Poems that rhyme and poems that don't

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rothiemurchus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the preference for rhyming poetry, with participants noting that many people find rhyming poems more enjoyable due to their musicality and structure. Rhyming poetry is often perceived as more pleasant and memorable, akin to songs, while non-rhyming poetry may resemble prose and convey serious themes. Some contributors argue that writing effective rhyming poetry is more challenging and indicates a higher level of poetic skill. The conversation also touches on cultural influences, suggesting that familiarity with rhyme and meter shapes preferences. Additionally, the evolution of poetry is examined, with references to historical forms and the impact of popular music on contemporary poetic traditions. Overall, the preference for rhyme is linked to comfort with form and the auditory experience of poetry.
Rothiemurchus
Messages
203
Reaction score
1
Most people prefer poems that rhyme. Why is this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Most poems that you read ryhme.. I personally don't like direct rhyming schemes. I really like slanted rhyme (note isaac brock) But there are many writers out there that don't follow traditional ryhming schemes.. The reason why poems rhyme? - in other languages words rhyme nicer, english is pretty confusing. My best way to explain is because people don't like reading paragraphs, they'd rather be reading stanzas : P I also think that rhyming words that relate to ideas you are expressing takes a higher level of thinking
 
I personally find poetry that isn't encumbered by meter or rhyme to often be more powerful. Poems that maintain meter and a rhyme scheme are, however, better for conveying humor.
 
It depends on the poet. It is a lot more difficult to get a powerful effect out of a rhyming poem than out of a non-rhyming one.

Thus, one might say that those poets that DO get something powerful out of rhymes are more accomplished than those poets who are unable to do so.
 
I write poetry, and the only time I write one that rhymes is when I'm not trying to convey an important message. But on the subject of the initial question, I feel that rhyming poems are more pleasant because, in most cases, it seems like a song sung acopella (I don't think I spelled that correctly) and with feeling. While a non-rhyming poem sounds like you're reading a short story. True, it's usually read by rhythm, but because they usually convey a serious meaning, people don't enjoy them as much.
 
I also write poetry, and I find it much harder to write a poem that rhymes and still means something. I think poets like that -- poets like Yeats, Poe, and Blake, not to mention the Bard himself are extraordinary.
 
arildno said:
...
one might say that those poets that DO get something powerful out of rhymes are more accomplished than those poets who are unable to do so.

picklefeet said:
... I feel that rhyming poems are more pleasant because, in most cases, it seems like a song sung acopella (I don't think I spelled that correctly) and with feeling. While a non-rhyming poem sounds like you're reading a short story...

Heidijr said:
I also write poetry, and I find it much harder to write a poem that rhymes and still means something. I think poets like that -- poets like Yeats, Poe, and Blake, not to mention the Bard himself are extraordinary.

I agree with some of what was said in these three posts---maybe most of it.

For me poetry is a VOCAL art, it is spoken and listened to (reading is secondary) and one test of a good short poem is whether it is MEMORABLE, so the words could pop into your mind while you were taking a walk, or at the beach, or just staring out the window.
So poetry is defined (as distinct from prose or like Picklefeet said, a short story) partly by potential for recitation.

Verse, for me, is poetry with some kind of FORM or pattern that the listeners can recognize and hear in real time. That depends on their culture, that they've grown up with. Japanese can hear a HAIKU pattern which depends on a definite number of syllables, but does not need rhyme. Greek and Roman poetry didn't rhyme. It was metrical based on long and short vowells. Greek and Roman poetry did not use stress or accent to define metric.

so it did not have rhyme and it did not have stress-metric rhythm, but it was highly patterned. And the listeners could recognize and appreciate the pattern in real time as they were hearing the poem.

It just happens that a lot of poetry in European languages has rhyme and stress-metric (the pattern of loud and soft syllables). And many of us have grown up with that and can hear and enjoy the pattern.

You might say the tradition goes on one way or another. Whether or not academic poets use rhyme, you find a lot of Broadway show songs and popular songs use it. Who is to say some of that stuff isn't serious in it's own way, or that it won't be remembered?

So I'm interested in how the tradition of poetry in English is evolving and I'm trying to assess the situation by asking what great rhymed metric poetry came about in 1950-2000, the second half of the Twentieth. Here is a thread with a sample
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=244079
 
I think people prefer poems that rhyme because rhymes have a sense of form and people feel comfortable with form. That's why most songs stick to a particular form also (verse, chorus, verse etc.)

It doesn't necessarily make them better or worse, but it does add something. All of http://jinglemonster.com.au/our-blog/" rhyme! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
25K
Replies
90
Views
23K
Replies
20
Views
19K
Replies
4
Views
16K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top