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.