Sometimes Songs and Poems are One in the Same (Bon Iver: For Emma, Forever Ago)

Bon Iver's For Emma, Forever Ago is a record that blurs the line between what is a song, and what is a poem. The thing about Justin Vernon's (who performs under the moniker "Bon Iver")  lyrics is because he sings in such a high falsetto, using his voice as though it was an instrument, it's usually difficult to understand the words, so having the printed lyrics is necessary. That being said, the music and lyrics always seem to work for each other - never against - when combined, but they are each so well crafted with so many variations in sound and meaning that they are beautiful (and credible) separately.

On this record, Vernon's songs trade off between being repetitive and not; he doesn't repeat lines just to make a song "catchy," but does it only when absolutely necessary and when it makes sense to the meaning of the song. I've set up the following post so that the songs and lyrics are both available for the songs I chose to focus on.

FLUME

I am my mother's only one

it's enough.

I wear my garment so it shows

now you know.

only love is all maroon

gluey feathers on a flume

sky is womb and she's the moon

I am my mother on the wall, with us all.

I move in water, shore to shore;

nothing's more.

only love is all maroon

lapping lakes like leery loons

leaving rope burns--

reddish ruse

only love is all maroon

gluey feathers on a flume

sky is womb and she's the moon

"Flume" is one of the only songs on the record in which the lyrics and vocals actually help the music showing that, in this case, both music and lyrics cannot stand alone. Here, the music itself is so raw and sparse that it needs the extra instrumentation of the vocals. In other words, the lyrics are strong enough to stand alone, but not the music. Why is that? It's not just the weakness of the music, it's what the words are doing. "Flume" is setting the story for the rest of the record, which is essentially about a man reopening his heart to love after a devastating heartbreak; and it characterizes the speaker as someone who wears his emotions outright ("I wear my garment so it shows" (l. 3)). He is also utterly secluded with only his surroundings and daily tasks as his company, which is evident in the seventh stanza:

only love is all maroon

lapping lakes like leery loons

leaving rope burns--

reddish ruse (ll. 11-14).

Here are the sounds of loons calling and rope burns from laboring - obviously these words are important to set the story, which can't be exposed by the music alone.

Although understanding what Vernon is singing is a good reason to have the lyrics in print, he also breaks lines in ways that don't follow the normal layout for lyrics: four line verse, four line chorus, four line verse, etc. Like any poet would do, he breaks lines where it makes sense, emphasizing certain lines while dropping the others into the background, and because of this, his lyrics can't be truly appreciated unless read.

SKINNY LOVE

come on skinny love just last the year

pour a little salt we were never here

my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my

staring at the sink of blood and crushed veneer

I tell my love to wreck it all

cut out all the ropes and let me fall

my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my

right in the moment this order's tall

I told you to be patient

I told you to be fine

I told you to be balanced

I told you to be kind

in the morning I'll be with you

but it will be a different "kind"

I'll be holding all the tickets

and you'll be owning all the fines

come on skinny love what happened here

suckle on the hope in light brassiere

my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my

sullen load is full; so slow on the split

I told you to be patient

I told you to be fine

I told you to be balanced

I told you to be kind

now all your love is wasted?

then who the hell was I?

now I'm breaking at the britches

and at the end of all your lines

who will love you?

who will fight?

who will fall far behind?

The main reason I chose Bon Iver's record to follow the post I wrote on repetition is many of Vernon's lyrics repeat lines or include refrains. As mentioned in that post, often when repeated lyrics are printed on the page, they seem silly, not prolific. But with Vernon's lyrics, they are actually prolific.

"Skinny Love" is one of those songs that really shows how vital all its working parts are to each other, but also how well they can work separately. However, there are certain portions of this song where the lyrics might not be able to work alone, but that depends on how they're read. Take the third line of the first stanza: "my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my." It can be read in two ways: either it's a nonsense line used as an interlude to break the tension of the line that follows, or it can be heard/read as "Oh, my..." like the speaker is recognizing how difficult it is to make this plea to an old love he wishes would stay at least through the year.

There is also the repetition of the chorus in beginning successive lines with "I told you..." Here the desperation expressed in the repetition is not only limited to hearing it out loud. On the page this still means "I told you and you did/didn't do it anyway" and we still no the speaker is really trying to understand, but can't. Out loud and sung, perhaps the only real difference in this repetition is the meaning is even more apparent when Vernon sings the lines as though they are being thrust from his throat through tears. For me, that's the most vital portion of the song, and if it works without music, then the whole song can stand as a poem.

THE WOLVES (ACT I & II)

someday my pain, someday my pain

will mark you.

harness your blame, harness your blame

and walk through.

with the wild wolves around you

in the morning, I'll call you
send it farther on

solace my game, solace my game
it stars you
swing wide your crane, swing wide your crane
and run me through

and the story's all over you
in the morning I'll call you
can't you find a clue when your eyes are all painted
Sinatra blue

what might have been lost--
don't bother me.

The way the lyrics are expressed on the page changes a bit in the final two songs I'm presenting here, one of which is "The Wolves (Act I and II)." It is actually necessary for this song to be presented on the page and sung with musical backing - it needs both versions. Hearing the song with musical backing is important because in the beginning, even before the first verse, Vernon maintains prolonged waves of notes in his haunting falsetto with nothing but the light tapping of a guitar in the background. This tapping creates a tension which is only exacerbated when Vernon finally begins singing the first verse. The song goes on with the speaker struggling with the memories of his past heartache and whether he should remain alone or trust someone new.

Finally, the song culminates with "what might have been lost -- don't bother me" (ll. 16-17), which is repeated numerous times over accompanied by a cacophony of crashing cymbals and guitar riffs until the song fades out, but is stated only once on the page. While the line can take on a small difference in meaning portrayed both ways, it becomes no less powerful. When read, the line expresses that the speaker is really OK with whatever opportunity to love again might be missed - he's convinced and unwavering. But when sung over and over again, the speaker is trying to convince himself that he's OK with the missed opportunity, and with the thrashing music behind the vocals, it's as though he's repeating the line through sobs.

Though both portrayals of these last two lines are equally valid and powerful, I understand why they weren't repeated on the page as many times as they are sung. Repetition works best in a poem when used sparingly, and repeating this line 12 times on the page would make it trite and less powerful. Plus, it would lose the intensity of the overlapping and difference in key and intonation that the recorded version has. Though the meaning of the line is tweaked slightly depending on the presentation, it is no less emotionally evocative either way.

FOR EMMA
narrator:
(so apropros:
saw death on a sunny snow)

him:
"for every life..."

her:
"forgo the parable."

him:
"seek the light."

her:
"...my knees are cold."

(running home, running home,
running home, running home...)

her:
"go find another lover;
to bring a... to string along!"

"with all your lies, you're still very loveable."

"I toured the light; so many foreign roads for Emma,
forever ago."

I chose to discuss "For Emma" not because it's the record's namesake, nor because it really aids in my discussion of repetition, but because it is written completely differently than any other song on the record. Here, Vernon uses the elements of prose writing and poetic dialogue to compose a song, but drops these elements in the recorded version.

The lyrics are written in the form of a dialogue amongst a narrator, "him" and "her." "Emma" is mentioned, but she doesn't seem to be the "her" of which Vernon speaks. Here is what happens in the song: "he" is still hung up on "Emma" but "she" doesn't want to compete with "his" former lover anymore. So the female character decides to leave until he finally admits to the feelings he still harbors for his past love and decides to let "Emma" go. None of this, however, is obvious upon hearing the song without seeing the printed lyrics. Both versions of the story work, but for different reasons; the performed version is somewhat nonsensical because the speaker is not evident, and neither are the characters, while the written version gives us more information but allows the reader to become immersed in a more concrete story. Either way, the song's/poem's beauty or meaning is never really compromised.

With Bon Iver's For Emma, Forever Ago, it's easy to see how a song can also work as a poem. Sometimes these lyrics can stand on their own and lose next to nothing, other times, that can't. Nevertheless, I consider this album special (for lack of a better word) because of how many songs are legitimate poems.

Repetition (Book 1: Richard Goldstein's The Poetry of Rock)

When I began this project of trying to figure out whether songs can truly be considered poems I wanted to see how others approached the same topic. The first book I read was Richard Goldstein's The Poetry of Rock. Here, Goldstein offers a printed collection of rock lyrics from Elvis to The Beatles to Donovan to The Who among many others. Goldstein gives very little critique or analysis of any of the lyrics; what he does is simply print the lyrics on the page and allows the reader to form his or her own opinions on whether to consider those lyrics as poems.

On the rare occasion when Goldstein does share his opinion on the matter of songs as poems, it is very pointed. In the Introduction to the text, Goldstein writes, "...in transposing these lyrics into verse, I discovered that mere linearity can destroy a rock lyric. In print, robbed of all tonality, a full third of my songs were reduced to drivel..." (xi). Clearly Goldstein feels that many of the songs printed here are not poetic, profound, or even all that good without musical accompaniment. However, he later points out that "...all rock lyrics are altered by versification. But not all suffer castration as well. Often, the power and energy in these songs survives transformation" (xi). It seems that what Goldstein is saying is that it ultimately depends on the song and whether its lyrics are actually good enough to stand alone - let's face it, sometimes the lyrics to certain songs just ain't so great.

I could probably just call it quits right there; I could just say, "Well, the lyric has to be good for it to be considered a poem." But what's a "good" lyric? Here's the thing: all of this is subjective. How could it not be? Like I said before - what I'm trying to do is compile this information to form my own education opinion about the records I love. So let's continue...

Something I was surprised at was how repetition can work for or against a lyric or a poem. Many poets use repetition or refrains to enhance the meaning of their work or show its importance. Take for example this excerpt from T.S. Elliot's "Ash Wednesday": "Because I do not hope to turn again / Because I do not hope / Because I do not hope to turn..." Here the repetition of "Because I do not hope" creates almost an incantation; it's mesmerizing in its melancholy, and that emotion could not be achieved without it. But does the repetition work the same way in a song? One song in Goldstein's collection is "Get a Job," written and performed by The Silhouettes, which he even states "is distinguished by its almost obsessive reliance on sound [and] offers a virtual catalog of relevant nonsense syllables" (29). The song opens with

Sha da da da
Sha da da da da,
Sha da da da
Sha da da da da,
Sha da da da
Sha da da da da,
Sha da da da
Sha da da da da,
Yip yip yip yip
Yip yip yip yip
Mum mum mum mum
Mum mum
Get a job.

And it continues on in much the same way. Listening to that piece of music, it's clear why the rhythmic repetition of these "nonsense syllable" is included - the rhythm of the music and "lyrics" here blend to create an almost double rhythm; they are not supposed to be considered separately. The fact is that anyone could look at that section of lyrics and know that it's not lyrical, let alone poetic, while Elliot's poem is due to the emotion is evokes.

Not all repetition in all songs can be considered "unpoetic" - much of the time, as with refrains in poetry, any repetition only enhances the line's meaning. For example, Goldstein also includes the song "Morning Morning" written by Tuli Kupferberg and performed by The Fugs, which reads,

Morning morning
Feel so lonesome in the morning
Morning morning
Morning brings me grief...
Starshine starshine
Feel so loving in the starshine
Starshine starshine
Darling kiss me as I weep.

It's a sad lyric, really, and the entire song repeats using different words but in the same pattern throughout. Here, the singer is staggering through the words - they are difficult to get out - and when read, they evoke that emotion in the listener and the reader. That is what makes these lyrics work as a poem versus a bunch of "sha da da da's" in succession - they express and evoke human emotion, and they can also stand alone without music.

It seems that in putting these songs nearly side-by-side, repetition can either work poetically or not. When the repetition is nonsensical , the lyrics cannot stand with out the music, however, when the lyrics can still evoke emotion without musical backing, then they are poetic. 


 

Listening List

These are the albums I plan on discussing. Some are to be determined.

1. Bob Dylan – Times They Are A-Changin’
2. Bruce Springsteen – Nebraska
3. Bon Iver – For Emma, Forever Ago
4. George Harrison – All Things Must Pass
5. Bright Eyes – I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning
6. The Low Anthem – Oh My God, Charlie Darwin
7. Jay Farrar and Ben Gibbard – One Fast Move or I’m Gone
8. ______________________
9. ______________________
10. ______________________

So what's the point?

I have been a music lover most of my life. Actually, that doesn’t even begin to cover it – I’ve been music-obsessed for as long as I can remember. The first concert I attended was Crosby, Stills and Nash; to say I “got started early” with music is an understatement as I was still in utero at the time. A few months later it was James Taylor, and then came MTV when I was a toddler. I would sit in front of the TV watching music video after music video (when MTV was still “music” television) and become memorized by Genesis, Adam and the Ants, Queen, and Cyndi Lauper videos.

Since I began writing in earnest I have focused mostly on poetry. Because of my already intense love of music, I seek inspiration for my own work in the songs of the artists I love; it’s actually become that I have difficulty writing anything, especially poetry, without listening to music. Lately, for me, because I spend so much time with music and poetry, the two genres have begun to meld together. I got to thinking, are music and poetry, or more specifically, are song lyrics and poetry really separate entities? I’ve created this blog to grapple with that question along with the following:
• Should song lyrics be treated as quality literature?
• Can song lyrics be considered poetry, and what are the implications of this?
• Can song lyrics stand on their own without musical backing?
• Is it the same to back a poem with music as it is to sing a song with music?

Others have mulled over these same questions; since rock music and pop music came into the foreground of popular culture, music critics and literary critics have argued over how we should consider certain song lyrics. Many seem to agree that Bob Dylan is a poet while they struggle with The Beatles; Bruce Springsteen is one of the greatest lyricists of all time, but should he be as revered as Byron, Dickinson or Kerouac?

While many of these questions are unanswerable and subject to opinion, they are still worth discussing. I have always felt that there are certain songs which should be regarded as poetry; I won’t claim that I could explain why other than they evoke the same sort of reverence I have felt for certain poems, and vice versa. That being said, there are many songs that I personally would never consider poetry. I don’t consider Brittany Spears a poet first of all because she’s not writing her own lyrics, but also because her songs primarily focus on the subjects of partying, dancing in a club, and womanizing men. Or perhaps she’s singing about classic sentiments of carpe diem and the search for real love… it’s hard to say on those rare occasions when I give Brittany Spears any real thought.

In researching these topics I have come across a few books which make a case for both sides of the arguments – rock lyrics are poetry or they are not – and others which don’t really choose a side but present the argument in such a way that the reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions.

Aidan Day’s Jokerman: Reading the Lyrics of Bob Dylan, he presents many of Dylan’s song s through the lens of true literary analysis, which obviously leads me to believe that Day feels Dylan is a true poet. While Day focuses specifically on Dylan, many of his arguments can apply to other past and present musicians and lyricists. The Poetry of Rock by Richard Goldstein presents very little analysis. What Goldstein does is present a collection of rock and pop lyrics and publish them as a book of poetry. Any of his personal thoughts or presumptions are very limited, but seeing some of the songs he chose on the page without the context of a voice or musical backing did change some of my own opinions on the topic of considering certain songs as poems. But that’s another entry for another day. The book I am currently reading is David Pichaske’s The Poetry of Rock: The Golden Years which, so far, seems to focus mainly on the questions I am attempting to answer myself. Pichaske presents both sides of the argument through some analysis of lyrics while discussing how they compare to major poetic works. But again, more on that later.

Based on all of the information I have collected thus far, along with countless hours spent listening to music and music and more music, I will attempt to answer the above questions and see what I come up with. i look forward to a lot of reading and a lot of listening and maybe even figuring some stuff out, too.