And it presumes that what is valuable about lyrics is how they reflect those literary values and skills. This desire presumes that poems, because they are “literature,” must be serious, that is, written in forms that reflect obvious mastery of literary mannerisms (whether formal, like rhyme or metrical language, or something more elusive like elaborate fanciness of some kind). It seems absurd to me to contend that lyrics inherently have less literary merit than poetry, or are easier to create, or are less valuable in a cultural or human sense, and therefore somehow do not deserve the rarified title of “poetry.” But I also think the desire to consider lyrics as literature reflects some unfortunate and persistent biases that are detrimental to both poetry and song. What I suppose some musicians want is not to be considered poets, but for their lyrics to be read with the same respect they imagine poems are.

If song lyrics are studied in school, often it is ethnographically or anthropologically, to learn something about a culture, not as literature per se. It is certainly true that poems are taught (for better or worse) in classrooms and made a part of the canon of literature, whereas songs, especially popular ones, usually are not.

This reflects not a commercial move on their part, but a desire for the words they write to be taken seriously. Many musical artists present their song lyrics as poetry. While it’s easy to give the answer that poems don’t have any music behind them and song lyrics do, that doesn’t really explain anything. What is the difference between poetry and song lyrics? I am often asked this question by students or casual readers of poetry. The Difference Between Poetry and Song Lyrics The biases inherent in such a distinction do a disservice to both.

Song lines with images