 sj |
||
|
||
Grammar for Songwriters
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,M Date: 18 May 15 - 08:27 AM Hey Richard leave that lyric alone! |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,DTM Date: 18 May 15 - 07:43 AM Re. Guest post above. I never use punctuation in my lyrics (except possessive apostrophes). Mainly to keep the sheet uncluttered and easy to read. I always use Arial Narrow font and the same font height (although the height as gone from 12 to 14 to 16 to suit my deteriorating eyesight through the years). |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 May 15 - 07:37 AM I agree with you Joe. "We don't need no education" is wrong on SO many levels. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST Date: 18 May 15 - 07:30 AM What about punctuation? Why are song lyrics nearly always written without the punctuation that the same words would have if they weren't part of a song? Everyone seems to think, there should be Either a comma or no punctuation, at the end Of each line regardless of where, that point Falls in the sentence, and a capital letter At the beginning of each line even if, it's a Continuation of a sentence in the previous line And a comma any time, a note held is longer |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST, DTM Date: 18 May 15 - 06:58 AM FWIW, I'm never not gonna change no lyrics of mine just to suit no pendantic crytic - no never. That said, I a do have a fascination for double negatives. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: doc.tom Date: 18 May 15 - 06:19 AM I'm with Joe on this one! BB (Mrs.doc.tom) and me (!) both agree. Artistic license is, of course, allowable - but that doesn't mean it's (not 'its' on this occasion)right. Aberrant apostrophes are easier to correct than misuse of the personal pronoun when transcribing text. And as for the American/English question, always remember that rolling fag is the difference between..... |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Newport Boy Date: 18 May 15 - 05:45 AM Very uncluttered, and no meaning is obscured by having it like this. Many years ago I was told by a lawyer that when writing specifications I should use no punctuation other than full stops. The discipline this imposes would ensure that my meaning would be absolutely clear. It's a practice that I don't follow in other fields, as my normal postings show. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Jack Campin Date: 18 May 15 - 05:11 AM omeone had taken out almost all but the very basic minimum requirement of the punctuation from the song texts. [...] Very uncluttered, and no meaning is obscured by having it like this. James Reeves's edition of the poems of John Clare goes back to the way Clare punctuated them, which was almost not at all. It makes a huge difference; compared with older editions, it's like looking at an Old Master painting with the browned varnish off. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 May 15 - 04:50 AM I'm rather fond of American English in general. It's often more logical in its spellings than the British version. Also, some "American" spellings predate the British ones. As for "alright", we pedants lost that one a long time ago. Once a word is used more in its alleged degraded version than the original, the game's up. It still isn't all right with me, though. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Rusty Dobro Date: 18 May 15 - 04:48 AM Between you and I, I've never come to terms with 'One Less Set Of Footsteps'. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Steve Gardham Date: 18 May 15 - 04:31 AM Joe, from an English teacher of some 40 years or so, have you never heard of poetic licence? Correct grammar in artistic items is not required or sought by anyone other than the pedantic. If it communicates the desired meaning to whoever will be listening then no harm done! Next week sees the publication of The Wanton Seed (at last). Whilst the grammar used in the introduction and notes should be perfect, the book was passed back and forth between various editors over the last 3 years and when it came back to us to proof read someone had taken out almost all but the very basic minimum requirement of the punctuation from the song texts. It would have taken far too long and meant further delays to replace it all, and then I decided I quite liked it like that. Very uncluttered, and no meaning is obscured by having it like this. So when you get your brand new copy please be kind about the lack of punctuation. I like it. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 18 May 15 - 04:30 AM I think that it all comes down to what you feel comfortable with. I don't feel happy singing lowland Scottish words in an English accent. Some people don't like singing songs written from the point of view of the other gender. I don't like some factual inaccuracies and correct them, such as changing "The Black Seam" line to "300 million years have packed it down". It's all the folk process at work as far as I can see. If your audience doesn't like it you will find out! |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: The Sandman Date: 18 May 15 - 04:28 AM "And although Dick Miles may disagree with me, I don't think it's right for an American songwriter to use British spelling. To my mind, it's authentic for a Brit to write like a Brit, but pretentious for an American to write that way." MacColl might have something to say on that one, lets turn the lights off and hold hands and have a seance. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,M Date: 18 May 15 - 04:22 AM "songwriters don't want no guidance" Surely that should be "ain't no songwriter don't want no guidance"... |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 15 - 03:53 AM Now, there's bad grammar....and then there's bad grammar. I certainly wouldn't think of changing Oscar Hammerstein's "Ol' Man River"....even though Paul Robeson changed it every damn time he recorded it. Robeson never could find the proper balance between authenticity and Political Correctness. But there are times when breaking the rules of grammar is the right thing to do, and other times when it's just stupid. If a songwriter were to use the phrase, "for all intensive purposes," I think I'd be right to change it when I put it in print. Same with "alright" and "noone." And although Dick Miles may disagree with me, I don't think it's right for an American songwriter to use British spelling. To my mind, it's authentic for a Brit to write like a Brit, but pretentious for an American to write that way. A cad and a bounder? Come now, Dick! [tee-hee] -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Mr Red Date: 18 May 15 - 03:46 AM re-spelling, and re-grammaticizing is what listeners do to the song anyway. Their experience is personal. The problem with bowdlerising, is that it ain't wot the author had in his mind at the time. Now the listening experience is second hand. I remember sending Knittershanty to a knitting magazine who requested the lyrics. Being a humorous (sic) song it is spelled phonetically to emphasize the jokes, of which there might be 4 on one line, given the meaning/juxtapostion of the words. The magazine re-spelled things as they thought correctly. Jokes were lost in the process. OK, OK, the listener may only get half the jokes, but then it is still funny when heard again and new jokes reveal themselves. That was the intention and I have been told by listeners. My collaborator, even, didn't see the 4th meaning in the line I was proudest of. And he suggested some of the jokes. eg "I mus leave for Cardigan" has two meanings as written and sung. "I must leave for Cardigan" is a longer stretch for the double meaning (the basis for all jokes). And I found long ago, clever is rewarding to you, banana skin is rewarding to the listener. en masse. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST Date: 18 May 15 - 03:38 AM I agree with you, Joe, but any discussion of grammar in songs inevitably reminds me of 'Elderly Man River." |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 18 May 15 - 03:31 AM Since I have been called a pedant by you before, Joe, I am not going to play the teacher here. All the more since English is not my native language, and in fact there is no language of which I am sufficiently fluent to pose as a professional lyricist. But I feel entitled to some general remarks about aesthetics. First of all, lyrics intended to be colloquial must by all means stick to their style; "Hound Dog" mentioned above is a good example. (As discussed in many other Mudcat threads, singers who come from a different background may not always want to imitate the original diction.) I do not know whether "between you and I" is a true colloquialism. It may well be "hypercorrect" usage by people who have been told that "you and me" is usually incorrect grammar. Writers would not like to be caught with such a blunder. Secondly, nonstandard language deserves licence according to its creative value and formal brilliance. This notably includes "crazy" rhymes in the most funny American tradition - "under the hide of me". Unfortunately, many popular lyricists fall short of that category by far, and would so even if their grammar and spelling were flawless. Nonstandard spellings that reflect a particular pronunciation or emphasis are absolutely all right, even in literature. "His spelling was not all right, but that's alright with me." Even the best writers and other artists are not always perfect. Not even me. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,mg Date: 18 May 15 - 03:25 AM i think absolutely you should not touch the grammar. why would it even be considered? it is part of the intact song..it is what came out of the person's brain, culture, level of education, limits of the song structure. people can change the grammar when they sing it although i would rather they did not. it is like saying mona lisa would really look better in a pink dress. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: The Sandman Date: 18 May 15 - 03:11 AM I am not sure that Americans have anything constructive to say about the English language, they spend so much time murdering it with abominable spelling, bad grammar, and undecipherable accents,why cant they speak English like the Queen. J Offer, you are a cad and a bounder sir. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 15 - 01:44 AM Well, I can see that many of you are not as impassioned about Cheers! -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,# Date: 18 May 15 - 01:16 AM Joe, you must have really enjoyed GWB's speeches. Have a good evening and I'm real glad you got that off your frontal upper torso. Or like maybe it was your upper frontal torso? But then again, it could have been your upper torso frontal or your frontal torso upper. Was it his frontal upper torso or upper frontal torso; upper torso frontal or frontal torso upper? Regardless, say that ten times fast and your cares will vanish without a trace in a trice. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: meself Date: 18 May 15 - 01:11 AM Having said that ... I never can lower myself to sing the second line of this chorus as given: Am G7 She said never have I known it when it felt so good F C Never have I knew it when I knew I could Am G7 Never have I done it when it looked so right F Leaving Louisiana in the broad daylight |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: meself Date: 18 May 15 - 01:02 AM "Here's your chance to give songwriters some guidance, so their lyrics aren't quite so grating...." Sorry, Joe; there are only two people in the world who find those lyrics grating: you and me. I. Me. Yeah, me. No, I. Okay - us. The two of us .... Anyway - songwriters don't want no guidance. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Jim Dixon Date: 18 May 15 - 01:02 AM Regarding that Tom Petty song: I don't see anything wrong with using the spelling "alright" in the title but switching to "all right" in the lyrics. I've done that kind of thing a few times when I transcribe songs to post them in Mudcat. Whenever you have the choice between two spellings that sound the same, I'd say go with the spelling that your mother would have approved of—or "of which your mother would have approved." |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST Date: 18 May 15 - 12:57 AM Poetic license, Joe. It was good enough for Shakespeare: "And since in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all debts are clear between you and I." Antonio to Bassanio, in The Merchant of Venice. Here's a page full of Shakespearean grammatical clangers: http://www.habitableworlds.com/pages/shakespeare.html "I cannot go no further." Celia, in As You Like It. The most unkindest cut of all. To who, my lord? |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,# Date: 18 May 15 - 12:56 AM "Far too many stars have fell on me" from 'Stars' by Dan Fogelberg "Lay Lady Lay" Bob Dylan "Lay Down Sally" Eric Clapton "I Feel Good" James Brown |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 18 May 15 - 12:02 AM Years ago John Hartford sang a funny, grammar-corrected version of Hound Dog. "You are nothing but a hound dog, crying all the time (2), Well, you've never caught a rabbit and you are no friend of mine." |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: GUEST,# Date: 17 May 15 - 11:56 PM Bad grammar can be used to good effect. The Stones proved that when they couldn't get no satisfaction. But just between you and I, Joe, good luck. LOL Attach to wall and follow directions. |
|
Subject: RE: Grammar for Songwriters From: Bert Date: 17 May 15 - 11:40 PM I use reasonable grammar in speech, but often resort to colloquialisms and common usage in my songs. Songs should be about people as they are, warts an' all. |
|
Subject: Grammar for Songwriters From: Joe Offer Date: 17 May 15 - 10:29 PM I'm in the process of editing the upcoming Rise Again Songbook. I'm the one who researched every one of the 1200 songs in the book. Some of the songs are traditional, but most of them are from known authors, including a good number of songs from people known as "Singer-Songwriters." For the most part, we've collected our lyrics by listening to recordings of the songs we're using. I've wondered why we haven't requested songwriters to send us lyrics when we pay them to license a song, and I've learned the answer to that question. Many songwriters, especially singer-songwriters, have absolutely horrible grammar and spelling. If they send us lyrics and chords, we're more-or-less obliged to publish the lyrics and chords they send us. And some are abominable. The one phrase songwriters use a lot (not "alot") that really grinds on me is "between you and I" or "for you and I." Songwriters use it because "I" is sometimes easier to rhyme than "me." But it sure irks the hell out of me. So, the song I encountered that I couldn't change was a lullaby written by Tom Petty, a very pretty song that I like a lot (not alot). It's called Alright for Now. There are a number of other songs in Rise Again where I've changed "alright" to "all right," but I couldn't do it in this case because "Alright" is in the registered title of the song. But it hurt to let it go by. The reference works I've consulted seem to be saying that "alright" is becoming acceptable - but I'm the son of an English teacher, and it's not "alright" with me. Still, despite having to make some compromises, I'm doing my best to ensure (not insure) that the songs printed in the book are relatively grammatically correct. So I'm wondering, what usages in songs bother the rest of you, and what recommendations do you have to make about the use of correct grammar in songs? Here's your chance to give songwriters some guidance, so their lyrics aren't quite so grating.... -Joe- |
| Share Thread: |
