That *!%%##!! metre again!

[Stephen Whiteside]

I think the emphasis is on 'left', Neville. Normally, as I think you are saying, the emphasis would be on 'hand', but because he is comparing it with 'right' it makes sense the way it is.

'Genial' is three syllables and is a bit of a cheat. (I do it all the time.)

[David Campbell]

Thank you to all those who are contributing to this discussion. If you’re following it, you’ll also be interested in Glenny’s comments (moonlighting as Croc) on a poem of Maureen’s in the ‘Pemulwuy’ thread.

The references to “family” and “genial” are significant as they highlight a problem judges face. For example, “family” is a 3-syllable word that’s often pronounced as 2 (fam’ly), so it can alter the structure of a line. If written as “family”, but required to be pronounced as “fam’ly”, a judge has to decide whether to let it pass or penalise it. If the former, what happens if there’s another inconsistency? Then another. How far from what might be considered the ‘norm’ does a judge go?

For example, below is a poem by very highly-regarded Australian poet, Les Murray. There are plenty of rhymes (is there a rhyme-scheme?), but what about metre? How should a bush poetry judge treat this poem? Does it fit Neville’s suggestion that metre is about “the sound of speech”? And how would the bush poetry community respond if it were printed in the magazine?

Cockspur Bush

Les Murray

I am lived. I am died.
I was two-leafed three times, and grazed,
but then I was stemmed and multiplied,
sharp-thorned and caned, nested and raised,
earth-salt by sun-sugar. I was innerly sung
by thrushes who need fear no eyed skin thing.
Finched, ant-run, flowered, I am given the years
in now fewer berries, now more of sling
out over directions of luscious dung.
Of water crankshaft, of gases the gears
my shape is cattle-pruned to a crown spread sprung
above the starve-gut instinct to make prairies
of everywhere. My thorns are stuck with caries
of mice and rank lizards by the butcher bird.
Inches in, baby seed-screamers get supplied.
I am lived and died in, vine woven, multiplied.

[Rimeriter]

David, it would be interesting to know at what stage of Les Murray's writing path this one was created.
Jim.

[David Campbell]

Jim, he started publishing poetry in 1965 and this one came out in a 1992 collection (Translations from the Natural World) so it was well into his career.

Cheers
David

[william williams]

Murry Harden's poem Cock Spur Bush

David. Maybe I'm an idiot. Or maybe I'm stupid. Or maybe down right dumb.

But to me it tells me sweet B A though it may border on suggestions but in fact to read it one would need to be a damm smart person which I am not R R and metre I find hard to understand at the best of times

All I know is bush english how it is spelt is in the lap of the educated

I will post a poem that I wrote in the members section please tell me just what is wrong with it
in a pm if nessescery

Bill Williams the old Battler

[Neville Briggs]

You could be right Stephen. Actually, I think that in the phrase " left hand " there is almost equal emphasis on both words, so the metric accent here is not clearly defined. I don't think it matters, it's a fine poem.

G'day David. When I said the sound of speech , I meant how the sound of speech forms the stressed and unstressed parts of words as distinct from looking at a written word and counting syllables on the page.
Simple things like the examples given " fam'ly " gen'yal " are the sounds of speech one might meet in bush poetry. And what if one were to want to use " worcestershire sauce " in a bush poem ? The sound of speech would surely prevail over counting of vowels as syllables. There's also " cemetery " ( cem'try), "offering " ( off'ring ) I don't think laziness has anything to do with it, it's contemporary usage that counts, I am convinced that our poetry should, as far as possible, reflect the use of language as we hear it round about us every day.
That's all I was getting at. I think ?

With great respect, I very much doubt that Les Murray woud ever enter a bush poetry comp, so I'm afraid my thought is that his subtle and complex poem given above is an
inordinate hypothetical that does not relate to the experience of bush poetry practice.
A bit like trying to imagine how Peter Sculthorpe might fare in the Country Music Awards

I'm glad that you brought up the issue of metre and set out to clarify some issues. I think it's an area where a lot of our bush poetry friends are uncertain.

[David Campbell]

Hi Neville

Pity we can’t sit down and chat about this, but the website does have the advantage of allowing others to join in! I understood what you meant about the sound of speech, but what I’m trying to do is highlight the reality that judges face in written poetry competitions. We have to make hard decisions based on what’s in front of us on the page.

You’re suggesting that there should be more flexibility with, for example, “family” being accepted as “fam’ly” because of contemporary usage, and you give the word “Worcestershire” as another example. But there I have to disagree. “Worcestershire” is one of those unusual words (much like the Irish names Siobhan and Naimh) that are never pronounced in contemporary usage exactly as they’re written. They’re idiosyncratic. It’s not the case, as with “family” or “offering”, that they should be pronounced as written, but people often (lazily?) drop a syllable.

“Family” has 3 syllables. If we accept “fam’ly” then what happens to “anomaly” and “homily” and “simile”? I always pronounce these as written but, as a judge, do I have to guess whether contemporary usage might be “anom’ly”, “hom’ly” and “sim’le”? That’s the problem. Do judges have to allow for variations in these and countless other situations? Where does the guesswork end? Who decides what contemporary usage is? (Obviously, the flexibility you’re talking about is not a problem in performance competitions. You can pronounce words any way you like…sometimes with great comic effect!)

Once words are on the page and a judge is trying to separate the top few poems in a written competition, then “family” required to be pronounced as “fam’ly” could be the difference between a prize and the discard pile. That might seem harsh, but decisions have to be made and there will be beautifully written poems on a short-list with perfect metre and rhyme. It’s simpler and fairer to stick with the rules.

I agree that Les Murray would never enter a bush poetry competition, but wasn’t suggesting he would. I offered the poem as an example of the sort of thing (purely in terms of metre and rhyme, not subtlety and complexity) that judges see in competitions. (I can’t give an actual competition example as all poems are destroyed or returned when judging is complete.) We get poems in which there are rhymes, but not in a regular pattern. There is also metre, but it’s not consistent. It’s Australian in content. It can most certainly be performed. But is it ABPA-style bush poetry? How far away from the standards of rhyme and metre can flexibility go?

Which brings me to Tamworth and the Blackened Billy. You were quite correct in your earlier post about my comments at the presentation. The poem was an experiment and I was delighted that the judge (Keith Jones) saw fit to recognise it. Some might say when they see it (I think Frank is publishing it in the upcoming issue of the magazine) that it breaks the rules. But, although the structure is different to anything I’ve used before, I’d argue that, despite perhaps pushing boundaries a little, it still operates well within the conventions of rhyme and metre. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any reaction.

Finally, I’m very much in favour of exploring flexibility in bush poetry, but entrants in written competitions must remember that a judge needs to see a clear distinction between deliberate flexibility and carelessness or lack of skill.

Cheers
David

[Neville Briggs]

but entrants in written competitions must remember that a judge needs to see a clear distinction between deliberate flexibility and carelessness or lack of skill

Yes indeed, absolutely !! David, I heartily concur with that statement.

After having heard your reading of your poem at Tamworth I look forward to seeing it in the mag. Sounds very interesting.

[Stephen Whiteside]

I enjoyed your Blackened Billy winner in the ABPA mag, David. I can't see how it breaks any rules. It lays out a pattern - albeit a slightly unusual pattern - in the first verse, and sticks to it meticulously. Isn't that what bush verse is all about?

[David Campbell]

Agree entirely, Stephen, but not sure that everyone would. There's a change of metre in the middle of each stanza, and some mightn't like that. There's also an unusual (although consistent) mix of masculine and feminine line-endings, and the repeated double-rhyme with the second part presented as a one-word line. Just a bit different, that's all, and it's never easy to predict how others will react. Then again, given the VP Read poem in the magazine, there may well be an argument that it's not "pure bush" poetry! But that's a different discussion.

Incidentally, there are two variations from my original in the published version...not sure how they crept in. I wrote "the toil of ringers shearing" (i.e. he wants her to have a capacity for hard work) not "the toll of ringers shearing", and the last line should read "this day that you are born".

Cheers
David