I normally steer away from controversial topics in this blog but the announcement that Bob Dylan, the popular musician, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature gave me pause.
My first thought was “What?” To place Dylan alongside previous Nobel laureates like Solzhenitsyn, Steinbeck, Kipling, Hemingway, Camus, Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, and Churchill? I wondered that if, upon hearing the announcement, every novelist in the world went into another room and cried a little.
I will admit my own ignorance, but for years the announcement of the new Laureate has been often accompanied by a “Who?” (take a look at this list of laureates) However, this time it created a vigorous discussion in the industry regarding art and the nature of literature. One that bears exploring.
There is no argument that the arts are comprised of many forms of artistic expression. Music, literature, painting, and dance are usually found under that umbrella.
But until now the Nobel prize has been the purview of novelists and poets. And never has their definition of poetic literature been expanded to include songwriting. (Whether you are a fan of Dylan’s music should not be part of this conversion. This is not a discussion of his music or singing, but of his writing.)
I wonder if it is possible to truly separate the music from the lyrics in a song. Of course you can, but should you? I began to think about the familiar lyrics of so many songs. I tried to speak them aloud without the music. It’s not easy. In fact many of us know the chorus of a song but not the verses.
The classic song “American Pie” by Don McLean was a huge hit in 1971. Can you quote the lyrics? Or what about “Bohemian Rhapsody” by Queen? Or any one of the “Top 100 Billboard Singles of All Time“? In nearly every case the music is inextricably tied to the lyrics in our minds.
Which begs the question of whether the lyrics would or should be considered literature. “Sugar. Ah honey, honey. You are my candy girl.” or “Ain’t nothin’ in the world like a big eyed girl to make me act so funny , make me spend my money.” or “Party rock is in the house tonight. Everybody just have a good time (yeah). And we gonna make you lose your mind (whoa!).”
The great hymns of the faith are laden with deep theological themes. I believe it is an important exercise to think about the words of those hymns while we are singing them. Notice in your hymnal at the bottom of every song are two listings. On one side is the name of the lyricist. On the other side is the name of the one who put the words to music. They are rarely the same person. The creation of the poem/lyric was later set to music to become a hymn.
Fanny Crosby wrote and published over 8,000 hymns in her lifetime. Charles Wesley composed 6,000 hymns. Many of their songs have endured the test of time and continue to thrill the soul. But I doubt that either will be a candidate for the Nobel Prize.
An argument could be made that many of the Psalms of the Bible were originally sung. I have the book, Psalms for All Seasons, in my library which has all 150 set to music. So are they lyrics or poetic literature? or both?
Therefore if we are to think about the words we are singing during the course of worship and thereby separate the words from the music, what about the words from a songwriter like Dylan? What about any song that we hum while working or absorb while on the treadmill or in the car? Do the words matter? Or are we more attracted by the sound rather than the lyrics?
The question remains whether Dylan’s work is worthy or should even be classified as “literature.” But the Nobel Prize committee decided that you can separate the lyrics from the music. Do you agree or disagree? I dare say the answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind.
You can find the lyrics to his 500+ songs here (Dylan lyrics link).
I do not know what to write.
If lyrics are to be drawn from the music and considered as literature, then infant writers better go pick a ukulele…
Really, there are more ways to judge great literature than music.
In high school (which was so very long ago) we studied the lyrics or Eleanor Rigby (Beatles) and some Simon and Garfunkel song along with Kubla Khan (Coleridge) and Ozymandias (Shelley). Lyrics can be literature–I think of Sara Groves and some others–but they are not the highest quality and certainly not as compelling as a poem which is later set to music. And there’s a reason for that: while singing there is little time to dwell on the words, so they must remain simple and easy to understand. I don’t know the composition of the Noble committee, but that may have something to do with Bob Dylan’s selection. Still none of Dylan’s lyrics reach the level of a Coleridge or a Shelley or a T.S. Eliot.
I have to admit, I sort of love it. The Pulitzer Price for Literature is based upon a work with lasting literary merit and evidence of consistent idealism on some significant level. I compare this controversial Bob Dylan choice to the sometimes controversial voice of modern art. It reflects the culture and sub-culture of the time. It elicits a certain emotion and empathy/sympathy whether you were a by-product of that generation or simply gazing back on American history.
And I have to add that music has marked the memories of both our personal and societal history as well. When I think about high school certain songs come to mind. My first boyfriend, my college graduation, that one summer at the beach, JFK, the Vietnam War, 911 etc. etc. Certainly, the musical notes played a key role in our connection to that song, but, ah, the words… The words became our words too. They were our unified voice, speaking things we were too timid to say, confirming things we were shouting but no one was listening. These songs were woven into the fabric of who we once were and who we wanted to become, just as novels sometimes are, as poetry often is. It’s all about the words, my friends. So, who are we to limit meaningful words to the binder of a novel?
Great art should not be a competition. Personally I have always thought it odd that an entire world looks to a group of Swedish intellects to determine the best in the world of anything. Lyrics can be great literature. The social impact of strong words tied to engaging music is powerful. Are the librettos of great operas not to be considered literature?
amen joe searcy!
Uh, that’s because the Swedish are supremely intelligent, Joe. Guess what nationality I am? Wink
I knew there had to be a reason!!
Absolutely lyrics are literature. Even in prose, we can’t divide music from the words. That last sentence, for instance, has rhythm, cadence, and even a particular melody of pitches that would change depending on the one delivering the words (in the case of the reader, the reader is delivering it to him or herself). The music in prose may not be as structured or pleasing to the ear as the music of a pop song, but it contains music nonetheless.
According to John Gardner, “The primary subject of fiction is and has always been human emotions, values, and beliefs.” Though music is a different form than fiction, its subject is the same, its impact just as visceral, and its legacy just as lasting and important.
Even though novelists can spend years perfecting a single novel, songwriters may do the same for a single album. Anyone who thinks writing an impactful novel is easy needs to just try it. And anyone who thinks writing an impactful song should just try to do that as well. Musicians who truly want to be excellent at their craft spend 6 hours or more per day honing their abilities. Writers who truly want to be excellent at their craft often do the same. Even though the volume of words may be far fewer with a songwriter than a novelist, it’s foolish to assume they didn’t put an equal amount of care into their body of work. (Not saying Steve or anyone else here was saying that, just making a general comment based on the discussion this has sparked in other regions of the interwebs!)
And anyone who thinks writing an impactful song IS EASY*** should just try to do that as well. Sorry. . . typo in the above block of text.
I must say, that is a bit of a surprise. But as I think about what is involved in writing a song, I realize that it is just an expression of our inner feelings. like poetry. like novels. like most writing I would venture to say. You are correct that the music is inextricably connected to the lyrics. The melody is what initially draws in the listener, but the lyrics often are what makes them stay.
Certainly there is pop music that is created specifically to sell without much thought other than if it fits into the popular music mold of the day, but the ones that often stand the test of time, like hymns, need more substance. They need to mean something to the one who listens, bring us deeper into the subject matter.
Does Bob Dylan’s music fit this bill? I couldn’t say – I didn’t grow up in his era really, although I do appreciate some of his songs. Really his voice kinda throws me off. But I have heard many remakes by other more melodic groups and find that they do make me think, and feel. and isn’t that the point of the Nobel Prize?
Honestly, I hadn’t thought to question Bob Dylan’s nomination for Nobel laureate. But upon reading this, I wonder. There are many awards out there for music, but we like to blur lines.
Writing is hard, whether music lyrics, a book, or even a letter.
But perhaps, Bob Dylan (despite being amazing) shouldn’t be a part of the Nobel crowd.
Though there are plenty of lyrics with little or no literary value, there are also some with more literary value than many books, in my opinion. Some songs say an awful lot in three minutes, and the ability to write compelling lyrics is hard to come by. Listen to The House That Built Me by Miranda Lambert, to give just one contemporary example.
Also, I spent years as an aspiring songwriter before attempting my first novel, and I think the practice of paring down my words to fit into three minutes was invaluable to my editing skills.
hmmm, so true Katie. Writers have a whole novel sometimes to impact society…music on the other hand has to do it in 3 minutes…kinda like the first sentence of a novel…it has to grab the audience or be lost forever…
Exactly Lisa!
I’m not sure whether Dylan is the best first choice for the category, but I have often thought how masterful some songwriters are to capture and communicate and idea (and often great emotion with it) in so few words. If poetry has long been included in the category, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to consider songwriters because what are their words if not poetry?
Now, when the category expands to include sales copy or jingles, I might revise my opinion ;-).
(PS–not playing editor here, but this typo made me grin because that’s always been part of the great Dylan debate: “(Whether you are a fan of Dylan’s music should not be part of this conversion…)”
I’m not sure whether Dylan is the best first choice for the category, but I have often thought how masterful some songwriters are to capture and communicate an idea (and often great emotion with it) in so few words. If poetry has long been included in the category, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to consider songwriters because what are their words if not poetry?
Yes, I think the words can be separated from the music, but that might be because I am not so musically inclined, but have always been a word person.
Now, when the category expands to include sales copy or jingles, I might revise my opinion ;-).
(PS–not playing editor here, but this typo made me grin because that’s always been part of the great Dylan debate: “(Whether you are a fan of Dylan’s music should not be part of this conversion…)”
Steve, Nobel’s original, extremely vague, 1895 criterion for the prize was that the person had produced “the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.” It has been up to the committee to define “ideal”, determine the time frame, and determine the subsequent criteria, and the ideals have changed so much over the past 121 years, the criteria are actually assigned to various historical periods with names. It appears that each change was not without its detractors, as is this one. 🙂 This is history, sociology, and literature all in one–fascinating stuff, to me!
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/literature/espmark/
Ahem … Yes, I can quote those lyrics. I’d like to add that, to me, one of the greatest lyricists we’ve ever known in our lifetime is Paul Simon.
What a dream I had … Pressed in organdy
Clothed in crinoline of smoky burgundy
Softer than the rain
I wandered empty streets down past the shop displays
I heard cathedral bells tripping down the alley ways
As I walked on …
(For Emily, Whenever I May Find Her)
Or what about his lyrics to Sound of Silence … or Canticle, which he added to the old English ballad “Scarborough Fair” … On the side of a hill in the deep forest green …Tracing of sparrow on snow-crested brown … Blankets and bedclothes the child of the mountain … Sleeps unaware of the clarion call…
And of course let’s not forget the song that Simon wrote which eventually tore the duo of Simon and Garfunkel apart … Bridge Over Troubled Water …
Sometimes the words to songs can move us as much as, if not more, than the lines from a book because … well … you’ve got all that music in the background.
Truly.
Nice example, Eva Marie.
PS: I also really, really like Dylan (for the most part) … Just sayin’… 🙂
And Guthrie … I can’t pass a train track without singing “City of New Orleans” …
Your thoughts followed the same path my thoughts traveled. After a couple of days, my conclusion comes down on the side of “it’s not quite right.” Why? Because even though the words may be beautiful, without the music something is lost. They don’t have the same dynamic. They lose a lot of the emotion.
Don’t know if anyone will agree with me, but there it is–for what it’s worth.
Steve, one time my hubby and I were driving down the road and he started singing along with the radio. As I started to turn off the radio because the lyrics were so offensive, he wondered why I was tuning out of the song. I asked him if he actually listened to what he was singing. He was shocked by the words he was singing.
Another time, I was at the grocery store and heard a song talking about “there’s going to be a date rape tonight.” I went to the manager and he immediately shut it off. We have to listen to the words when we listen to a song and “whatsoever things are true, ….lovely….pure….of good report, think on those things.”
Whether or not we agree with the choice, the idea of choosing a lyricist suits me just fine. The word for “psalm” in Hebrew is the same word for “song.” The Song of Solomon is equally song and poetry, and I dare anyone to argue it is not literature.
Here is one example of a Bob Dylan song:
When He Returns
Written by: Bob Dylan
The iron hand it ain’t no match for the iron rod
The strongest wall will crumble and fall to a mighty God
For all those who have eyes and all those who have ears
It is only He who can reduce me to tears
Don’t you cry and don’t you die and don’t you burn
For like a thief in the night, He’ll replace wrong with right
When He returns
Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through
He unleashed His power at an unknown hour that no one knew
How long can I listen to the lies of prejudice?
How long can I stay drunk on fear out in the wilderness?
Can I cast it aside, all this loyalty and this pride?
Will I ever learn that there’ll be no peace, that the war won’t cease
Until He returns?
Surrender your crown on this blood-stained ground, take off your mask
He sees your deeds, He knows your needs even before you ask
How long can you falsify and deny what is real?
How long can you hate yourself for the weakness you conceal?
Of every earthly plan that be known to man, He is unconcerned
He’s got plans of His own to set up His throne
When He returns
Copyright © 1979 by Special Rider Music
Tell me that is not poetry. And we agree that poetry is suitable for the Nobel Prize. Yes, it is only a single example, but as Steve said, the question is not if we agree with the choice of Dylan, but whether we agree that lyrics can qualify as literature.
The Bible itself does not distinguish a poem from a song from a psalm, so this is not a newfangled concept. It hearkens back to the original.
Homer’s “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were sung by bards, it was the only way to bring the words to more people. By singing, they could memorize it.
Lyrics were the original literature.
Agreed. I have no problem in choosing a poet as a winner. Dylan is merely a poet who has become famous by setting his words to music.
I’m not convinced Dylan should have won the Nobel Prize. People have heard of him. People can quote him. Even people who never read. That doesn’t seem in keeping with the history of the prize.
But if it signals a new direction, that literature should be something that appeals to the people, not just the literary elite … then I’m all for it.
Happy to see again on the list a couple of my favorites 1905, 1928.
One view of worth of writing is its influence. Yes? Back during the Civil War, a song, “Lorena” was banned by commanders of both sides of the strife, because it was usually played in the evenings and by morning, a few reluctant soldier boys had slipped away to return home. The song was traditionally played on the violin, and its mournful tones surely added to the song’s influence, but the message of the lyric-poetry packed a wallop in terms of influence.
Has Dylan’s poetry influenced the world significantly? Will it be long lasting?
Even tho excellence in writing is important, impact also matters.