I hate the idea of 'teachy-preachy' anything, but I have to allow that all the poetry I best like, including my own work, has either subtle or clear points to make which borders on 'messaging'. Is this really an umbrella aspect of ART of any kind?

Are the most impactive poems messages?

Does more impactive poetry carry a message? I would say not always but often.
I love poetry that gives you emotion, stirs your feelings - probably a form of narcissism cos that is the kind of poetry I try to write.
People who do that aren't alway putting a message over as such - just their experiences, frustrations, sadness, happiness - whatever...
If the sole purpose of a poem is to put a message over, whether you like it or not will depend on whether you like the message - as well as how much you respect the crafting.
I love poems that touch me emotionally as well as getting a message over - they can be quite inspiring.
In general, it is hard to specify what floats your boat. You can describe exactly what you think the perfect poem is and then one comes along that you really love and it fills none of that criteria.

Hello. A bold/bald message usually puts me off even if I am of like mind. The current poem of the month is a case in point even though I can see it would work very well in performance. I can be drawn to a poem just for the construction of the words regardless of whether there is any apparent meaning. Like Isobel I enjoy well crafted words that convey an emotion rather than an opinion or certainly a message.

John

I quite like it when the meaning is there but it is a little more oblique and is there in parallel with what the poem does to its audience rather than as the main show. Also like it when the message is balanced and sees the big picture rather than all these "I think war is bad so we shouldn't have wars so why are we having wars; it doesn't make sense and it's all the fault of the politicians, and I'd never have a war because I'm not that sort of person and there are never any good economic and political reasons to have wars" sort of poets.

Have to agree with Isobel (never thought I'd say that) that the emotional/engagement/entertainment of whatever sort aspect is the thing that draws me initially to a poem and tends to remain a major part of my enjoyment on revisiting.

"I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry" as John Cage used to say.

But then again, I should talk. All I'm doing is bringing you messages from the Martians...

Isobel, you always make such good comments. Girl, when do you sleep?

Isn't an emotional response to a poem a form of conversation or connecting, of sending and receiving a message?

By definition 'message' simply means 'communication'. If we aren't trying to communicate, why do we write? Even if this conversing is between Me, Myself and I, purely personal, why are we so compelled to publish, ie. share? Surely, we must think we have a message that will make human contact, somewhere.

This all gets a bit complicated.

I mean, the "message" of most poetry is often one of the least interesting things about it. It's the way that message is put across that makes a poem interesting, not the fact that it's telling us it loves us/hates racism/had a nice time in Paris. The sounds of the words, even the spaces and silences between the words, are part of its meaning, in the same way that colour and line or timbre and key signature are parts of the meaning of visual art or music. But you can't put that into words.

Somebody said that when you translate a poem, what you miss out is the poetry. You get the meaning, but you miss the poetry. I think that's true of the best poetry. Poetry "communicates" non-verbally as well a verbally.

Also, of course, poetry doesn't simply communicate. It indicates, and there is always more than one way of reading a poem. What the poet intends and what the reader gets from the poem are never entirely the same thing. There's always a dialogue between the poem and the reader; and the writer isn't part of that dialogue. You can't ask Shakespeare what he meant by that image; and neither should you ask Isobel, or Cynthia, or Steven, Once the poem leaves us, it no longer belongs to us, and what it means is up to the reader.

Steve, if you are referring to the musical element of poetry, I totally agree with you. I find many 'poems' on this site empty of music in the choice of word sounds, verbal rhythm and line breaks. The thoughts are there but the defining element of poetry isn't.

Excellent point about translations. Recently, I heard a famous Indian poet reading a Hindu poem in English, and stumbling on quite miserably. A very perceptive person in the audience, himself a poet, asked to hear it in the original language. The meaning was thus completely lost, and the poetry rendition quite beautiful. Very good point indeed.

Thanks for your comment Cynthia. LOL - no I don't sleep much - if I did I wouldn't have a life at all and I do so enjoy the discussions and poetry on this site.
I would agree with you and Steven that the sound of the poem is as important as the message itself - if indeed there is a message. I couldn't listen to too many poems that I didn't understand though - be that because they are in a foreign language or because they are unfathomably deep. I like to understand what I am reading or hearing. For me it is best if the two go hand in hand.
I am intrigued by your definition of a message. If a message is indeed just any communication then most poetry is putting out a message out of some sort. If I was writing a poem about a piece of still life, I would be communcating with you of sorts. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here - I guess the difference between message and communication is a grey one with differing levels.
To me personally, a message refers more to a perception or opinion of something, someone, some phenomena, though that is obviously debatable.

Definition from The Concise English Dictionary ... Cassell.

I also thought it was a bit broad, but the source is a good one. It's a real 'thinker', this business of 'messaging'; could take you into any field imaginable, from the mundane to the mystical -because we're humans, I suppose, and our inter-communication needs are so great - to connect with present, past and future humans.

Just thought I'd make one or two comments further.

I've always wondered what people meant when they say "unfathomably deep." I know there is poetry that is "difficult", but I think the word "deep" to me refers to something else, something to do with the profundity of the poem, and probably undefinable. Blake's Songs of Innocence are "deep"; but they can't really be called "difficult."

There are various kinds of difficulty, of course. The kind of difficulty you like may well depend on the kind of aesthetic you prefer. I prefer the aesthetic of "discovery"; that the poet and the reader between them are discovering a meaning for the poem. I value experiment, juxtaposition, the use of found materials, changes in register, multivocal texts, rather than, say, a single narrative strand, clarity of language, single voiced (whether of the poet or a "character"). I like the idea that the poem has been improvised, rather than designed (I'm a jazz fan!)

But other people, no doubt, will hate that kind of stuff, will just be puzzled by it, will find it bewildering. There's a thin line between being puzzled by something and being intrigued by it. I'm intrigued, others are puzzled.

As I said before, I think the poetry I like "indicates" rather than "communicates": it points things out, shows us things that might be worth looking at (even different aspects of language: a couplet from a recent pamphlet by Ralph Hawkins:

the 24 letters of the alphabet
form worms and express our thoughts

which made me smile. And no, there is no typo there.) I don't think all poetry is for all readers, any more than I think everybody is going to like jazz, or Marmite, but I think it can all be enjoyed, if you want to enjoy it. Some people think that's elitist; it's not, it simply allows people to have their own taste.

Wallace Stevens said that a poem should resist the intelligence almost successfully. I like that almost. Some poems are more almost than others, but a good poem always has something of the sardine can about it: there's always something in the corner you can't get out. That's why we want to read it again and again.

I like my poetry soaked in cryptology. It allows me to formulate my own ideas after gnawing on its gristly cryptic dangly bits. I often interpret poems 'wrongly' or at the very least not the way in which some poets would expect a reader to interpret their work.

I like the fact that language is not a one dimensional entity and that poetry can facilitate the use of linguistic binoculars, viewing constituents through their 'wrong-end'.

I love the fact that established concepts of langauge's words can be challenged in order to communicate something entirely different with the use of form or what may appear to be 'stuff and nonsense' and that they can actually make sense when dewlled upon for more than one read-through.

Is a poet a messenger? Well, I liken it to the...can I say this? To the game of 'Chinese Whispers'. As the poem is passed along, its interpretaion will always be affected by a nuance of individual thought. The 'message' could change as thinking evolves...or does the message stay the same and just thinking evolves...?

Summat like that any road...

A poet is a messenger, a seer, a scribe, a joker, etc. just depends on the poet and the intent, coupled with the poet's ability.
It is like art (music,novels etc) with its genres and so on.
Some are better at one thing, some are good at none but want to be 'in the pond' anyway, and some are naturally uninterested, merely enjoying what they do (that does not make it bad) because they have a talent.
That would lead me to one of my favourite topics of True Poet, like true musician &c.- a True Artist
enough, bye

Really makes you think doesn't it. Putting down the wrong number of letters in the alphabet and hoping that you might misread 'worms' for 'words'. Genius

A poet is a person who creates poetry.

Well, it made me smile. And words are long strings of letters, which are a bit worm-like, so I like that too.

And noticing odd things is what poets do, ain't it?

Isn't it true that any form of writing is a message? At its most basic level writing is just another way of recording thoughts/speech to enable someone else to be able to share them. As to whether poems carry messages, I guess some do and some don't. It depends, as so much else, on the poet's intention. Some poems are simply the musings/observations of the poet; if these are interpreted by the reader as messages then so be it. Language and writing obviously evolved as a necessity for communication; therefore if communication is "messages" then poets are messengers. It is only the relevance, validity and value of the message that seems to vary.

Yes - I would agree with everything the fool says - except when I don't - which isn't now. Is that a confusing message or what?
If communication is messaging, then by definition, poets are messengers. Whether we understand that communication or message is, I guess, irrelevant to the original question.

Yes.

As someone once said - "I always tell lies."

Oh poo Anthony - and I thought I was going to have the last word.
I guess by Cassells definition that one liner of yours constitutes a poem. It is a communication and it sends a message but just in case anyone feels like debating that one - know that you can count me out!

Hmm, but is a message that which is sent, or what is received?
Do poets send messages, or do they use words for poetic effect, leaving the reader/listener (where there are any) to make what they will of the words?
Is this almost right, Steve?

Aye, summat like that.

'Course, it's often a combination of the two. As soon as your poetry leaves your lips and hits other peoples' ears, it's open to whatever interpretation the reader hears through the wax.

And, as Cynthia suggests, it is better if they can make what the listener hears through the wax, lyrical. sorry!