Jim Morrison

[breathtest]

I don't expect this thread to pick up many posts, but i thought i'd try anyway.

I was wondering what everybody thinks of Jim Morrison's poetry. He was the lead singer of The Doors, but his love was always for poetry and philosophy, and he was a very literary minded person. He published two volumes of poetry in his lifetime, but many more have been published since, from his many journals.

This is an example of his poetry, and he wrote this when he was fourteen.

When the still sea conspires an armour
and her sullen and aborted currents breed tiny monsters
True sailing is dead

Awkward instant and the first animal is jettisoned
Legs furiously pumping their stiff green gallop
And heads bob up
Poise
Delicate
Pause
Consent
In mute nostril agony
Carefully refined and sealed over.


So what does everybody think?

[herzog]

Horse Latitudes, a classic.

A majority of his lyrics could be looked upon as poetry in their own right, I suppose.

Excellent stuff.

[Alexander III]

I quite like, its very similar in style to Rimbaud's Illuminations, a series of linked vivid images which combine to convey complex emotions which have no precise one word symbol to express their significance. Well thats my take on it anyways.

His life is also very similar in style to that of the tragic hero, who explores vice and debauchery, and ends with a young death, drawing many parallels to John Walmot, Lord Byron, Rimbaud ect..

Do post more of his poems !

[breathtest]

From what i've read in biography's of Morrison, he was an extremely precocious kid. At the same sort of age he wrote Horse Platitudes he was known to have read philosophical texts such as The Birth of Tragedy and to have understood them better than his english teachers.

What i love about his poetry is its scope. Here's two poems as an example of what i mean as i can't explain it any better.

A man rakes leaves into
a heap in his yard, a pile,
& leans on his rake &
burns them utterly.
The fragrance fills the forest
children pause and heed the
smell, which will become
nostalgia in several years.


***


The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.

I must leave this island,
Struggling to be born
from blackness.

Fear the good deep dark
American Night.
Blessed is Night.

The flood has subsided
The movie panic & the
chauffered drive
Thru the suburbs

Wild folks in weird dress
by the side of the hiway.

(this is only part of a longer piece)

The difference between the two is huge. That's one of the things he was good at.


Cycle 1667 - if you want to read some of his poetry, you can find it online, just use google, i found some awhile back.

[breathtest]

herzog - i agree that a lot of his song lyrics were poetic, such as 'The cars crawl passed all stuffed with eyes / Streetlights shed their hollow glow / Your brain seems bruised with numb surprise / Still one place to go' from Soul Kitchen, and 'Let's swim to the moon / Lets climb thru the tide / Surrender to the waiting worlds that lap against our sides' from Moonlight Drive. How ever some of his song lyrics were far below par. I think most of his talent lay in poetry than in song writing. Although the Doors were awesome as a band.

[spookymulder93]

I never knew he wrote poetry. Only album of theirs I've listened to was the first.

[Sapphire]

About a year agoo I found a book with his poetry in the library. I found it at 20:00 and was still reading when the library closed at 24:00. I was definitely captivated :nod:
I do not really know how to talk about it. But he definitely had a way with words!

[breathtest]

Spookymulder - I prefer the best of albums. I think a lot of there songs just weren't anything special, but on the best of, pretty much all of them are amazing. I think you've been missing out on some quality songs by only listening to the first album, although that was their best.

Sapphire - I understand what you mean, it's quite difficult to understand a lot of his writings, but they are exceptional.


This is one of my favourite of his poems, easier to understand, but very interesting:

The voyeur, the peeper, the Peeping Tom, is a dark
comedian. He is repulsive in his dark anonymity,
in his secret invasion. He is pitifully alone.
But, strangely, he is able through this same silence
and concealment to make unknowing partner of
anyone
within his eye's range. This is his threat and
power.

There are no glass houses. The shades are drawn
and 'real' life begins. Some activities are impossible
in the open. And these secret events are the voyeur's
game. He seeks them out with his myriad army of
eyes - like the child's notion of a Deity who sees
all. 'Everything?' asks the child. 'Yes, every-
thing,' they answer, and the child is left to cope
with this divine intrusion.

[OrphanPip]

I like some of The Doors' music, but his poetry really doesn't do much for me.

There's something lacking about it, it feels kind of dry and doesn't engage me. The use of enjambment in the last one feels awkward to me, and overall the rhythm doesn't sit comfortably. Also, much of it feels cliche, and I find nothing particularly striking or memorable in the poems posted here.

[Buh4Bee]

Poetry and song lyrics, although closely related, are going to be different. I would assume that song lyrics can be more repetitive and simplistic than poetry, since they are accompanied by music. I don't know much about Morrison's poetry, but his music is awesome.

There is a movie The Doors (1991) that was terrific. Good pop-culture.

[breathtest]

Jersea - is that the movie by Oliver Stone? I enjoyed it but the other members of the doors said that it portrayed Morrison as a drunken jerk, even though that wasn't really who he was at all.

[Alexander III]

There is also a documentary with Johnny Depp as narrator which was made in 2009, its called "When You're Strange" Its very good and insightful.

[Buh4Bee]

I was with Oliver Stone. He was portrayed as a drug addict that was so narcissistic he couldn't function in conventional or normal society. I understood this as Morrison being represented as a mad artist.

[JBI]

Good music, meh poetry. He had a good voice, and the Doors had good style, but as a poet, without the music he is lacking.

[Jassy Melson]

I think Morrison is one among a dozen of the lead singers of the '60s who were also poets--Paul Simon and John Lennon among them. All of them were limited in that they had to force their poetry into rock lyrics that could be sung to the accompaniment of lead guitars and drums. Paul Simon was probably the best poet of them all.

[JBI]

I think Morrison is one among a dozen of the lead singers of the '60s who were also poets--Paul Simon and John Lennon among them. All of them were limited in that they had to force their poetry into rock lyrics that could be sung to the accompaniment of lead guitars and drums. Paul Simon was probably the best poet of them all.

What constitutes poetry, or makes one a poet? And beyond that, why should I, as a poetry reader, regard them as of the same tradition? You, I think, mistake Folk and earlyish Rock music for poetry - I could say any number of musicians are poets - what is gained by that - the whole idea that good song writers are good poets is complete crap. Simply put, it's been discussed to death how some of the most mediocre lyrics can become the best music, and some of the best lyrics can become the most mediocre music. Jim Morrison is another mediocre poet, but alright musician - he isn't readable the way someone like even the poet-songwriter Bob Dylan is, nor is he as mediocre as the lyricists of any other number of rock bands. That doesn't mean I should read him next to Wordsworth.

I guess we give anybody who can pen five lines of music the title of poet - even John Lennon, great musical voice that he was, as purely text, is rather meh, bordering on complete mediocrity.

[breathtest]

JBI - i agree that a lot of lyrics to music don't read well. However, Jim Morrison was a poet before he was a singer. He'd been writing poetry since he was very young, and his poetry is not simply rock lyrics put into writing. And no, you shouldn't read him next to Wordsworth, but neither should you read Wordsworth next to Rimbaud or Rimbaud next to ee cummings. Poets are poets in their own right and should be judged based on their own work, not based on another persons.

[JBI]

JBI - i agree that a lot of lyrics to music don't read well. However, Jim Morrison was a poet before he was a singer. He'd been writing poetry since he was very young, and his poetry is not simply rock lyrics put into writing. And no, you shouldn't read him next to Wordsworth, but neither should you read Wordsworth next to Rimbaud or Rimbaud next to ee cummings. Poets are poets in their own right and should be judged based on their own work, not based on another persons.

Meh, his work was mediocre - he also was into film before forming the Doors, but we don't go calling him a renowned director. He was mediocre, and some people, generally those who like his music, have a problem seeing that.

Pope's Dunciad still holds true today I guess.

[breathtest]

'real poetry doesn't say anything, it just ticks off the possibilites. Opens all doors. You can walk through any one that suits you.
...and that's why poetry appeals to me so much - because it's so eternal. As long as there are people, they can remember words and combinations of words. Nothing else can survive a holocaust but poetry and songs. No one can remember an entire novel. No one can describe a film, a piece of sculpture, a painting, but so long as there are human beings, songs and poetry can continue' Jim Morrison, 1971


Meh, his work was mediocre - he also was into film before forming the Doors, but we don't go calling him a renowned director. He was mediocre, and some people, generally those who like his music, have a problem seeing that.

Pope's Dunciad still holds true today I guess.


we don't call him a renowned director because he never actually made and released a film. He made one in college but that was lost, and then he was part-way through filming a long movie when he died in '71. However, he did publish two books of poetry, and there are poets such as michael mcclure who praised and supported his poetry. But i get what your driving at. His poetry doesn't do anything for you and that's cool.

[JBI]

we don't call him a renowned director because he never actually made and released a film. He made one in college but that was lost, and then he was part-way through filming a long movie when he died in '71. However, he did publish two books of poetry, and there are poets such as michael mcclure who praised and supported his poetry. But i get what your driving at. His poetry doesn't do anything for you and that's cool.

Meh, Michael McClure was also mediocre, so that doesn't do anything for me - as for the above quote, that isn't very interesting either I can paraphrase it in 5 words.

Songs, Poems stick in memory.

[Alexander III]

JBI not to sound offensive but you have spent the entire thread stating he as a poet is meh, thus I presume you have read his works, so would it not add to the conversation more if you gave a basic outline of why for you he is only meh ?

[mayneverhave]

No one can remember an entire novel.

Autistic savants perhaps?

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Post containing off-topic or personal/inflammatory comments have been

and

will be removed without further notice.

[Alexander III]

This is one of his which I really like



The Desert

Roseate metallic blue
& insect green
blank mirrors & pools of silver
a universe in one body

[breathtest]

Meh, Michael McClure was also mediocre, so that doesn't do anything for me - as for the above quote, that isn't very interesting either I can paraphrase it in 5 words.

Songs, Poems stick in memory.

you can pretty much paraphrase and simplify anything though. By your logic, there was no need for Shakespeares sonnets or Chaucer's canterbury tales or for that matter any poem or novel or essay ever written. Everything can be simplified into two or three words. I think the beauty is in how you arrive at that succint conclusion/summary. Talking about how poetry and songs are the only things that can survive a holocaust...that is a beautiful way of saying that they stick in memory.

[Jassy Melson]

Jim Morrison was a poet and a songwriter. Some of his poems he was able to fit into song; some he was not. He was a poet before he was a songwriter.

[Jay on blues]

I'll always think of Jim Morrison first and foremost as the frontman for The Doors, because with all due respect to his poetry, it pales in comparison to his music. But I have read some of his poetry and I've mildly enjoyed a few of his poems. But most of them are just so out there it's hard to get into it.

[stlukesguild]

As JBI has noted this subject... the notion of song lyrics and song writers as poets... has been done to death. It is continually those who have little or no experience reading poetry that make the inflated claims for the poetic genius of Morrison or Lennon or Robert Plant, etc... and it certainly frustrates those who are deeply enamored of poetry as much as inflated claims of the artistic genius of John Lennon or John Mellencamp might frustrate an artist or art lover.

This has nothing to do with a snobbism or inability to appreciate contemporary achievements in poetry. The same may be said about many of the lyrics of classical music. Most opera librettos read as mediocre dramas... but the music is able to infuse this with an aesthetic beauty that transcends the mere text. Gustav Mahler's great song cycle, Das Lied von der Erde, sets a mediocre German translation of Chinese poems... but the result is one of the most moving and harrowing compositions. Poetry has its own "music"... a rhythm, beat, rhyme, emphasis, etc... Most song lyrics lack this because the music itself establishes it. Read as poetry without the music, it often comes across as awkward, unstructured... even comical.

JBI and I have read a great wealth of poetry... including the great poets whom Morrison built his amateurish efforts upon: Blake and Rimbaud. Morrison's poetry reads like "snapped prose" to employ critic/poet/novelist/short story writer Thomas Disch's terminology:

Take any piece of prose you like
and snap it into lines of verse
like this, using the end of the line

as a kind of comma. You can create
a further sense of shapeliness
by grouping the snapped prose in stanzas, so.

Sounds an awful lot like:

The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.

Quite different from:

As I came down the impassible Rivers
I felt no more the bargeman's guiding hands,
Targets for yelling red-skins they were nailed
Naked to painted poles.

What did I care for any crews,
Carriers of English cotton or of Flemish grain!
Bargemen and all that hubbub left behind'
The waters let me go my own free way.

In the furious lashings of the tides,
Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And great peninsulas unmoored
Never knew more triumphant uproar than I knew!

This is perhaps the only poet I know of who achieved something of real genius while yet a teenager.

Morrison may have a vocabulary beyond the average teen... and he can create some interesting images... but this is not enough. And no... I am not arguing that poetry must follow some dated formal structure... but those poets who shattered the conventions actually knew what the conventions were... and had already mastered them... before composing something like this:

As soon as the idea of the deluge had subsided, A hare stopped in the clover and swaying flower-bells, and said a prayer through the rainbow to the spider's web.

Oh! The precious stones that began to hide- and the flowers that already looked around.

In the dirty main street, stalls were set up and boats were hauled toward the sea, high-tiered as in old prints.

Blood flowed at Bluebeard's- through slaughterhouses, in circuses, where the windows were blanched by God's seal. Blood and Milk flowed...


Again... no one is suggesting that you must like this or that poet or that you shouldn't like someone else... but he and I are both saying that inflated claims for the poetic ability of pop stars come off as somewhat comical when you consider the actual achievements of true poets.

[Jay on blues]

@stlukesguild

But aren't you going a little too far when you say what he writes isn't true poetry? Or it's comical and offense to the "real poets?"

He's just a different poet, and one that can be more easily enjoyed without a requirement of having to be in the know of the poetry world. I agree that just because he is a celebrity he shouldn't be raised to the upper-echelon of the art. And there are examples that work in your favor. The pop singer Alicia Keys describes herself as a poet and has published a collection of them, but they are nothing more than a page ripped out of any 16 year old girls diary after a bad day at school. Her poetry is plain bad. Anyone with any kind of appreciation for words, even people who don't go on forums to discuss books like us, can see it. Bob Dylan's book of prose-poetry-ish things(it's quite the mess) Tarantula is horrible.

But to say someone like Morrison or Lennon are an insult to the art, and exclude them from the conversation is snobbish to say the least. Just because they don't follow suit with the greats shouldn't discount any of their work. Or god forbid their writing is accessible to the masses. I've heard poems that are written by the contemporary masters that I've laughed at because of the steaming self-importance that almost visibly drips from the page. People run away screaming from that kind of stuff, myself included. It's a huge turn off.

Poetry shouldn't be something that impresses itself with it's understanding of what it is. It's no use then. Morrison and Lennon's poetry is worth talking about because along with precise, intriguing language, it can keep people in the room, unlike the second one you posted where half the people just decide not to care about it or worse, run away with their fingers jammed in their ears and begin to hate poetry because they feel like they are foolish for not knowing at all what is going on.

[Jassy Melson]

I will repeat: Jim Morrison was a poet. Just read some of his poems.

[Alexander III]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ? No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

@ Jay on The Blues

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

[JBI]

@stlukesguild

But aren't you going a little too far when you say what he writes isn't true poetry? Or it's comical and offense to the "real poets?"

He's just a different poet, and one that can be more easily enjoyed without a requirement of having to be in the know of the poetry world. I agree that just because he is a celebrity he shouldn't be raised to the upper-echelon of the art. And there are examples that work in your favor. The pop singer Alicia Keys describes herself as a poet and has published a collection of them, but they are nothing more than a page ripped out of any 16 year old girls diary after a bad day at school. Her poetry is plain bad. Anyone with any kind of appreciation for words, even people who don't go on forums to discuss books like us, can see it. Bob Dylan's book of prose-poetry-ish things(it's quite the mess) Tarantula is horrible.

But to say someone like Morrison or Lennon are an insult to the art, and exclude them from the conversation is snobbish to say the least. Just because they don't follow suit with the greats shouldn't discount any of their work. Or god forbid their writing is accessible to the masses. I've heard poems that are written by the contemporary masters that I've laughed at because of the steaming self-importance that almost visibly drips from the page. People run away screaming from that kind of stuff, myself included. It's a huge turn off.

Poetry shouldn't be something that impresses itself with it's understanding of what it is. It's no use then. Morrison and Lennon's poetry is worth talking about because along with precise, intriguing language, it can keep people in the room, unlike the second one you posted where half the people just decide not to care about it or worse, run away with their fingers jammed in their ears and begin to hate poetry because they feel like they are foolish for not knowing at all what is going on.

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

[Alexander III]

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

Have to disagree with you

He is not writing great poetry, but he is writing good poetry.

[JBI]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ? No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

@ Jay on The Blues

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I can think of 5 or more living poets as good as Blake or Rimbaud. If I stretch, I could probably come up with 200 or so poets whose poetics are more informed, and better executed than Morrison. I am no expert in contemporary verse either, and haven't yet looked into contemporary verse outside of English. Now, if I were to take the number of poets penning around 1965, the number again would be easily arrived at.

When there are no shortages of good poets, it's comical that people insist on reading bad ones. What that really attests to is the power of poetry - in that even mediocre verse can inspire those who know nothing of good verse - just think then of what would happen if people stumbled upon the good ones? Reminds me of when I found P. K. Page, and I just fell in love with her work - imagine if people were like that instead of just reading garbage song lyrics and toss poetics.

[Jeremydav]

Jim Morrison? Come on now, the lowest I stoop into faux-poetic songwriters is Dylan. :P

[stlukesguild]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ?

OK... I will grant that they are art. But it is not art of the quality that would engage me... certainly not when there are so many poets who are far better at what they do. By the same token we can discuss John Lennon's little line drawings. They have a certain quirky quality to them. But they are not likely to engage me like Lucian Freud, Anselm Kiefer, Andrew Wyeth, Avigdor Arikha, George Tooker, or any number of other modern/contemporary artists. Indeed, if I am looking for a sort of simple, minimal line drawing, George Dix, Picasso (especially his Vollard Suite and his 347 series) and any number of Japanese and Chinese artists are far more engaging... if only because they have invested far more into their art.

Comparisons are inevitable. We have but a given span of time to read, listen to music, look at paintings, etc... It only makes sense to spend this time with that which gives the greatest pleasure. With experience, amateurish poetry and art of pop stars just doesn't cut it. As jay on blues noted, Alicia Keys' poetry (and I might add Jewel's A Night without Armor) read like a page ripped from a teenager's diary. Morrison may not be quite as bad as this... but then again Morrison attained an undergraduate degree which involved courses in comparative literature and studies of Blake, Rimbaud, and Artaud (among others). Thus we might say his are the poems of a talented college student... not far removed from what is regularly posted by any number of LitNet members. But there is a big gap between this and really good... to say nothing of "great" poetry.

No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Blake...? Perhaps. Yet I am basing this solely upon what I know of in English or in translation. As JBI suggests, there may be at least a handful as good... as good a Rimbaud at least. I'd surely suggest Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Adam Zagajewski, John Ashbery, and a number of others might be a strong as Rimbaud.

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

Why is it unjust. Whitman, Pessoa, Neruda, Rimbaud, Baudelaire (is his prose poems), and endless other poets wrote or continue to write in a form of free verse... and the results stand up to comparison with formal structured verse. No, we don't criticize Whitman for not using a set meter or rhyme (although he does employ as much at times). But the work does have its own inherent "music" and makes powerful use of language, metaphor, etc... Seriously, the notion that we cannot or should not compare different works of art because of stylistic differences becomes something of a defense mechanism: "Well certainly you can't compare Pablo Picasso with Michelangelo". But we do... yet we recognize that we don't make the comparison based solely upon the strengths of one or the other. We recognize that if Picasso cannot withstand comparison to Michelangeo, he has little chance of survival. Ultimately we may recognize that Picasso does not surpass the Italian master... but he does not come off looking ridiculous, either. Morrison, I would suggest, does. He looks ridiculous compared to Rimbaud... and he looks ridiculous compared with any number of contemporary/modern poets who employ verse forms that are every bit as open or non-formal: Neruda, Alberti, Aridjis, Ashbery, Carson, Octavio Paz... even Ginsberg.

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I'm going to assume that JBI actually has some experience in reading poetry considering his past postings. I'll even go so far as to suggest that I might actually know how to read a poem. So let's look at the Morrison poem:

The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.

Does the manner in which he has broken up the lines contribute in any way to the poem... or guide us in our reading? Or is it merely Disch's "snapped verse"? Do we actually read this poem as:

The hour of the wolf (pause)
has now ended. Cocks (pause)
Crow. The world is built (pause)
up again, struggling in (pause)
darkness (pause)

The child gives in to night-(pause)
Mare...

Of course that sound ridiculous. I personally read the poem as:

The hour of the wolf has now ended.
Cocks crow.
The world is built up again, struggling in darkness.

The child gives in to Nightmare...

The form Morrison has employed does nothing... adds nothing to the poem.

By way of comparison each of the breaks in Rimbaud make sense in terms of rhythm... and in the break in a phrase or image:

As I came down the impassible Rivers
I felt no more the bargeman's guiding hands,
Targets for yelling red-skins they were nailed
Naked to painted poles.

What did I care for any crews,
Carriers of English cotton or of Flemish grain!
Bargemen and all that hubbub left behind'
The waters let me go my own free way.

In the furious lashings of the tides,
Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And great peninsulas unmoored
Never knew more triumphant uproar than I knew!

Even the break in the lines...

Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And the great penninsulas unmoored...

(And this break exists in the original French) is clearly thought out and intentional. "I through that winter... RAN!! Bam!! He want's to emphasize that word... even adding an exclamation... and so it carries over to the start of the next line where it stands out. Is there some reason that Morrison split the word "night-Mare?" Does he desire us to emphasize "Mare"? Do we even read it in the matter in which it is broken up into lines... or is it merely broken up into lines because that is what a poem "should" be? The latter would seem to be so.

[Alexander III]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ?

OK... I will grant that they are art. But it is not art of the quality that would engage me... certainly not when there are so many poets who are far better at what they do. By the same token we can discuss John Lennon's little line drawings. They have a certain quirky quality to them. But they are not likely to engage me like Lucian Freud, Anselm Kiefer, Andrew Wyeth, Avigdor Arikha, George Tooker, or any number of other modern/contemporary artists. Indeed, if I am looking for a sort of simple, minimal line drawing, George Dix, Picasso (especially his Vollard Suite and his 347 series) and any number of Japanese and Chinese artists are far more engaging... if only because they have invested far more into their art.

Comparisons are inevitable. We have but a given span of time to read, listen to music, look at paintings, etc... It only makes sense to spend this time with that which gives the greatest pleasure. With experience, amateurish poetry and art of pop stars just doesn't cut it. As jay on blues noted, Alicia Keys' poetry (and I might add Jewel's A Night without Armor) read like a page ripped from a teenager's diary. Morrison may not be quite as bad as this... but then again Morrison attained an undergraduate degree which involved courses in comparative literature and studies of Blake, Rimbaud, and Artaud (among others). Thus we might say his are the poems of a talented college student... not far removed from what is regularly posted by any number of LitNet members. But there is a big gap between this and really good... to say nothing of "great" poetry.

No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Blake...? Perhaps. Yet I am basing this solely upon what I know of in English or in translation. As JBI suggests, there may be at least a handful as good... as good a Rimbaud at least. I'd surely suggest Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Adam Zagajewski, John Ashbery, and a number of others might be a strong as Rimbaud.

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

Why is it unjust. Whitman, Pessoa, Neruda, Rimbaud, Baudelaire (is his prose poems), and endless other poets wrote or continue to write in a form of free verse... and the results stand up to comparison with formal structured verse. No, we don't criticize Whitman for not using a set meter or rhyme (although he does employ as much at times). But the work does have its own inherent "music" and makes powerful use of language, metaphor, etc... Seriously, the notion that we cannot or should not compare different works of art because of stylistic differences becomes something of a defense mechanism: "Well certainly you can't compare Pablo Picasso with Michelangelo". But we do... yet we recognize that we don't make the comparison based solely upon the strengths of one or the other. We recognize that if Picasso cannot withstand comparison to Michelangeo, he has little chance of survival. Ultimately we may recognize that Picasso does not surpass the Italian master... but he does not come off looking ridiculous, either. Morrison, I would suggest, does. He looks ridiculous compared to Rimbaud... and he looks ridiculous compared with any number of contemporary/modern poets who employ verse forms that are every bit as open or non-formal: Neruda, Alberti, Aridjis, Ashbery, Carson, Octavio Paz... even Ginsberg.

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I'm going to assume that JBI actually has some experience in reading poetry considering his past postings. I'll even go so far as to suggest that I might actually know how to read a poem. So let's look at the Morrison poem:

The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.

Does the manner in which he has broken up the lines contribute in any way to the poem... or guide us in our reading? Or is it merely Disch's "snapped verse"? Do we actually read this poem as:

The hour of the wolf (pause)
has now ended. Cocks (pause)
Crow. The world is built (pause)
up again, struggling in (pause)
darkness (pause)

The child gives in to night-(pause)
Mare...

Of course that sound ridiculous. I personally read the poem as:

The hour of the wolf has now ended.
Cocks crow.
The world is built up again, struggling in darkness.

The child gives in to Nightmare...

The form Morrison has employed does nothing... adds nothing to the poem.

By way of comparison each of the breaks in Rimbaud make sense in terms of rhythm... and in the break in a phrase or image:

As I came down the impassible Rivers
I felt no more the bargeman's guiding hands,
Targets for yelling red-skins they were nailed
Naked to painted poles.

What did I care for any crews,
Carriers of English cotton or of Flemish grain!
Bargemen and all that hubbub left behind'
The waters let me go my own free way.

In the furious lashings of the tides,
Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And great peninsulas unmoored
Never knew more triumphant uproar than I knew!

Even the break in the lines...

Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And the great penninsulas unmoored...

(And this break exists in the original French) is clearly thought out and intentional. "I through that winter... RAN!! Bam!! He want's to emphasize that word... even adding an exclamation... and so it carries over to the start of the next line where it stands out. Is there some reason that Morrison split the word "night-Mare?" Does he desire us to emphasize "Mare"? Do we even read it in the matter in which it is broken up into lines... or is it merely broken up into lines because that is what a poem "should" be? The latter would seem to be so.


I will grant you those points you mention, However you do loose me when you use examples of paintings and painters, as I am VERY limited in my knowledge there. Of the poets you mention I have read both Heaney and Ginsberg only. I would class both of them far behind Rimbaud, of course Heaney's style never did agree with me so I may be unjust, Its that his poems are very focused and Politically and Socialy centered. His greater focus is on the two above rather than on simple and pure aestheticism. I found his translation of Beowulf to be superb though, and I do consider him the greatest living writer (naturally out of those I have read)

However I think you misread my other post as I was not talking to JBI and I was not talking about Morrison's poem.

I was talking to Jay Blue about Rimbaud's poem, After The Deluge, of which you posted a small fragment.

[Alexander III]

Ah and I forgot to mention, that yes your point about Morrisons line breaks seems very valid, however he may have chosen those line breaks simply for the visual aesthetics of the poem, how that is to be judged I do not know. I am only providing the WHY as to his choice of line breaks.

I think it is unjust to compare Morrison's poem and Rimbaud's Batteu Ivre on stylistic grounds. Rimbaud's line breaks are highly determined by the fact that his poem was written in quartettes, each line of 12 syllables, and a rhyme pattern.

[Jay on blues]

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

Whether it's good poetry or not is completely subjective, and that's not really the argument.

It's about respecting the poet and not dismissing him or calling him an embarrassment to the art because his words don't adhere to whatever literary convention you chose to impose on his work.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Whether it's good poetry or not is completely subjective, and that's not really the argument.

It's about respecting the poet and not dismissing him or calling him an embarrassment to the art because his words don't adhere to whatever literary convention you chose to impose on his work.

Leaving aside the suggestion that good poetry is "completely subjective" which is nonsense, the poem above is nothing much more than pretty awful. I've never read any of his stuff before (probably because I'm none too fussed about pop/rock star poetry - I just expect it to be average at best) but there is nothing much subjective about that piece. Really, I think based soley on that extract "mediocrity" is high praise indeed.

Of course it could be that some of his other pieces are a lot better than that and I am being entirely harsh, however somehow I doubt it. With no time to read 1% of the quality stuff available out there, I certainly don't want to be exploring the realm of average, or indeed awful.

[Jay on blues]

Leaving aside the suggestion that good poetry is "completely subjective" which is nonsense, the poem above is nothing much more than pretty awful. I've never read any of his stuff before (probably because I'm none too fussed about pop/rock star poetry - I just expect it to be average at best) but there is nothing much subjective about that piece. Really, I think based soley on that extract "mediocrity" is high praise indeed.

Of course it could be that some of his other pieces are a lot better than that and I am being entirely harsh, however somehow I doubt it. With no time to read 1% of the quality stuff available out there, I certainly don't want to be exploring the realm of average, or indeed awful.

Well that's certainly a terrible way to look at it. I don't think anybody is saying that Jim Morrison's work is the best thing to hit paper, I don't even particularly like it a lot. But to dismiss a poet based on how he structures his lines or just because he was a rockstar is absurd and shallow.

Don't like it, fine, I don't really care, but at least recognize him as a poet.

And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.

[stlukesguild]

And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.

And then you grow up and realize that while every opinion in art may be "subjective"... but some opinions are far better than others. I can assure you that there isn't a single artist of any merit who cannot tell you which of his or her works is better or worse... and whether you like it or not... no matter how it may contradict your romantic notions or art... art is based upon structures and formal elements and how well or how poorly these are employed is what determines the merit of the art. There is a reason that nearly any experienced reader or any academic or any editor knowledgeable on a given writer or artist or composer will be able to discern the 10 or so strongest works by the artist in question... and these will be agreed upon to a great extent. What are Kafka's strongest stories? I assure you the Metamorphosis and The Hunger Artist and The Penal Colony and The Hunter Gracchus are going to show up again and again. What are Beethoven's 5 greatest compositions? How often do you imagine the 2nd or the 8th Symphony will be named? (And both of them are quite good) The notion of cultural relativism... the concept that there is no good nor bad in art is just a bunch of weak-thinking first wrought in academia decades ago. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

[Jay on blues]

And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.

And then you grow up and realize that while every opinion in art may be "subjective"... but some opinions are far better than others. I can assure you that there isn't a single artist of any merit who cannot tell you which of his or her works is better or worse... and whether you like it or not... no matter how it may contradict your romantic notions or art... art is based upon structures and formal elements and how well or how poorly these are employed is what determines the merit of the art. There is a reason that nearly any experienced reader or any academic or any editor knowledgeable on a given writer or artist or composer will be able to discern the 10 or so strongest works by the artist in question... and these will be agreed upon to a great extent. What are Kafka's strongest stories? I assure you the Metamorphosis and The Hunger Artist and The Penal Colony and The Hunter Gracchus are going to show up again and again. What are Beethoven's 5 greatest compositions? How often do you imagine the 2nd or the 8th Symphony will be named? (And both of them are quite good) The notion of cultural relativism... the concept that there is no good nor bad in art is just a bunch of weak-thinking first wrought in academia decades ago. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Of course there's good and bad, but that's up to me to choose.

You're forgetting about the human element, and the relationship a reader has with the work. The structure and formal elements are certainly important in the creation of the work, whether it be a story or painting or poem, but those conventions are not what makes something worthy of being called art.

Art is what is taken away from the work that tugs away at your soul and makes you feel something.

Why make art such a cold thing? If I want form and structure I'd take a Calculus Course.

[Jeremydav]

If you want to be able to study art you have to quantify it in some way. I agree with you and I disagree. Art is certainly something that pulls at the heart, but it has a sort of objective ability to do that. Certain poets can better than others, if read by someone educated in literature. It's an artist's ability to evoke emotions, realizations, and appreciation from his/her reader that defines him/her as an artist.

I've always seen it broken down in a triad like that, maybe I'm nuts. But this is how it goes in my head:

Emotional value/pathos: Score of 1-10
Philosophical value: Score of 1-10
Artistic value: Score of 1-10

It's all very much like Dr. Prichard's page in the Literature book in Dead Poets' Society, which Mr. Keating makes all the students tear out in rage, hah.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well that's certainly a terrible way to look at it. I don't think anybody is saying that Jim Morrison's work is the best thing to hit paper, I don't even particularly like it a lot. But to dismiss a poet based on how he structures his lines or just because he was a rockstar is absurd and shallow.

Don't like it, fine, I don't really care, but at least recognize him as a poet.

And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.

Granted the fact that nobody (I hope:toetap05:) is saying that Morrison is "a genius" or "the greatest ever poet" does appear to suggest that there is some little improvement going on, though the way things have been around here recently I wouldn't have been surprised if such things were said (or to compare him to Shakespeare:goof:). Anyway, maybe I am being a little shallow in dismissing pop/rock star poetry, maybe beyond Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan - who as poets are supposed to be somewhat decent, there may be something of merit in the pop/rock star world, maybe, but you'll forgive me for not rushing out and buying the next Britney Spears book of love poems on the off chance that she is anything but awful.

I don't dismiss him as a poet - for what does it mean to be a poet anyway? To write poems? To have them published? To have them read? I dismiss him as good poet, based upon that awful extract above. True, as I say, some of his other stuff may be a lot better, but again, I doubt it. The poem is not dismissed just because of how a poet structures the lines, just as if that is a minor thing, it is dismissed because it brings nothing else:

The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.

As has already been mentioned the way that is written on the page is awful. Read it. Does it sound anything other than really awkward? I love the breaking up for example of night/mare, totally ridiculous as previously mentioned, though you only have to get to the first two lines to feel that awkward jilt from "wolf" to "has". Aside from the fact that the way the poem is structured totally distracts from the message of the piece what is written is far from original or any good. I'm assuming that this is an extract, but even so I would be struggling from the first two lines aside from its structure. "The hour of the wolf" "cocks crow" is hardly anything but bordering on cliché, all we are missing is "somewhere an owl hooted" or something like that. I would argue that even from these two lines, the warning bells for bad poetry should be ringing - does the alliterative "cocks crow" do anything more than to suggest something akin to a nursery rhyme or a childish piece of writing?

The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.

"The world is built/up again" is hardly good English here, it does seem somewhat stumbling to me - are there no better ways of expressing that thought? Also I don't know why the world is "struggling in darkness" hasn't the "cocks crowing" supposed to have signified that it is morning anyway? If so what's the darkness got to do with it? The "hour of the wolf" has supposed to have ended hasn't it? So I don't quite get that to be honest. It's poorly thought out.

The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear

I still can't get passed the split of "night" and "mare" but let that go. Read the whole thing over a few times. Does that not sound like some tag line for a cheap 80s horror film? Keep the line in your head and read it over this for example, I find it fits to some degree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KCct4RwLNM

So you'll forgive me for not finding anything of worth in those lines and I've had enough of reading bad poetry, it does nothing for me, so enough of that.

Actually, the director was deadly seriously with that film, it was not supposed to be a spoof - though I suppose if you go by the notion that all art is equal in the eye of the beholder nonsense, then we have to seriously respect the opinion of someone who finds more merit in Troll 2 as a serious work of art, as we could in say Godfather 2?!?

Most of us come to art and literature not with a clipboard and hard hat, not in a cold, calculated manner, but as something that has inspired passion and feeling. I know this is why I came to it and continue to do so, but this doesn't mean that all art or opinion has to be respected as equal. Even individual opinion on a piece can change over a short space of time. I'm not denying people opinion, no one is, or the feeling that a piece evokes, but just because a person may have enjoyed it doesn't automatically make that piece any good.

You still have to be able to stand back from the work and give a fair, unbiased assessment of the work. This is something that is learnt and developed over time. No one is forgetting about the human element at all. Instinct and feeling are all important, in fact is highly important, but so is the ability to be able to stand back from the work a little as was mentioned previously elsewhere. My enjoyment of Oscar Wilde does nothing to cloud my judgement that his early poetry is anything much more than third-rate.

Now you'll forgive me for wanting a coffee and for a need to turn to something much better.

[stlukesguild]

Art is what is taken away from the work that tugs away at your soul and makes you feel something.

Why make art such a cold thing? If I want form and structure I'd take a Calculus Course.

Jeremyday- If you want to be able to study art you have to quantify it in some way. I agree with you and I disagree. Art is certainly something that pulls at the heart, but it has a sort of objective ability to do that. Certain poets can better than others, if read by someone educated in literature. It's an artist's ability to evoke emotions, realizations, and appreciation from his/her reader that defines him/her as an artist.

Most of us come to art and literature not with a clipboard and hard hat, not in a cold, calculated manner, but as something that has inspired passion and feeling. I know this is why I came to it and continue to do so, but this doesn't mean that all art or opinion has to be respected as equal. Even individual opinion on a piece can change over a short space of time. I'm not denying people opinion, no one is, or the feeling that a piece evokes, but just because a person may have enjoyed it doesn't automatically make that piece any good.

You still have to be able to stand back from the work and give a fair, unbiased assessment of the work. This is something that is learnt and developed over time. No one is forgetting about the human element at all. Instinct and feeling are all important, in fact is highly important, but so is the ability to be able to stand back from the work a little as was mentioned previously elsewhere. My enjoyment of Oscar Wilde does nothing to cloud my judgement that his early poetry is anything much more than third-rate.

I agree with both Jeremyday and Neely. We are not dismissing the human or the emotional aspect of art... but entries of a teenage girl in her diary ("Does Jimmy like me? Suzy told me that Bobby told her that Sally thinks that Jimmy likes me. If he doesn't like me I'll just have to kill myself...") or even the baby crying convey human emotions... they just don't do it in a very artistic way... a way that stimulates us... even challenges us intellectually as well as emotionally. I'm certain that almost every teenager has written poetry or done drawings which they imagined at the time conveyed such profundity... and at which they will later cringe with embarrassment... much as we might cringe at Troll 2 or Jim Morrison's poetry. I would rather not talk about my teenage artistic efforts which were all, thankfully, long ago consigned to a land-fill somewhere.

Relying solely upon emotional responses is as problematic in judging art and even creating art as it is in other aspects of life. This does not mean that we shut off the emotions or that we deny their worth... but we also recognize a need to step back and assess things logically as well. There are moments of spontaneity and inspiration in art... but these are far more likely to occur in individuals who have put forth the labor in preparation. Do a little exploration as to the studies or preparation undertaken by poets such as Keats or Shelley or Rimbaud... the reading they did... their efforts in translating the poems of Greeks and Latin poets... the early, less-than-great poetic efforts.

There is a great story concerning the American painter, Willem DeKooning.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/4894382928_fe30219340.jpg

As one of the great Abstract Expressionists it was presumed that his paintings were all conceived in a sort of orgiastic frenzy. A young film-maker, wishing to compete with Hans Namuth's famous film on Jackson Pollack, talked DeKooning into allowing him to film his painting process. He showed up with the cameras and lights at the agreed upon time and spent an afternoon filming the artist as he rushed back and forth, slathering paint and scraping it off in wild abandon. After 4 hours or so, he thanked the artist and left.

A few months later, DeKooning ran into the young man in Central Park. He asked him how the film was coming, and the film-maker responded with enthusiasm, "It is to be released in a few weeks." The youth then queried the painter, "By the way, how did that painting turn out?" "That? Oh I threw that away the moment you left," he replied. Shocked, the young man asked, "but why!?" "You don't really think I paint like that?" replied Dekooning. "Do you remember that large cushy cushy chair in the rear of my studio? I spend most of my time sitting in that chair... staring at and studying the work in progress. Every now and then I get up and make a few marks and then I go back to the chair. That's how I really paint." Incredulous, the film-maker asked, "But then why did you put on that show with all the wild gestures, and slapping on paint?" The artist smiled, "Do you really believe anyone wants to watch a film of me sitting in a chair?"

As a painter myself, I can tell you that such is the truth. If I take it upon myself to make a painting expressing sadness or anger, I cannot maintain the emotions of sadness or anger the entire time I am painting. Much of the process involves stepping back... looking at the work objectively... recognizing the weaknesses and the strengths... thinking about all that I know of the formal aspects of visual art... how color or line or shape work... responding to how they relate. Of course there are moments of inspiration... sometimes even extended periods of great lucidity... perhaps not unlike the "runner's high"... moments when everything just "clicks"... when one has the Duende... to use Garcia-Lorca's term. But these moments are more likely to occur when one has properly prepared and when one puts in the endless labor... as unromantic as that may sound. "Inspiration exists, but it has got to find you working." Or so said Picasso, who one might argue knew more than a little about inspiration.

Self expression alone is not enough. It is easy to convey anger or sadness or whatever... I know that certain colors will almost certainly have a desired emotional impact... just as a composer knows that by using a minor key the music takes on an inherent sad or tragic nature... but the ability to simply convey emotions does not mean the art is good. Cliche, sappy, sentimental writing, paintings, music, and films may all succeed in conveying human emotions... but they don't do it well... they don't do it in a manner that will continue to engage an audience that has a degree of experience. We all know what awaits in the basement when that one individual gos off on his own in the latest horror flick. For art to have any continued worth it must stimulate our intellect as well as our emotions.

[breathtest]

A wake
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one
Choose the day, the sign
of your day
1st thing you see.

A burnt tree, like a giant
primeval bird, a leaf,
dry and bitter, crackling tales
in its warm waves.
Sidewalk gods will do for you.
The forest of the neighbourhood,
the empty lost museum, &
the mesa, the Mt.'s pregnant
monument above the newstand
where the children hide
when school ends

[Buh4Bee]

He was a genius, just not necessarily a poet. A mad mad genius who couldn't get a grasp on life, but had to experience only in the form of extremities. He was a musician with a gift that allowed him to write his own lyrics.

[Alexander III]

I agree with Jersea, he was a musical genius, and I doubt many would discredit that, his music and lyrics shows a maturity and complexity which is rather beautiful and ensures his posteriority. His poetry lacks that maturity however, we can see that his poetry though he writ from a young age never had the proper time devoted to it, to advance and improve his craft unto reaching a more mature level.

[JBI]

I agree with Jersea, he was a musical genius, and I doubt many would discredit that, his music and lyrics shows a maturity and complexity which is rather beautiful and ensures his posteriority. His poetry lacks that maturity however, we can see that his poetry though he writ from a young age never had the proper time devoted to it, to advance and improve his craft unto reaching a more mature level.

I don't know. Don't get me wrong, I am a big Doors fan, but genius? the band worked, no doubt, but I am not convinced it was due to his "Genius." Perhaps it was just its situational workability in collaboration that generated good music.

[breathtest]

Yeah i think a lot of his lyrics were actually mediocre. Some of them were really good, and i think they were head and shoulders above the lyrics of that time, but still, i don't think his musicianship can be accredited with genius. I do think, however, that as a person he was closer to 'genius', if that makes any sense at all. As Jersea said, he was experiencing life in extremes (eg alcoholism, tonnes of drugs) trying to expand his mind and attain visions.

[Alexander III]

Hmm well I think it is how we define genius. For example Shakespeare's maintains his reputation nowadays because of the influence of his work, I mean every great movement in literature (at least english speaking lit) has been influenced in some way or the other by the bard. The same can be said of the Doors and Morrison in regards to rock, all forms of rock after them were heavily influenced by the Doors, the Doors end where rock begins, so to say. So I use genius in terms of influence, as genius is a word far to complicated to define.

I mean there are geniuses in painting, math, music, writing, economics, who may be genisuises solely in their fields and then merely above average in other fields. then of course we have men like Da Vinci who was a genius amongst geniuses so to say, every field he touched he mastered. Of course then there are people who have a genius in no particular field, yet they have a genius in life, in living. In some respects those who have a genius in living may be the most fortunate. Some examples which spring to my mind are Casanova, Neal Cassidy and Byron (though he had a genius in poesy as well)


But I digress.

[Buh4Bee]

He had an IQ score that falls in the superior or "genius" range, whether a musician or "mad man".

[breathtest]

That's quite interesting, i suppose with respect to his influential status within music he could be called a genius, however i would be more likely to call the other members of the doors musical geniuses, as they were masters of their instruments and were the ones who wrote the music around the lyrics. I think their improvisational style is so difficult to emulate, as is the case with legendary jazz musicians like miles davis and charley parker.

And yes, when i was thinking about people who you might call geniuses in life, Neal Cassady sprang to my mind too.

Jersea - academically i think morrison was very close to being a genius, because his literary capacity was so vast that even his teachers were left behind. He also studied psychology at university and had conversations with the lecturer that none of the other students in the class could even understand.

[Buh4Bee]

Well that is interesting. I suppose intellects attract other intellects, hence the formation of such a talented band.

[Alexander III]

Meh I dont think IQ is really worth much Jersea

And Morrison actually played a considerable part in not only crafting the lyrincs of songs but also the musical accompaniment. His musical genius far outweighs any poetic genius of his.