(Here's the beginning of all this)
Tim replied to this post:
But the atoms of linguistic molecules are morphemes, not scansion or prosody. Semantic information is more fundamental than scansion or prosody, isn't it? There aren't many working songs that *only* have scansion and prosody without meaning... (altho "Prisencolinensinaincuisol" is an example, actually - worth googling if you don't know it).
So when in a lyric you need to put words in a specific order to achieve the semantic effect you want, but those perfect words don't scan in a regular pattern which is easily transferrable to musical structures, then you have a tension between three sets of 'rules' (or, if you prefer, things that happen in human understanding) - the ones about phrasing stuff in the most comprehensible way versus the ones about it scanning correctly versus the ones about it sounding musical.
Every lyricist wants to harmonise all three of those and more, like it sounding beautiful and true and rhyming and being memorable and hooky etc. etc.... but invariably there's a need to sacrifice adherence to some of those things in order to achieve some of the others.
And in a lot of cases, it's totally the right choice for the semantic to win out over other craft aspects. So, the HH writers made a choice to optimise their lyric by sacrificing the scansion rules sometimes. You might disagree with that choice, but I totally see how it might be optimal (given the other constraints like writing deadlines). The song isn't perfect, or as good as it could be. But nor is any song.
You said at first that sacrificing scansion is "one more step down the slippery slope of people not caring about craft", but I can't see it that way. It's just that not everything needs to be the Sistine Chapel.
And my reply:
Tim said: But the atoms of linguistic molecules are morphemes, not scansion or prosody.
See, I knew it was a mistake to go down the molecule route. Why do I get into these discussions with you? It always drives me nuts. I should know better by now! Fine, so my metaphor was shit. The chemical bonds within molecules, then, if you like.
Of course, semantic information is fundamental, and that is precisely the thing we're discussing. It's not more fundamental than scansion or prosody, no, absolutely not. Just so we are clear, when you say:
Tim said: There aren't many working songs that *only* have scansion and prosody without meaning…
… I'd like to point out that scansion and prosody provide the meaning. Without scansion, a word is a bunch of letters. It becomes recognisable as the word it is precisely because of scansion. Even with the written word, scansion appears in our head as we read. And without prosody, even a simple "hello" is completely meaningless.
"… (altho "Prisencolinensinaincuisol" is an example, actually - worth googling if you don't know it)"
It has meaning. That's the whole point of it: when sung, that lyric has an apparent meaning which is entirely invisible on the page. (If you ask me, it's a song about spelling more than anything else. It's like that game where you try to spell your name with as many letters as possible, whilst keeping the same pronunciation. So… Djgaenniphfurre… would be the best I can do with mine at short notice: 15 letters.)
Tim said: So when in a lyric you need to put words in a specific order to achieve the semantic effect you want…
There is never one "perfect" order of "perfect" words to achieve a "perfect" semantic effect when it comes to any given dramatic moment. The differences might be very subtle, but there are always choices because the final interpretation of any given moment in a story is done by the audience. They make it land, not collectively but individually, so we cannot do all the work, which allows us great flexibility in that regard.
Tim said: … but those perfect words don't scan in a regular pattern which is easily transferrable to musical structures…
Again, always great flexibility in that. There is never just one musical option because of the collaborative nature of art between the work of art and the specific viewer.
Tim said: … then you have a tension between three sets of 'rules' (or, if you prefer, things that happen in human understanding)…
I do prefer. Because human understanding is a collaborative process between the Thing Being Understood and the Individual Doing The Understanding.
Scansion is not an individual thing. It is a global thing. Everyone - every single person who speaks that language - experiences it in the same way. Prosody is slightly less global, but nonetheless, much more globally received than, say, the order or choice of words. (But since prosody is the order and choice of notes, the marriage of words and music is precisely what I'm talking about.)
Tim said: - the ones about phrasing stuff in the most comprehensible way versus the ones about it scanning correctly versus the ones about it sounding musical.
I do not see those as being comparable at all, though. That's the problem. You can phrase something in a less accurate way than you, as the writer, intended for the character… but your intended meaning may still reach some audience. On the other hand, you can feel that you have phrased something so perfectly for the character that no-one could possibly receive it any other way… and some of the audience will receive something that you did not intend.
That's collaboration with the individual. (It's another thing we must take into account, of course.)
The same is true with prosody, yes, although to a much lesser extent, I think, since the total complexity of linguistic expression far exceeds the complexity of the base emotions which motivate those expressions: there are so many elements informing what we say, such as the person to whom we are saying it, and the situation within which we are saying it, and so on, but there is usually only one emotion propelling our words at any given moment, even though other emotions will rise and fall before and after.
As I said: anger and sorrow and joy and such have a global understanding that is much to do with physical expression, but also to do with prosody. So prosody, for me, is a more powerful lyric-writing tool to wield because it has the potential to reach more people in a more accurate way. I may not get across to everyone precisely why my character is accusing another character of something, but most people will get that he is making an accusation. Even if they don't speak English!
As for scansion: it is always there. Everyone always feels it, even if not consciously. It is an undeniable truth, it is a constant presence, and therefore it gives writers the opportunity to use a tool that is so global as to be guaranteed to affect every single audience member.
I don't understand why you would be fighting for a writer's right to dismiss that power.
For me, scansion is not actually a storytelling tool, really. It doesn't belong with the other things you've mentioned, and it sort of doesn't even belong with prosody. It's just a fact of the way language reaches audience, and if I don't pay it the attention it demands, I am not doing my best to reach the audience.
As for prosody… well, it's a little more flexible, yes. But to ignore it seems a strange choice, because of the power it has to describe emotion, to give meaning, to be that semantic effect, and with such wide-spread confidence.
Tim said: And in a lot of cases, it's totally the right choice for the semantic to win out over other craft aspects. So, the HH writers made a choice to optimise their lyric by sacrificing the scansion rules sometimes. You might disagree with that choice, but I totally see how it might be optimal (given the other constraints like writing deadlines).
It took me two minutes to fix the scansion. The meaning of the song comes across despite the bad scansion. They didn't sacrifice any rules of writing, they just ignored something about language that is a hindrance to communication if used in an un-usual way.
Do you actually think they made the choice to sacrifice scansion in order to optimise their lyric?
How did it optimise the lyric?
Tim said: You said at first that sacrificing scansion is "one more step down the slippery slope of people not caring about craft", but I can't see it that way. It's just that not everything needs to be the Sistine Chapel.
It is my great wish that I should write even one lyric in my life that I feel does the thing I hoped it would do: reach the audience. I want to make that journey as easy as I can for it. I guess that might be the same sort of aspiration Michelangelo had, although apparently he didn't enjoy the job. He had to learn incredibly complex perspective techniques in order to make the figures on the curved ceiling appear correct from far below. Because perspective is inherently present in our experience of vision. If you try to ignore it, it can be a hindrance to communicating with your audience.
So yes, if we're talking about bothering with those sorts of details, I want everything I write to be the Sistine Chapel.
(It certainly fucking feels like everything I write takes four years and has to be done bending over backwards on some rickety scaffolding.)
And there's a latecomer to the discussion here
