I don't pretend to be an expert on poetry slams. I need to go to some. But this attack makes me think of that Bob Dylan line: "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/poetry-slams-do-nothing-to-help-the-art-form-survive-8475599.html

Greg,
About performance poetry.

Nostalgic for the precincts of my poetic beginings we went to a (wol advertised) gig at the pilgrim pub the other week. And after threading our way through a student packed pub and up a rickerty spiral staircase found ourselves as the only two ancients in teenage land.

The point I am making is that I read (apologising for being something of an old fart) and was very well received...So much so that three separate people outside when I was leaving thanked me for the poetry.I found reception alive, well, and enthusiastic. I came away thinking that if folk were polite enough to listen to me then it behoved me to practice my delivery more and - above all - not to bore them.

poor article here. i co run a poetry open mike night (guitar and verse) and often the quality of poetry runs between both. yes, there are some who wouldn't be suitable maybe for journals but these people don't want, but there are more poetry mike nights than slams (look at write out loud and see what i mean).. surprised this got published

I think he is making some huge generalisations in that article.

I suppose the whole issue he explores is the page versus stage argument - nothing new there.

Rather than seeing performance poetry as a positive that might encourage non poets to look further at page poetry, he seems to see it as a negative - a movement that seeks to challenge the written craft. Why can't the two exist? And is the perceived demise of page poetry really the fault of performance poetry?

Our education system has changed, (though it may well be going full circle again)the last generation wasn't encouraged to wrote learn anything.

Yes - performance poetry needs to be less obscure than page - some may see that as dumbing down - but I would say it all depends on how it is done.

I can understand the fear that poetry might be submerged by the need to be hip and trendy and rappy. There are still slams out there that get won by quiet, thoughtful, moving poetry though - the last 3 that I can remember in Wigan were...

Have had another read. Can't for the life of me see why he is wanting to make a conflict that doesn't exist.

Quote:
'Most slam poems are not strong enough to be published in even minor poetry journals. And that's fine; maybe they don't want to be. Then why attack the poems that do?'

I'd love to know just who's attacking them? The early slam contestants from back in the early 80's? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't - but we are in the 21st century now - surely we've all moved on?

A few things;

a) Poetry "slams" are not the same thing as poetry competitions; poets read aloud or perform their poem at both, but they differ considerably. He doesn't cover this, but we need to bare in mind the difference.

b) Poetry open floor nights or open mics are not slams.

c) This poet speaks of Chicago. The poetry scene in the US is culturally different from that in the UK (e.g Def Jam poetry is very common there). We do not know if the person concerned has ever been to, or has any knowledge of the culture and environment here. His ignorance may only be in reference to his own culture ;). And it may have been bridged to extend to ours.

d) once again we have definition issues, with what "performance poetry" actually is. I mean is it;

1 simply performing or reading aloud a poem at events.

Or

2 writing a poem specifically for performing. Where the nature of the poem is constructed in immediacy, or rhythm, or with visual elements etc

If you take the second definition then we have something to agree with, be neutral about, or rail against. If we take the first definition then poetry is simply poetry.

If we wish to define poetry as performance poetry or page poetry;

Then I would define myself as a "performer of my poetry" and reject the label of a performance poet. The reason? Most of the time I write for the page. For the sake of self expression I then go and read / perform it at open floor/open mic nights. I don't write to perform..

Some may be interested in such definitions, consider how they define themselves - others will not wish to consider such things. Poems written for page, performed or not can be good, everywhere between and bad. Whether read aloud / performed. Poems written for performance to be aural in nature or include display can be good, everywhere in between and bad.

To paraphrase the great, late Ray Charles and apply what he said about music to poetry. There are two types of poetry, good poetry and bad poetry. If he thinks poetry is dead? He's entitled to that opinion. But he's not entitled to his own facts!

He presents a false dichotomy, either page poetry as he narrowly defines it or his definition of performance poetry. He also suggests that page poetry is being or has been killed of by his definition of performance poetry. Yet he presents no evidence whatsoever for that argument, no correlation, let alone anything approaching causation. As far as I can see his ignorance of at least his own culture, possible bridged to include ours. No argument, or at least no evidence of any kind worth serious consideration - even considering his narrow definitions.

He has a chip on his shoulder. Isobel is right, when she asks, where is the conflict? I'd say it's in his mind. The conflict is his. I can't see how he can make a good poetry teacher? Given his attitude people shouldn't hire him imo.

Poetry is not dead; it's as alive as melodrama, personal opinion, or my painful need to over explain my thoughts in such forums.

Sorry for any typos - virtual keyboard and just wanted to get out the essence/logic that I had in mind.

P.S

Poetry breaks down barriers of age, gender, race, social economics, educational background, politics etc.

Of course they accepted, listened and enjoyed Harry. You're a quality poet - it cuts through everything. People hear the heart, mind and soul - however you choose to define the latter.

Heh heh - and now I'm going to out-do you with my own painful need to explain my thoughts.

This article was just begging to be blown apart...

If he indeed taught poetry to 7-14 year olds, why would he expect them to come to him with a great knowledge of poets beyond Shakespeare - surely that was his job? I don't remember ever going to school with a great knowledge of poets - it was something I learnt while I was there. I did go to school having a good knowledge of basic nursery rhymes though - all of which used rhyme and rythm and a natural metre. I imagine that is an area that might have changed in recent years.

Quote:
"Poetry, like all art, whispers its message and we must learn to slow down and take the time to hear it."

How presumptuous to think that he can define any artform. Some art whispers at you, and some screams; the day it ever becomes definable is a sad one.

I agree with all of that ^

What's the world coming too? haha.

Joking aside - well said.

Thanks Chris - it's really hard to find anything in there to agree with, isn't it? Other than the slight fear that rap might become the over-riding perception of what performance poetry is - for those who know nothing about poetry...

My one last thought on the article (I think)is that in my experience, comic poetry loses out to serious poetry every time in a slam. An audience may love it, it may entertain them, but a serious well written poem always blows the judges away.

I think people want to be moved more than they want to laugh. Or at least they recognise the importance of lauding well expressed grief/ sadness/trauma over a well expressed belly laugh.

Great discussion thread, Greg - I really enjoyed thinking about it. I suppose you need such articles to be written, just to shake us all up!

i think the guy has a point - and in that point there is a part of me which laments what is present yet unspoken - in that context i think it brave to point out in such a nostalgic and referenced perspective

though everything is relative and art and politics have never been separated by anything other than the whiff of different printers

I've just read the article and do not see too much contention in it, however I never really trust the "poacher turned gamekeeper" angle on any subject.

As a confirmed page poet (a title as unflattering as performance poet to my thinking) I do often feel that performance poetry is more ephemeral and shorter lasting (oho! here comes the cavalry) being more in the moment so to speak. Not better or worse, just of the moment.

I suppose his sentiment is that of the hard-working musician denouncing the X Factor style instant win fame etc.

He does have a point about taking the time to listen however.

I went to a concert (sorry gig) last night of an emerging four-piece group known as "Piefinger". They were excellent and I enjoyed the night.
Today however I can't really remember much of the content just the atmosphere.

To me the same could be said of performance poetry, especially that performed in noisy pubs. Great atmosphere but only memorable for that.

I often wonder why serious poets don't perform in public libraries more often (aren't they in danger of closing due to lack of use) and then go to the pub afterwards.

I cannot be an arbiter of performance (never done it, never will) but have observed enough to know that it must be easier to slip some poor work through, that won't be remembered, compared to seeing it laying there on the page for everyone to pick over for ages to come.

Having seen & heard a lot of 'page poetry' that is as dull as dishwater, as well as a lot of truly abysmal performance poetry, I am tempted to say 'a plague on both your houses.' Seems to me if the poetry doesn't have some kind of inner necessity it ain't worth the paper it's written on. Writing just for an audience, or a readership even, ultimately is no better than x factor.

Not the 'just': that doesn't mean ignoring readers and listeners; just have some purpose other than just entertainment. Or even just 'venting' of your feelings, which makes it just therapy, and who wants to listen to someone's therapy session?

But the issue of definitions raises its head again guys.

Both Graham and Steven - you respond talking in various ways about performance and or versus page poetry, but does the original article speak of this at all?

As far as I can see he speaks of Slams versus page poetry - surely that is different?

Slams are very different.

Also again I come back to...what is performance poetry?

Graham you define yourself as a page poet. I presume you do this because you write for the page, yes? And if you came to a poetry night and listened, I presume you would think you were therefore listening to performance poetry?

But that would not be true. Why? Because at least half the people at poetry nights write for the page and then read aloud or perform that work. So in what way is that performance poetry?

Clearly we have a problem because whenever people talk about performance poetry, they are often talking at crossed purposes and using different definitions.

Chris I don't so much as define myself as a page poet. I thought that what I did defined me as a page poet.

On the issue of writing and then reading aloud. I assumed that poets such as yourself perhaps, actually wrote with performance in mind, whereas I do not.

Quote
Chris I don't so much as define myself as a page poet. I thought that what I did defined me as a page poet.
Unquote

Ok, so I'll come at this from your reverse angle.
You see yourself as a page poet, because you write for the page and that defines you - yes? Well half the people you will find at poetry nights, (note I don't say slams) write for the page and then read their poetry out loud, or attempt to act out their poem to the best of their ability (perform).

So how or in what way are they performance poets?
You see this is why defining what performance poetry is and what a performance poet is, is so important. Otherwise lots of people talk away and use the same terms as one another, whilst they talk about differing things/at cross purposes - often without ever realizing it.

-----------------------------------------

On a separate note/aside;

most poets, page or otherwise, should write - bearing in mind the sounds of words and with how they will be read in mind. This was as true Shakespeare as for Emily Dickinson, as true for Milton as for Wilfred Owen. As true for Christina Rossetti as Andrew Motion etc.

Because even if a poet never reads or performs their own work and provides it just for the page. They are asking the reader to read the work, and poetry is meant ultimately to be read aloud!

The above is something to consider.

------------------------------------------

Having said the above - I don't think you mean the same thing - by reading aloud. In fact I'm sure you don't. I think what you mean is; you do not write your poetry with a view to reading it out loud yourself, as in at a poetry night.

Quote
On the issue of writing and then reading aloud. I assumed that poets such as yourself perhaps, actually wrote with performance in mind, whereas I do not.
Unquote

What on earth made you think that? That is a massive assumption. I write for the page and then I try to share that by reading it aloud or performing - that which is on the page. Lots and lots of people do the very same at poetry nights. If I write for the page - does it become performance poetry and do I become a performance poet - as soon as I read my work aloud or attempt to make it perform?

Surely not?

Otherwise W.B Yeats, Larkin and many others - their work must also have become performance poetry and them performance poets the moment they read their work aloud.

I think we would agree that is nonsense. Well if it is nonsense above for Yeats and Larkin it is equally nonsense when applied to myself or many, many others at poetry nights. This is why attacks on poetry nights by those on the outside (not you Graham, I no that isn't your thing) misconstrues what poetry nights are about. It is why often such attacks are ignorant, baseless and wide of the mark.

Moving on from this - what happens when poetry written for the page is read aloud or performed and it wins poetry competitions or even slams?

It was still written for the page - therefore surely it is still page poetry - no?

What happens when a poem written for performance wins a written competition?

Does it then become worthy for elitist snobs who sneer at performance and poetry written for performance? Mmm

The mud of all this is defining poetry. Especially because delineating or demarcation lines between the too blurrrrr when someone like me or Isobel or Dave Bradley or xyz goes and writes against form.

I go and write the odd performance piece and Isobel writes for the page and Dave Bradley writes for performance and Pete Crompton writes for the page etc Haha Maybe the exceptions prove the rule - who knows? But still we have the issue of defining what it is we mean in all this.

Maybe we should have two definitions;

Performance poetry - being poetry written for performance.

and

Poetry performance - the read aloud or poetry - performed, which has been written in the age old way for the page.

If we don't bother with definitions we get mud. We get confusion.

a) Someone who doesn't like performance poetry thinking they don't or wont like poetry or poets, just because they have read or performed.

Assuming such poets are aural in performance and shallow - when in fact they might have been published many times or have their own work sat in major stores.

b) We get assumptions that poetry written with depth - can't have been read out or performed etc.

etc etc

I realize I'm rattling on - but the points I'm making are real, not simply about theoretical labels, but about real perceptions. The problematic nature of this lack of, or poorly defined elastic term had you think;

I and many other people wrote for performance and that's not true for me and many others. Poetry nights are a mixed bag of performance and page, page and performance and hybrids of both. They need to be experienced, one after another...then understanding comes as to what each poet and occasion are.

P.S

And performance poetry can be as good as page poetry, better than page poetry or worse.

Writing for the page is in some ways every bit as much of a performance as writing for the stage. You're trying to elicit a response, whether emotional, aesthetic or intellectual or a combination of all three, in an audience. Even when using alienation techniques, you're creating a response (as in Brecht, for instance.)

In a sense, the distinction is one of degree, there's no strong line between a performance poem and a page poem. Even with the experimental wing, where I've seen a reading of Kurt Schwitter's Ursonate which doesn't contain any words in any language, but contains a lot of sounds, or a woman sound poet (Paula Claire) "read" the markings on the stomach of a great crested newt, you're communicating something with an audience.

And purely visual poetry, or difficult 'page' poetry, is also a performance; but on the page. And sometimes you'll throw it down in disgust, and sometimes you'll lap it up.

There is room for all.
Choose your poison and don't yell that the other man's will kill ya.

Good post Steven, very good.

Phil - I agree.

Faint sigh of relief.

: )

Jx

contribute or don't.

Did.

: )

Jx