Is Poetry Song?

The fact that poetry originated as song is referenced often and for many reasons. Some poets use this fact as an affirmation, as if it automatically makes their writing more profound or magical. “Can’t you see what I’m doing is not mere words on paper? I am weaving the Song of the Universe!” Sometimes it is brought up by people who find poetry difficult, boring, or static. From their perspective, poetry on the page is at best a helpful form of record-keeping, but ultimately an aberration when it replaces the sung or spoken word.

The right way of understanding the relationship between poetry and song is not difficult to discern. First of all, music is clearly the more fundamental art. Arguably it is the most fundamental art. All children sing. Infants have some understanding of rhythm even in the womb. A culture without music would be unnatural, a thing much worse than an illiterate civilization. Poetry is an art necessary for any fully literate people, but is secondary relative to music. I certainly have no desire to encourage illiteracy, but it would not be an assault on human nature to lose writing.

What we call poetry, arguably, was originally just lyrics written down. This origin story does not define poetry completely, but it does help us to differentiate poetry from other genres of writing. In the case of rhymed and metered poems, whether it is the normal English method of counting feet or a looser structure such as I use, there is obviously a connection to sound and rhythm more fundamental than in a work of prose. The connection to rhythm becomes more obscure in the case of free verse, but the heightened awareness of the sound of language generally remains. Thus poetry is more connected to song and speech than other forms of writing. This does not, however, mean that a written poem is a mere imitation of something that properly should be recited or sung. I give two reasons. The first is the manner of reception. A song or a recitation is always a public event, even if it’s a small public. The reading of a poem is private. Even if it is not done in physical seclusion, it is an event that takes place primarily in the mind. It may enter the mind through the eyes by reading, but it is not aimed at ocular stimulation. While retaining some significant connection to song through its heightened awareness of sound, poetry has also evolved its own use of language in a way appropriate for private meditation. Despite its being a rather poor definition, Wordsworth’s famous line about recollection is a wonderful recognition of this point. The second reason is connected to the first. Because poetry is primarily an event in the mind, and not a stimulation of the senses like other arts, its use of language also tends to be far more intricate than song. Many older forms of song, Scottish ballads for example, are more poetical than most modern music. Even so, I do not think any song tradition quite approaches the intricate language games we find in more sophisticated poetry. Poetry is connected to song not only historically but formally and can be distinguished from other literary genres by this connection, but it also has its own principles which distinguish it from song.

Lastly, I would like to point out that these distinctions rest on a continuum rather than in perfectly arranged categories. The deep musicality of a poet like Dylan Thomas begs to be read out loud, but the effect of a writer like Rilke is perhaps best understood in silent recollection, even physical solitude.

[A note about the above comment about music being the more fundamental art: Our own culture is more musical than any other in the sense that we are being almost constantly bombarded with music at work, at stores, on television, and elsewhere. Because it is through recordings the average person is actually much less musical than he would be in a more primitive situation. We are more saturated with music and less connected to it than ever before.]