "technique" is a means of doing so.
 
the 2nd grade definition of art is 'creativity + craft'; the pop division between 'head'/'chest' is too Trotskite.

as one of the 2nd-graders, i'm interested in this poetry 'theory' too, good thread.
 
guys, i just would like to say that i love those lyrics that you can build a image that best fits to what you were able to figure out about the song...and that's why i sometimes hate when people come and tell me the real song meaning 'cause, in most cases, this meaning is not what i thought about the song.
 
actually, my poetry usually stems from a certain phrase or word, generally an aesthetic rather than content, and my brain turns that into whatever it's feeling currently.
 
English/Philosophy dammit! I worked hard for the "philosophy" part of that double major! (er, not really. I had taken so many elective philosophy classes by my senior year I kind of got it unwittingly).

I don't have a textbook off the top of my head, but I will discuss with English Friends and look through the stuff I have to see if I can figure something out. I feel like an idiot high-school-English teacher for recommending Strunk and White's "Elements of Style", but it's a good basis and reference book if you're wondering exactly how to use a particular word or device. It's not meant for poetry or lyrics, though :).

I'll get back to you.
 
Ectoplasma:
guys, i just would like to say that i love those lyrics that you can build a image that best fits to what you were able to figure out about the song...and that's why i sometimes hate when people come and tell me the real song meaning 'cause, in most cases, this meaning is not what i thought about the song.

While I am in support of people figuring out their own meanings and individualizing art to themselves, I also think that from the progressive point of view, explaining meaning can be very important.

What you guys were saying the other day about the Opeth and Anathema lyrics being actually about Akerfeldt's grandfather or a bird.. when you thought personally that they were about a woman or whatever... well, songs about women and romantic love have been done a zillion times. I'm more interested in lyrics about, for example, a cut up cell of film with a spot of developer spilled on a corner of it. So if we had a song that was about a cell of film, but you guys understood it to be about romantic love, I think unless you heard the explanation of it and were told what we meant when we wrote it, you would be stuck in the 'romantic love songs' hole and then our music does nothing to advance music. If an artist wants to have influence, explanation can be necessary.

Open-mindedness toward new, uncharted subject matter is a very important element in progressive art.
 
Originally posted by xfer
English/Philosophy dammit!

[millhouse]So this is what feels like... when dove's cry![/millhouse]

I'm going to change my major to compsci with a minor in physics, though. : \