"Legitimate" is defined as "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards." But this definition creates a whole other set of questions:
- What are the rules and standards a song lyric must conform to?
- Who created these rules and who implements them?
Pichaske opens his book with a brief history of rock in which he purports that "rock lyrics may survive surprisingly well even when stripped of their music" and "rock lyrics may be closer to the true poetic mainstream than other forms of twentieth century, prove on close examination to be neurotic, grotesque, abnormal... maybe, just maybe we are justified in applying a literary analysis to rock, and that we have some right to expect rock to measure up literarily. The cry 'But they're songs, not poems' is really not a valid excuse (5). Basically he's saying that one of the arguments for rock lyrics' legitimacy is the popularity of mainstream music - because it's popular, probably more so than printed poetry (think of the poetry section at a bookstore versus the size of a record store) music is more legitimate than poetry.
Another argument Pichaske makes for the legitimacy of rock lyrics does deal with issues of form. As previously stated, legitimacy deals with conforming to standards and forms, and although the importance of these forms is somewhat arguable, it's no secret that both both songs and poems follow them and perhaps even the same forms at time. To Pichaske, form is one thing that makes rock lyrics legitimate because "words seek form; form has to be reckoned with by [an] artist. One mark of sixties' rock's greatest was its refusal to take form for granted, its willingness to experiment in musical and poetic form" (7). Notice, though, he specifically says that there needs to be a willingness to experiment with form - perhaps the lyrics never refrain refrain or they break rhyme scheme, or the sonnet doesn't have the exact number of syllables it should per line.
Pichaske also compares certain types of music in order to explain which are legitimate and why. According to Pichaske legitimacy also has to deal with the messages behind the lyrics. He compares two types of folk saying, "Protest folk was more legitimate than hootenany folk because it integrated itself more with the social and history movement" (27). If the message behind or the meaning of a song's lyrics has something to do with society (politics or culture) then the song may be deemed legitimate, which is also what Pichaske argues in the case of poetry.
Finally, in his brief history, Pichaske takes a dig at critics writing, "And for their part, the music profs have been reluctant to grant [rock music] status as art as the lit. crit. boys have been reluctant to grant it status as poetry" (4). He then goes on to say that 'A good rock singer-composer-arranger knows not only how to write words and music that mean, but how to make them work with or against each other. That, my friends, is art!" (6). So according to Pichaske, the literary critics and music professors must consider lyrics in the same vein as poetry (even that which is canonized) because these lyrics are art, and in many cases that art is at least elevated as poetic art.
Pichaske goes on to discuss individual artists in terms of whether they are true poets and how. His opinions of these artists will be discussed in later posts when I discuss some of their records. For now, I agree with Pichaske that song lyrics must be able to stand alone and encompass a certain degree of craft in order to be considered the same as poetic art. Whether some of these artists I will discuss meet those "requirements" remains to be seen upon the analysis of their lyrics.
This is a very solid explanation of Pichaske's positions. It gets, eventually, to the questions that I mention in the Rebecca Black post--what are the interesting combinations of words and music out there and how are those combinations shaped for effect?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you ever come out and discuss the central issue regarding the definition of "legitimate." Are we talking about legitimacy as poetry or music? Don't those genres have different markers for legitimacy? It seems like Pichaske wants to argue that rock is poetry more than poetry is poetry, that, in fact, the ways people have evaluated contemporary verse may be wrongheaded--too concerned with the "abnormal," etc.
What do you think of his argument that rock lyrics have legitimacy in part because they are more popular and appreciated than contemporary poems? At first glance, doesn't this seem a weak argument? Poetry is a popularity contest? Or is there a legit argument there?
The definitions of legitimate that I was considering when writing the above post were:
ReplyDelete* conforming to acknowledged standards: complying with recognized rules, standards, or traditions
AND
* well-founded: well reasoned and sincere
Keeping those definitions in mind, I consider a poem legitimate when it expresses something I can connect with on a personal level. Generally speaking, I find more connections within more modern poetry, and still more with music. In that way, I consider poetry and music legitimate under the same guidelines. That is not to say I don't like certain poems or songs if they do not make me think - I can appreciate anything that is amusing or in some way, fun. But legitimacy lies in deeper meaning and in the provocation of real thought. But again, this is my personal way of defining it based on my own tastes.
Unlike Pichaske, popularity has no weight on my definition of legitimacy, so I agree that his argument about popular music versus contemporary poems is weak. Obviously the more "popular" a poet/musician is, the likelihood of the masses reading/hearing the work is increased, but just because a lot of people hear or read something doesn't make it "good" by my own personal standards (see "Friday"). So again, it kind of depends on the definition of "legitimate" under which a person is considering any creative work.