Duncan, isn't that the point? Songs don't have to contain good poetry to be good songs because the music makes up for whatever the lyrics lack on their own, and sometimes the lyrics may make up for what the music lacks on its own (as in the case of many of Cole Porter's hits). Synergy occurs--the combination is greater than the sum of its parts. But the question here is whether the words work as poetry by themselves, and most of them just don't. I've recently had the honor of having lyrics I submitted chosen as the text of what became a major choral and orchestral arrangement. Randol Bass, the composer, was flattering enough to say that his piece could never have been conceived or written without the poem, which he had in hand before he composed the first note. But I don't consider the poem itself, which is rather sentimental and has its broadest appeal to people who don't read a lot of poetry, to be fine poetry. Would a worse poem have made for a less breathtaking piece? Probably, though we'll never know. Would a better poem have made for a better piece? Maybe, I'm not sure. What did happen is that the composer was able to relate to the words and interpret them in the music, and what he did with them will outlive me and all my little poems, including that one.
Carol
|