90% of all published Poetry is written in some type of meter. 75% of that 90% is written in Iambic Pentameter. Iambic Pentameter, unlike 4x4 Rhythm, does not work with pop-song melodies. This tells me that you've not studied the purpose of meter. Yes, it creates a Rhythm, but the end purpose of meter is Metrical Rhetoric, the art of varying the rhythm to hint at subtext and enhance textual meaning.
Would you mind talking more about the relation between different meters and the musical meters? Correct me if I'm wrong but if you follow the rhythm of the words an iamb would be in 3/8 with the accent on beat 2. A trochee would be the same with the accent on beat 1. Or am I just totally off again here? An anapest would be in 2/4 with the accent on beat 2 and so on.
First of all @PaperandPencil, may I welcome you to the site. Good to see another Poet here! I am not an absolutist, by which I mean I tend to take a laid back intellectual perspective on poetry. So don't think for a moment I am ramming these views down your throat. This is what I think, but I am always open to other differing views. Musical and Poetic meter. I am not sure you can compare the two, why would you want to? The answer you receive would depend on who you talk to and where they are coming from. Are they looking at it from an academic, intellectual or an intuitive perspective? Do they create, read, study or maybe it is a combination. I think a lot comes down to the 'linking' word in almost all cases apart from the absolute rudimental meaning. Lyrics tend to be performed and the performer has license to interpret to some degree. What matters then is the words and the melody and to a lesser degree, timing. The timing might be 4/4 etc. The performer may well decide to change that to 5/4. Which of course is perfectly achievable by using something as simple as musical phrasing - this is an intuitive action as much as a robust theoretical tool. When it comes to poetry, it is usually written and read. For this reason, some would strongly believe the original intention and therefore the essence and integrity of the piece can be maintained by use of meter and other devices. I would say it becomes less intuitive and more prescriptive. You will find lots of opinions on this thread! But there are no right or wrong answers in my opinion.
It comes down to whether you like metrical poetry. If you like metrical poetry and that is what you read, then it would be ridiculous to say that your creativity is being limited by writing poetry in the style that you read and prefer. And I don't think creativity can really exist, or at least thrive, in a vacuum. You can't just "be creative." Creativity needs some sort of outlet or channel, and it requires skill. There's an element of craft. I would venture to say that attempting to write in a demanding metrical form, even if the immediately resulting poem isn't very good, could only be a good thing for your writing in general, both metrical and non-metrical. Limitations can stimulate creativity in ways that a paralyzing Sartrian glut of infinitely free creative choice cannot. The fact of the matter is that humans are rhythmically and metrically attuned creatures. We have an ear for that stuff. Just listen to all the dance hits on the radio. Metrical poetry has been around a lot longer than non-metrical poetry has, and if I had to bet I'd put money on its greater permanence. I don't know if the popular decline of poetry has been caused by the loss of meter as a common poetic feature, but it seems likely to me. Sorry for the ramble, but those are my thoughts on the matter.
The most overlap between these two are common meter (also commonly called Hymn meter because a lot of church hymn are written to it). Poetic Ballads are also written to Common Meter. Timothy Steele, in his book 'All the fun's in how you say a thing' critique the 3/8 to iamb theory that you are referencing to. His biggest critique it seems to be is that duration of a syllable and stress of a syllable are not always aligned, sometimes these two elements conflict, making the unaccented syllable take longer to pronounce. Also, Rhythm and Meter are not the same thing. Meter is an abstract pattern that you are trying to have the rhythm follow. It is a modulation.
I always believed poetry is meant to be read aloud. Reading it is like a performance even if it's to myself alone in my living room. I'm actually really curious to know if you read poetry in your head. @Richach or anyone else -- Are you reading poetry silently or do you read it aloud? I also like to listen to poets read their work or other people reading to poems by a poet I like. I'll listen to some poetry on youtube or go to zoom lectures because I honestly believe that I couldn't fully appreciate a poem without the sound factor. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. I've clearly been vocal about loving many different forms. I think it's easier to recognize the form if any when looking at the page. And sometimes the layout says something, too. I guess I do both -- read poetry in my head and aloud. When I really think I love a poem I have to read it aloud. I have a go-to list of sorts. There are poems I reach for again and again. Those I want to read aloud.
@Richach Thank you for the warm welcome! As far as being a poet is concerned I mostly dabble here and there. Not an expert by any means. @OJB Concerning meter, of course one can pronounce things any way one wants to, putting the stress on ordinarily unstressed syllables or lengthening pronunciation which in music would be called a melisma (I don't know if that term is a widely used one in poetry). But if one assumes that the reader/singer of poetry/lyrics is following the natural rhythm of the words which occurs in their language, can't there be a common way of interpreting the different feet rhythmically which will follow a particular musical meter?
Why do you think poetry is declining? I don't think that's true at all. It's out there for those who want to read it. There are poetry magazines and small presses that publish poetry and are doing fine, IMO. I read poetry every day. A lot of people I know could say the same. Okay, not every day, but I mean to, and I do read it often. I just never have a hard time fining new poetry and poets I want to read. I know a few people who are posets, mostly supporting themselves on grants and fellowships but also publishing. I subscribe to magazines and journals that publish poetry and I always read the poetry in those. I don't think it's that hard to find new great poets, and by new I mean new in The New Yorker or new with a book published by an actual press. There are plenty of self published collections and crappy online journals that really don't know what they're doing. That could seem like poetry is declining. But read the latest issue of The Paris Review and maybe you'll think differently. I don't know. The more I expose myself to it, the more it's out there. I'm not trying to be a poet, but I will always read poetry.
I feel the same way, and I don't think that poetry in itself is declining in terms of quality or anything like that. All I meant is that I think it has declined in readership among the general public. Sorry, I can see how that might have been unclear.
Reading poetry aloud certainly adds a different dynamic to the experience although I must admit that I don't do it often, more out of habit than anything else. You have posted something before, from youtube, a deaf Russian poet as I seem to remember. That was fascinating to watch and hear. It would certainly impact the creative process don't you think? What was the original intention, to read, read aloud or be heard. Also interesting to see how the intention of the poem travelled to perception; from pen to ear.
I do think it's more niche than declining. The general whats its people don't care much for that type of art, or art in general. It even seems literature is niche despite the fact that people read everyday. Not too many care to work out their mind and do some emotion curls ( poetry) lol. Like reading, poetry is in one form or another all around us. Whether it be in certain forms of presentation on the television or from a collegue, to surprisingly insightful lyrics of a tune on the radio, etc. All forms of poetry. It can be debated but I am firmly in the camp that at it's bare bones, beauty is the sole providence of poetry. I think Poe had that correct. And beauty is everywhere if you have an eye for it. As for metre I think any competent poet, who puts any sort of genuine effort, will produce metred poetry. Even the "un-metered" is metred in some sense or it wouldnt make any sense. There are just traditional forms that have been established. I think metre and poetry are natural to each other.
I know that technically these are both songs & not poems, but they're as good an example as any: check out Black Sabbath's "After Forever" & "Children of the Grave". It's crazy how many syllables Ozzy was able to fit into each line when singing them. I'll provide links to videos with the lyrics shown, it's hard to get my point from just reading the lyrics. "After Forever" w/lyrics "Children of the Grave" w/lyrics
Songs and poems are quite different in many ways as you seem to realize. I think it's best to appreciate them as different art forms and not really try to compare the two.
When we talk about poetic feet/poetic meter, we are not talking about syllables (despite what you might think). We are talking about how many accented stresses occur in each line, and how many unaccented stresses separate the the accented stresses from one another.
Prose writers should try their hand at formal poetry and familiarize themselves with the basic meters. Memorize a few poems as well. Even if you don't think your poetry is particularly good it will help you to write prose more effectively when you are aware of the rhythm of language and its rhetorical effects.
I've always liked the Italian sonnet (Petrarchan sonnet) structure a bit better I think. The turn is a bit more pronounced and it pairs well with gothic themes and more thematically heavy sonnets. I think my favorite use of it is by Mary Wroth in Pamphilia and Amphilanthus. But in any case, there's a lot of iams thrown around in sonnets.
I sort of thought that one of the defining characteristics of a Petrarchan sonnet was iambic meter. Edit: meant to say Spencerian
Have you read all of it? I'd like an honest opinion if it's worthwhile to read all of the half finished epic. I've read a good amount, and though it is a solid read, it gets pretty monotonous and is quite dense at times. I like a lot of his standalone sonnets better from other works. His pastoral sonnets are quite pleasant. I don't prefer Petrarch, but I do prefer his sonnet style over Spenser. I think it has more flexibility.
