Illegitimi non carborundum
https://songfight.net/forums/
Oh crap. And you're the first to mention it, so they obviously hold everyone's attention. For what it's worth, then, here's a better link (screw that dropbox crap).Jefff wrote:FYI, I still haven't been able to read your last reviews due to a permission error.roymond wrote:Tune in later when roymond publishes his colorful lava lamp of reviews...
roymond wrote:Oh crap. And you're the first to mention it, so they obviously hold everyone's attention. .Jefff wrote:FYI, I still haven't been able to read your last reviews due to a permission error.roymond wrote:Tune in later when roymond publishes his colorful lava lamp of reviews...
Caravan Ray wrote:roymond wrote:oh crap, my reviews are .
Error (403)
It seems you don't belong here! You should probably sign in. Check out our Help Center and forums for help, or head back to home.
Caravan Ray wrote:Caravan Ray wrote:roymond wrote:oh crap, my reviews are .
Error (403)
It seems you don't belong here! You should probably sign in. Check out our Help Center and forums for help, or head back to home.
Then don't cheat?glennny wrote:Congratulations! Calling me a cheater is about the worst thing you can call me.
Not on purpose, anyway.glennny wrote:I don't cheat. I never have.
Except for the having 5 people thing.glennny wrote:We're on the same playing field, we had no advantage over you.
There is no room for creative interpretation of a 19th century poetic form.glennny wrote:We both had equal opportunity to weight the challenge as we pleased.
Indeed. See, I read the definition of villanelle, and you pulled the definition out of your ass. "A villanelle has only two rhyme sounds. The first and third lines of the first stanza are rhyming refrains that alternate as the third line in each successive stanza and form a couplet at the close. A villanelle is nineteen lines long, consisting of five tercets and one concluding quatrain."glennny wrote:We clearly have a difference in opinion to the letter of the challenge.
Yes, I'm the most down to earth person here, and that is why I'm calling you out on your detachment from reality.glennny wrote:You are a reasonable person
Absolutely right. A song writing competition is no place for any messy outbreaks of creativity.Manhattan Glutton wrote:There is no room for creative interpretation of a 19th century poetic form.
Which means that neither of you are necesarily correct (or incorrect).glennny wrote:MG
We have the same definition of a classic villanelle.
That is one interpretation.Manhattan Glutton wrote:The point of restrictive challenges is to force you to be creative in other ways.
I went to your source, wise of you to turn to Amercans to clear this up for you. If I were to sum up the article you reference, it would say something like, " villanelles have a strict structure and rhyme scheme, even though it hasn't always been that way. The level of flexibility utilized by contemporary poets are in theme and some alteration in refrain lines between stanzas."Caravan Ray wrote:Which means that neither of you are necesarily correct (or incorrect).glennny wrote:MG
We have the same definition of a classic villanelle.
Strange as it may seem for a poem with such a rigid rhyme scheme, the villanelle did not start off as a fixed form. During the Renaissance, the villanella and villancico (from the Italian villano, or peasant) were Italian and Spanish dance-songs. French poets who called their poems "villanelle" did not follow any specific schemes, rhymes, or refrains. Rather, the title implied that, like the Italian and Spanish dance-songs, their poems spoke of simple, often pastoral or rustic themes....
Contemporary poets have not limited themselves to the pastoral themes originally expressed by the free-form villanelles of the Renaissance, and have loosened the fixed form to allow variations on the refrains.
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5796
Everything is open to interpretation. Even poetic forms which may (or may not) have originated in the 19th century.
Ross, that sounds awfully close to my review of WSA's song except without the "I'll look past that" part. If you are referring to my review, I would add that a) I am not a judge, b) I don't look past it at all, c) I do think the song is good, and d) I was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid what has followed. Since we're into it pretty heavy now, I would say that, if I were a judge, WSA would be out. Probably so would DJ because she didn't meet the rhyming requirements. Jefff squeaks by for me, but I can't exactly explain why.Ross wrote:The thing that frustrates me most is when there is a review like, "well you got a little too flexible with the challenge, but the song is so good, I'll look past that." because it begs the question of whether the song quality depended on the flexibilty or not.
To be fair, I said it as a calculated risk, not an obvious ploy. I also thought Niveous might enjoy my song and j$ and Noah would maybe reward me for the lyrics even if they hated the song. I don't remember who the other judge is.roymond wrote:Is roymond really that predictable?frankie big face wrote:thought I would respond with something a bit more ambitious that might appeal to some of the art rock crowd (which includes Roymond, so again, the risks were calculated).
Will this risky play pay off for the Big Face?
Will roymond weave an interpretive justification into his rating?
Will Frankie's crotales be left in the recycling bin of history?
Tune in later when roymond publishes his colorful lava lamp of reviews...
I honestly was not targeting any particular review, over the years I feel like I have read lots of reviews with that gist. Not meant as a personal jab at all, seriously just thinking out loud - well as loud as I can type.frankie big face wrote:Ross, that sounds awfully close to my review of WSA's song except without the "I'll look past that" part. If you are referring to my review, I would add that a) I am not a judge, b) I don't look past it at all, c) I do think the song is good, and d) I was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid what has followed. Since we're into it pretty heavy now, I would say that, if I were a judge, WSA would be out. Probably so would DJ because she didn't meet the rhyming requirements. Jefff squeaks by for me, but I can't exactly explain why.Ross wrote:The thing that frustrates me most is when there is a review like, "well you got a little too flexible with the challenge, but the song is so good, I'll look past that." because it begs the question of whether the song quality depended on the flexibilty or not.
I think, if the judges do rank WSA high enough to continue, they owe us more clarity on future non-optional challenges and maybe a tiny bit of an explanation. Just my two cents.
Fair enough. I'm cool with near rhymes but some of yours needed to be a little nearer for my tastes. I still think it's a good song and a good villanelle.RangerDenni wrote: ps. These are not variants in b rhymes, but these are Sylvia Plath's lines of 'b' in her villanelle
http://inwardboundpoetry.blogspot.com/2 ... g.html?m=1
"name" and "men"?RangerDenni wrote: ps. These are not variants in b rhymes, but these are Sylvia Plath's lines of 'b' in her villanelle
http://inwardboundpoetry.blogspot.com/2 ... g.html?m=1
Not taken as a jab. Just thought you maybe inadvertently referenced my review.Ross wrote:I honestly was not targeting any particular review, over the years I feel like I have read lots of reviews with that gist. Not meant as a personal jab at all, seriously just thinking out loud - well as loud as I can type.frankie big face wrote:Ross, that sounds awfully close to my review of WSA's song except without the "I'll look past that" part. If you are referring to my review, I would add that a) I am not a judge, b) I don't look past it at all, c) I do think the song is good, and d) I was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid what has followed. Since we're into it pretty heavy now, I would say that, if I were a judge, WSA would be out. Probably so would DJ because she didn't meet the rhyming requirements. Jefff squeaks by for me, but I can't exactly explain why.Ross wrote:The thing that frustrates me most is when there is a review like, "well you got a little too flexible with the challenge, but the song is so good, I'll look past that." because it begs the question of whether the song quality depended on the flexibilty or not.
I think, if the judges do rank WSA high enough to continue, they owe us more clarity on future non-optional challenges and maybe a tiny bit of an explanation. Just my two cents.