Not being too well versed in the dark art of “performance” poetry I occasionally look in on the offerings posted on YouTube and the like by various exponents of the genre and their acolytes. I guess recordings of these fifteen minutes of fame slots are always going to suffer when amateur sound/video equipment is placed in the hands of amateur sound/video technicians. But, even allowing for this I remain a little perplexed as to how many of these performances remain largely unintelligible.

PP is always going to be very different from page poetry – I accept that, but surely, as with any form of “artistic” communication, the object is to convey a “message”? It seems to me that some performers are so intent on “performing” that the message becomes secondary to the performance – largely facial expression, gesturing, dressing up and dancing around on stage.

Surely we write our material and put it out there to be read/heard; so the message comes first? Why then muddy that message with lively, yet confusing rendering which only seems to detract from the original material?

I have seen many examples where performers seem to take pride in delivering their memorised material (I acknowledge this as a feat in its self) as fast as humanly possible, in what seems to be a crossover with rapping. This seems to me to fail, simply because performance doesn’t allow the opportunity for a second/third reading, as with page poetry. There will no doubt always be extremes in all kinds of performance – as there should be, but I would hesitate to part with my hard earned time or money to see a performance which I had no chance of connecting with due to poor presentation.

We can’t all have the diction and enunciation of Richard Burton, Martin Jarvis, Susannah York or Glenda Jackson – more’s the pity, but possibly we could attempt to make the concession that our audience needs to be able to hear and understand what we are saying? Maybe a poet simply sitting and clearly reading their work, with their preferred emphasis, intonation, pause and pacing, to an audience doesn’t count as performance poetry – and I’m happy to be advised on this.

I have to say though that I find this infinitely preferable to watching/listening to someone who may as well be relating the anguish caused by the death of their goldfish in broad Klingon.

In thinking about this maybe there’s a gap here that WOL can fill. In posting our work on the WOL blog we open it up for comment and critique; a valuable resource for all writers. I may be wrong (I usually am) but there doesn’t seem to be any forum that gives the same opportunity for performance? It might be (if performers aren’t too reluctant to put their strutting up for comment) an idea to facilitate this somewhere on the WOL site. For myself, having not had much performance experience, other than open mic and a few invited readings, I would find this a valuable opportunity to hone my skills and see how I hold up against the superstars of PP.

I hope readers will realise by now that I’m simply asking a question of those far more experienced and knowledgeable – can “performance” and “poetry” happily co-exist? Or does one necessarily have to suffer at the expense of the other?

(And, is it possible to have a civilised debate on the subject?!)

Regards,

A.E.

I have to ask, I think, precisely what is this message the poet (or 'performer') is supposed to be conveying. It makes the poet sound like some kind of preacher or prophet, and with the possible exception of Blake and Ginsburg I don't see anyone aspiring to that kind of status.

There's that John Cage saying comes to mind: "I have nothing to say, and I am saying, and that is poetry" (brilliantly mucked around with, by the way, in Edwin Morgan's "Opening The Cage" poem.) I don't personally think that the poetry I write is anything other than an attempt to explain myself to myself, and an exploration of language as a medium of sound, vision and communication.

An awful lot of performance poetry seems to me to be a bunch of middle class kids trying to be "street" without actually having to do the hard work of living in a run-down estate with no jobs and no prospects (See The So-Called Best of Manchester Poets for evidence...) mixed in with a smidgeon of identity politics (ooh look at me, aren't I oppressed 'cause I'm gay/a woman/black/a lover of diary-based products.)

But that's me. Ol' Moan Arse.

I suspect like most discussion threads, the bottom line for this one will boil down to personal taste.

You (Anthony), me and I suspect a good 90% of the audience would like to hear a message, or hear something at all - particularly if that involves some understanding of the poem. Given the fact that we are only going to get one opportunity to decipher the words into meaning, that means it has to be read slowly enough and be unobscure.

There are always the 10% of folk, I guess, who are happy to listen to poetry just for its sound - I can't imagine a non poet audience fitting into this statistic though. For that reason I don't think a lot of experimental poetry makes for good performance poetry.

So many very successful slam poets speak too fast for me. I want to slow them right down so I can appreciate what they are saying. I can only assume that the judges have read their work prior and that they are widely acclaimed on paper also. Either that or they have supersonic ears and brains...
I suppose a lot of them are trying to fit their poems into a strict 3 minute slot. Far better to cut the poems down somewhere and slow it down.

Can performance and poetry happily exist? Of course it can - but with varying degrees of competancy, like music and lyrics...

Love the idea of a spot on WOL for posting poetry performance. Not sure whether anyone would be really seeking serious criticism but it could work... Have already had to delete numerous parts of this contribution as I decided poets I was referencing were too identifiable and didn't want to offend.

It's an interesting thread Anthony.

Steven - Ol Moan arse? Nay never!...
Your 3rd paragraph made me laugh - write a ranty poem about it and you'd have one brilliant performance poem that would have a loud and clear message...

Hi Anthony,

Just like any performance, it takes an appropriate balance to get it right. Like you,
I have watched many ‘perform’ on video recordings where they are basically yelling or doing something to distract from the words/message. Sometimes their words don’t match with the style of delivery. I think we can all relate the experience to watching someone sing a horrible song or act out a part in a play or movie where we are distracted by something other than their words and the message gets lost on us.

To stand out above the ordinary, you must captivate your audience with your presence and words to leave them touched by the experience.

I agree Francine. Touch them, make them feel, make them laugh. Whether you do it from paper or memory is irrelevant - so long as you are living the words when you say them - not reciting parrot fashion or reading dry bones...

Poetry IS the experience that any reader or listener has of it. Every experience will undoubtably be different from those that preceeded it and any sort of performance can only serve to enrich this continuing development. Despite what any poetical authority may say, the lifeblood of poetry is neither Truth nor Beauty. It is Inspiration.

Interesting thread. Very.

I think there are two main types of performance poetry which both work. There is a type (let's call it Type A) which sweeps the listener along and creates or stirs up feelings, images, associations and moods as it does so. Meanings - in any analytical sense - can interfere with the effect.

The second type (Type B - usually delivered more slowly) has the hearer captivated by the words and wanting to hear the next one. Meaning is at the heart of it.

Both can work - depending on what the audience want and are capable of connecting with. I don't think Type A should be criticised because it isn't Type B - or vice versa.

Hi Danny,

Yes, poetry is (should be) the experience, but if you, as a performer, do not connect with your audience, how can it inspire? Are you saying then that any performance – perceived as either good or bad – can inspire?
If I am not touched in some way, I would be more inclined to be ‘inspired’ to never want to ‘experience’ that again.

Sorry Dave - you've lost me there. How can a poem stir up feelings and moods if it has no meaning?

I don't see truth or beauty as the lifeblood of poetry either - though I tend to enjoy poetry that includes them. All I ask is to be touched in some way - laughter does that also - though I don't just seek light weight poetry.

Some people write and enjoy poetry that I find repulsive - I guess they are seeking to replicate the darker sides of life - I can't imagine how any of it is inspirational. As I said before there is no definitive answer to any of this.

Yes i agree unreservedly with the idea that the performance of a poem is of great importance. I do think, though, that it is important to realise that this is not simply a case of getting it right or wrong. There is no right or wrong performance because the listeners cannot come to any right or wrong conclusions. The experiences will always be varied, in infinitely unexpected ways.

Check this site for a guy named Alabaster DePlume. That, to me is sensational performance poetry, with the performance superbly in tune with the poetry itself. On the other hand I would happily trade the collective works of every poet who ever lived so long as i could keep the poetry of Ted Hughes with me till I die. And Ted crafted his performances to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible.

The greatest thing about all art is that there are an infinite number of ways in which it can be amazing.

Yes, the experiences will always be varied…
When I say that it takes an appropriate balance to get it right – I am referring to the combination of performance and words. If you do not perform to where your audience is engaged, then this is not simply a case of getting it right or wrong, but a case of what is the point?

Thanks for clarifying/questioning what I said about dark poetry John. I wasn't speaking about catharsis or poetry exploring abuse, violence in a sympathetic way. Nor was I talking about sex poetry.

Occasionally poetry on these subjects is written for humour or for gruesome fascination. I've come to the conclusion that it's all about perspective. The sense of humour of males is sometimes very different from that of females, who can see things from a child's perspective or from a womans. I won't bang the drum anymore or I'll get labeled! I do recognise that art is about freedom and people can write what they like. I normally skip over the things I don't like. Ever so often I find it hard, though.

All readings of a poem are a performance only with a recognition that there's someone listening.

"Sorry Dave - you've lost me there. How can a poem stir up feelings and moods if it has no meaning?"

Isobel - just thought I'd comment on this, as I don't think Dave was saying the poem would be totally meaningless, just that it wouldn't necessarily have a strong message (as in "Torys Are Bad".) So a poem can affect you emotionally without being direct or obvious.

Thanks Steven - that's exactly what I had in mind. That describes well some of the poems on Thursday night in Bolton. One had no curiosity about what the next word would be, but was being invited along for a ride on a torrent of political emotion, grumbling and invective, which wouldn't have survived any kind of cerebral analysis for a second. That isn't a criticism - it is what it is, and was enjoyed.

Have deleted my last comment which was a load of twaddle - I understand what you (Dave) and you (Steven) are trying to say now.

There is poetry that just seeks to entertain without telling you how to think and behave and there is the type B poetry that has a direct message which can get up your nose, or not depending on whether you agree with it and how well executed it is - also how many pints you've downed...

Correct me again if I'm wrong :-)

Not wrong, Izz, but I think it goes wider than being given a message or being told what to think. For me, it's about whether the effect of the poem rests primarily on the meaning each word conveys, or whether it 'floats above' the text and doesn't depend much on the meaning of any particular word. I'm probably not explaining it very well

Right - so it's whether a poem creates a mood rather than a meaning or message...and a meaning may or may not be in there - but you will be left with an impression. Descriptive poetry would be like that I guess. I'm reminded of that Gareth who came on at the Tudor once, with the poem about the sea.

I think you're on the same page as Dave now Isobel.

Personally I find Dave's a/b dichotomy useful even if not literally true. It's good in that it gives you a fair gist of what is often seen at open mics.

The question for me really revolves around what is performance poetry? I mean if you write primarily for the page, carefully choosing each word and if you then read so those words are given time to breathe in the mind of the audience...then is that performance poetry or not? I mean I have done that with page poetry...breathing life into poems that have sometimes taken weeks or months to construct.

You could say it is performance poetry as soon as you perform it. You could say it is performance poetry based upon style etc...

In a way people might need to define what it is they mean so apples are being compared with apples.

Just so long as that page poetry is fathomable, I would say - for an listening audience as well - which brings us back to Dave's contribution.

Poems which create mood are fine - but a poem about the sea, is a poem about the sea - it has a meaning. I personally can't enjoy listening to a poem for mood alone - otherwise it is just a selection of words thrown together.

I woke up this morning thinking about showy verses telly poetry. I've been accused of being too obvious with my poetry at times. I think it works well sometimes for performance stuff though. I guess it is a question of getting the balance right. Too telly and you insult the intelligence of your audience - give them not enough to think about. Perhaps it's all about showing in the right way ie giving your readers/audience a cat in hell's chance of understanding you...

A lot of the poetry I like (modernist, "experimental" etc etc) tends to be only partly fathomable, or only fathomable after several readings. But I like poetry to have an interesting surface: of sound & verbal music, or of interest/intrigue. I don't have to understand it right away if there's something for the mind to hang onto. There's a Russian formalist term: "estrangement", or making-strange, that I'm attracted to: the idea that you actually increase reader/audience pleasure by not giving the game away too easy.

Some poems are like an episode of Columbo: you know 'who did it' and how and the only interest is in how the detective traps the murderer. That's fine, and familiar, and comfortable; but I also like working things out for myself, without the writer giving me the end at the beginning, or even all the clues.

A lot of the 'poetry' events arent billed as such, they are open mic and spoken word. It's great when you can mix performance poetry in with music nights. The audience on these events are there to have an evening out and can enjoy being introduced to performance poetry and spoken word this way. Performance poetry if done well can not only convey message and meaning but it can entertain. This helps to erode the stigma attached to 'poetry' . I would say that when i read it is a 'performance' and that the performance takes over the words. I do make an effort with the cornerstone words, the words that form the frame and core meaning, to make sure those words are delivered clearly, the ranting infill may be fast, but the style and delivery of them is such that emotion is conveyed. The words should also work on the page, otherwise you are simply ranting.

Should we call this 'spoken word performance' ?

The biggest reward with performance poetry is to entertain the crowd, I think that is the driving force, a completely different motivation from poetry.

Im happy to be labelled as 'spoken word artist' rather than poet.

I doubt the whole genre on a daily basis.

Surely a poetic 'readaround'is performance. Reading poetry aloud is performing it? If i read from a book is that not performance. Identification with a character surely provokes you to take on the attributes you ascribe them when reading it?

Is rap poetry?
Whats this street poetry stuff, I dunno

one thing i found that works the best though is

be yourself no matter what.
the audience wants to see you in performance.

in poetry they want to see themselves.

"in poetry they want to see themselves."

Is that all? How boring of the audience...

No doubt that explains the popularity of Coldplay - they want their music to be as boring and bland as they are.

I think Coldplay are popular because they combine excellent musical skills with tuneful songs and lyrics that most people can identify with, actually....

I would agree with everything Pete says re spoken/written words. By 'seeing themselves' I think he possibly means, interpreting written poetry for themselves - because page poetry is about your own connection with a poem.

Performance poetry has so much more to do with the delivery of that poem. Being yourself is the best piece of advice anyone could give a performer. Good performance poets do entertain an audience and not always with laughter. The key is getting the right material for the right audience and yes it is wonderful if you can break through to a non poet audience and touch someone.

Coldplay - the dullest band in pop. They don't so much play music as extrude it like spray cheese.

If all the audience want from music & poetry is to 'identify' with it, then the audience are a bunch of middle-class dullards who need a wet fish slapped in their faces.

Clearly you are not a cheese and pickle man then...

I love it and I'd rather be sprayed in it than hot chocolate. I also like fish and most of my friends and associates like fish - does that make me a middle class dullard? Heavens, I came from working class stock - I must be going up in the world LOL

I refuse to be insulted by you Steven - I think you are a sweetie who likes to liven things up ;-) xx

I don't see the point of any writing that isn't a surprise to both the writer and the reader.

I don't see the point of giving an audience what they want; they want what they had last night, because they're scared of what they might want tomorrow.

Poetry in England is the photograph of a red rag shown to the photograph of a bull.

That includes performance poets - the orchestra pointlessly playing their tunes as the Titanic sinks...

I don't read or listen to poetry to be surprised - I do so to be entertained. Great if that entertainment involves some surprise but it isn't paramount for me and I suspect many others.

I hear what you are saying Steven. You are in to experimental poetry and it works for you. For the life of me, random pieces of rubbish picked out of bins and put into a poem, just don't float my boat. I'm happy for other people to enjoy that kind of thing though. Clearly it wouldn't sit well in performance poetry either, unless re-jigged to be made funny.

I can see that the performance scene isn't for everyone but it provides great entertainment and occupation for a growing number of people. Why knock it? If you don't enjoy it, just stay clear of it or watch it drown...

"I don't read or listen to poetry to be surprised - I do so to be entertained."

Well, go and read some Mills & Boon novels then.

There are several responses I could make to that but I wouldn't stoop so low...

Instead I shall take a deep breath and call it a day. Some arguments are not there to be won or lost.

This has got daft.


To paraphrase Ray Charles and consider poetry.

The are only two types of poetry;

Good poetry and bad poetry.

And before anyone says, of course that is a false dichotomy and yes it is more a case of spectrum.

However for illustrative purposes, poetry is either good or its bad.

The form is less relevant.

It is simply a case of respecting the differing mediums and the format you are applying yourself to.

For instance I write primarily for the page, that is my gold standard. However because I do not have the tendency to remove connective language, my poems usually translate quite easily to a performance at least on one level.

I am aware that occasionally some poems I write will simply will NOT suit a performace due to the inherent nature of what they are. This is very true where a poem needs multiple readings or in-depth consideration in order to derive any significant pleasure from it.

In such cases I do not perform such poems.

In other cases I know that poems will be somewhat hamstrung and I accept that.

Equally on occasion I write poems with a performance in view.

There are advantages and disadvantages to differing skills sets.

I mean why bother with an eye rhyme that only works on the page if you are writing for performance?

When writing for the page, why try and use the verbal chicanery and linguistic tricks that will appear transparently trite on the page?

A poem that is written for performance or that can translate well from page to performance requires certain criteria and a certain skill set.

The same is true for the page in the reverse polarity.

It is easy to read terrible page poetry and read terrible performace poems on the page.

It is just as easy to hear terrible page poems performed and hear terrible performance poems performed.

The contrary is also true.

We can all find crap poetry of all kinds, just as it is EASY to find great examples of all kinds.

You know it is all about pros and cons, it is all about trade-offs and what it is you are trying to achieve.

Also some things do break with rules, norms etc

Page poems can and do win poetry competitions and slams.

Likewise performance poems do win page competitions.

A page poem that has too much connective language removed or has images layed too thick or is too convoluted or require multiple reads to get out of it a surface enjoyment...will usually fail in performance.

Likewise a too direct, too simple to obviously spoken performance poem will usually do little on the page and fail.

But not always...always exceptions to the rule.

I could have argued this in a more precice way, but there really is little need.


And to use that terrible cliche;

At the end of the day if you do not like a certain form of poetry- do not engage in it- nobody is forcing you to LOL

I think that steve and Isobels exchange would make a great performance piece, especially as Izzy wont be messed around! ;-)

lively debate indeed

I'm wondering if I could perform /adapt some mills and boon? Steve can you reccommend any that perform well?

Ha – glad to have entertained without a Mills & Boons novel in hand even …

Having said I would say no more, I have decided to continue saying my piece, as is my want – no surprises there…

I am wondering if some page poets consider performance poetry to be a dumbing down of the art form rather than complementary off shoot. There certainly seems to be a lot of condescension towards it from certain quarters. Like anything, done well, performance poetry is exceptional – as Pete says, making poetry come to life for the masses. There are of course many examples where it isn’t done well – after all, most of us are amateurs, just having a good time. I can see that it is very easy to make an average or below average poem sound good, if you have stage presence and know how to put your stuff over. Conversely, great poetry can sound shite if it isn’t delivered well. Perhaps this is what gives performance poetry a bad name. However, there are some great performance poets out there who work well on page and stage – Pete for one and Rachel McGladdery for another. It is a joy to listen and read either of them.

I think it is also great that the less than brilliant poets have an opportunity to shine in some way. Since we are all happy to listen to each other, and these venues are flourishing, we must be succeeding in some small way.

Quote
There certainly seems to be a lot of condescension towards it from certain quarters.
Unquote

It depends who you mean and what your reading into it.

Of course some people are yea, the reverse is true with some people slighting page poetry in the same way.

It cuts both ways with differing people. But I think most people realize it is horses for courses, differing skill sets and aims etc.

I keep coming back to what is defined as performance poetry though.

If performance poetry is not defined people could easily be speaking at crossed purposes.

No point one person arguing that apples taste too tangy only to find that one is arguing about an apple and the other a lemon.

That is why naming conventions/definitions are so important in any given debate/discussion.

Well this one generated more interest than I'd imagined. I suppose I should join in, rather than standing back after lighting the blue touch-paper.

Performance to me suggests both a performer - and an audience. If that's the case then surely it is pure vanity not to consider the reaction of the audience? (Especially if they've paid.) I know there are many who will say that they write purely for their own sakes; then why the compulsion to share it with others? I think it was Darren Thomas who said that writing done for one's self should be kept in a diary. I tend to agree.

As to message/content/theme/idea - call it what you will, all speech/writing is a form of communication. I think I prefer the quiote from Mark Twain, "If you have nothing to say, say nothing."

And I have to ask Ol' Moan Arse, is a "lover of diary based products" someone with a Filofax fetish? :) And I am, by the way, ex run down estate, no prospects etc. But I don't think that entitles me to anything in particular.

I think you get my drift Isobel, when you say that you want to "feel" something from a performance - or page poem. If a reader/audience doesn't (and that feeling may be anything from rapture to revulsion) then what's the point? We may as well be communicating with a wall.

I think I understand re the two types of performance - one relying on more musical influences, beat, rhythm etc,. and the other on meaning - but they're surely not mutually exclusive?

As to theme, then for me it's not a question of what the theme is, but of how imaginatively it is executed. Some poets can make the most boring ideas interesting. (The converse is also true.)

The word "entertain" also came into the thread somewhere. Shouldn't those who perform aspire to entertain in some way? If not, again, what;s the point? I certainly wouldn't want to seek out an event if I didn't think it might be entertaining.

Dave, I hope I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they ought to think - but I might hope at least to get them to think.

Personal taste of course comes into the equation - it always will - and should. For me performance poetry could be anything - other than page poetry. I would love to see poems illustrated by the poet's choicr of images/sounds/music on a big screen - not necessarily live, but for me that would count as performance. Anyone who gets up in front of an audience to read/perform their work is, in my view. performing. I simply wish that some of them would take a step back and consider their audience, and what they are hoping to achieve before they do so.

(Retreats to place of safety wearing tin hat.)

Regards,

A.E.

So by performance poetry you are simply defining it as poetry that is read aloud to an audience?

No probs if that is how you choose to define it.

It is simply good to define it 'whatever the definition'.

So that there is no confusion with other alternative ideas and definitions that could be spoken about at crossed purposes.

One thing I would very strongly disagree with is this idea of writing or performing from the point of view of the audience- being the only way to go.

That might work for some but it is absolutely not how I write.

I write for me first and foremost, writing the way you suggest to me would water down what it is that I do and result in a weaker decision via committee approach.

I write, edit and perform on the basis of instinct and what I feel to be be correct.

Most of the people I know who have won major competitions have the same approach (I have asked people- boring I know).

This is not to say that the manner and orientation that you are speaking of doesn't work for some people including yourself; it may well do and I pick no bone of contention with what works for others.

The bottom line is- if it works and by that I mean that what you are doing is thought of as good and objectively suceeds in terms of competition judges and or your peers/audience.

Then it would seem very foolish to deny the reality on the basis of working backwards and trying to fit the result to a rationale.

All the people I can think of, off of the top of my head who have won major competitions have written for themselves, with a singular mind and purpose and trusted themselves to get it right....but maybe that is just the people I have spoken with in the North West. Just to add that includes page poets and written competition winners as well.

Clearly there is no right or wrong on this matter, beyond end results.

I don't think anyone needs a hard hat.

P.S

Just to add another angle on all this. I do not write to entertain, I write from the point of view that poetry is 'art'. I write in a way that engages me in terms of ideas, subject matter, concepts and images and I hope to take people with me. But I do not look to entertain at least not often.

Many poets do and that is fine... horses for courses, poetry is many things and it would be very dull if we were all the same.

<quote>I'm wondering if I could perform /adapt some mills and boon? Steve can you reccommend any that perform well? </quote>

The Welsh experimental poet Peter Finch has been known to take a mills and boon, rip it up, pick pieces up at random and read from them.

Do I think that performance poetry is 'dumbing down'? Sometimes, when all it consists of is a bunch of crap puns about cheese. Or a bunch of badly-timed jokes, or sexist innuendo.

And if all you do is 'entertain' then you may as well go on X Factor. There's nothing to choose between you and Susan Boyle. That doesn't mean you can't be entertaining; but if all you want to be is the court jester (like the ever-so fragrant Carol Anne Toady) then I suppose you might as well just take the Queen's Shilling.

<quote>I don't personally think that the poetry I write is anything other than an attempt to explain myself to myself, and an exploration of language as a medium of sound, vision and communication.</unquote>

I quite like that.

Enjoyable discussion too.

I love Trigger Happy too - it's one of my favourites - very entertaining indeed... Love the sketch of the people with big hair dos who plonk themselves in front of people at near empty cinemas - that has happened to me at a few open gigs :)

Perhaps I should define what I mean by entertaining. For me it involves being made to think, feel or laugh - the opposite of being bored and disengaged. It is not purely about comedy.

I disagree with Chris about the condescension between poets working both ways. You rarely come across a performance poet who ridicules page poetry. After all, the page is the springboard for any piece of work that we craft. Whether it makes it onto the stage is down to the poet.

I think we should round up all these cynics at the next WOL week end - force them to perform for us stark naked whilst we spray them with cheese. Who knows - they may get a liking for it...

This thread is, or should be, about discussion. I don't expect folk to see everything from my point of view - I can be a bit opinionated at times. I'm always receptive to new ideas though and welcome other viewpoints.

You are right to say that spoken word performance is one of the oldest art forms. All these bloody page poets should be touching their fore locks ;-))

Good luck with Dave's poetry night Steve. Who knows? You may feel inspired to have a go yourself. I think your poetry works better on the page though. They are tasty morsels that need thinking about. Speaking of which, when are we gonna get some more of them?

There's not just performance poets but performance poems. Out of all the trillions of poems I've dislodged from my head, only about a dozen seem good for performing imo. It seems so daunting to read out the serious ones. It's easier to do the entertaining ones, cos hopefully you get feedback (smiles and even laughter) rather than glum faces.

Larkin rising as we smear cheese on each other's buff bodies would be sure to entertain as well as being a suprise, and banish the glum glances of which Darren speaks; the glumness clearly a product of the fact that the mills that were once such a boon in that town have now been expunged? Can anyone explain that to me?
That is serious poetry by the way.
Let us ban definitions; they lead to arguments.

Quote Julian
Let us ban definitions; they lead to arguments.
Unquote

It is opinions that lead to arguments Julian, are you going to call for a ban on those?

Rhetorical I know your not and I know you are not looking to ban definitions either.

Definitions in this case far from furthering arguments are FAR more likely to prevent them from happening.

By defining something you at the very least can be sure that any disagreement is in fact real, as opposed to talking at entirely crossed purposes.

A lack of a definition often leads to problems including arguments. It is why naming conventions are adopted in many industries.

People can agree to have differing definitions and at least know what is being said.

Quote Steve
I often pick up from Anthony's discussion threads and comments his just concern that some of us don't always consider what we are putting out there, have no interest in the process of getting better. Similarly, the now retired John Aikman was also concerned as to whether some of us strive to do better before inflicting our work on a wider audience. Both at times, in my opinion, deliberately misunderstood.
Unquote

A) Your entire position differs from the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is not a lack of quality in of itself.

The issue is about performance poetry and what it is and about and a question of its place and worth.

IMHO quality exists both in page poetry and performance poetry. They are associated but differing disciplines.

Nobody likes crap poetry, be it on the page or read out loud.

You can find great page poetry and great performance poetry out there. Anyone who disagrees can simply remove themselves from one environment or the other- sorted.

B) John Aikman sneered at 90% of the people on this website including people far more objectively proven when it came to writing and performing poetry (both disciplines). He had little understanding of most of which he implied. He was not conversant in the technical aspects and skills of poetry.

Getting personal and calling people's poems shit and calling people names is not a replacement for writing good poetry, nor has it ever been a replacement for a decent debate or position on anything.

On which note I have to say Steve you have got John wrong- not others.

Least I don't think I was wrong when he was calling me the c word or when he was asked to behave on this website and to stop his insulting behavior to other patrons (numerous) lest he be banned.

P.S

Suspecting some many disagree with b), that is fine. Though the mention of possible ban and behavior is a fact. Probably best to stay on topic and that of performance poetry.

John wasn't a prolific poster but what he posted was quality and he was a colourful personality. I really can't see the point in dragging up the past - particularly when one person isn't here to discuss it. It is most certainly better to stay on topic of performance poetry. What a pity we wandered off it so wildly.

"(And, is it possible to have a civilised debate on the subject?!) (AE) Sadly, it would appear not.

What a performance!

I really do wish I hadn't bothered.

Is it me or am I the only one who dislikes the term Page Poet?

Surely one who writes poetry is just a poet. The whole business of getting up on stage/mic makes a poet a Performance Poet.

Can I still be a poet please?

As for the above thread, I do think it takes a certain sort of person to have the nerve to stand up and address an audience.

I used to be paid to address large groups of people, but left to my own free will, I wouldn't now care for it.

Well done to all Performance Poets everywhere! Can the rest of us please be left inside our poetic carapaces without a page in sight though.

I've never liked naughty steps - I and mine just got a slapped arse and then got on with life... like we all should.

I liked Darren Thomas's idea of an amnesty for all. To do that we each and everyone of us need to put the past behind us - steer clear of the folk who annoy us and continue to have fun with the ones who don't. That is what the site should be about.

Tomorrow is another day...

Just to say its ok Steve...if you understand me.

Separately;

My point in reference to the subject being what it was, was an attempt to not get sidetracked by similar, but differing issues. Differentiating. The prior issue you raised was one of quality on wol. The one in this thead was in the context of performance poetry. Sorry if trying to do what seemed to make sense came across as verbal kettling.

I like Graham's post/point for what it is worth.

P.S

If others don't raise the dead in future, I can promise not to take non existent bait.

Just to go back to the very beginning - "We can’t all have the diction and enunciation of Richard Burton, Martin Jarvis, Susannah York or Glenda Jackson – more’s the pity" you say Anthony. I myself really dislike hearing the fruity tones of most actors when they read poetry. Though there are exceptions of course. But I find it more moving to hear the poet read, TS Eliot for instance. He's not a good reader maybe, but it works. And . . your own reading of your poem about the caver - what more can I say? (Visiting Neil) I don't think Richard Burton would have read it so well imo!

i agree. a lot of my poetry really doesn't translate well into being read aloud as many others' poetry does, yet i'm not going to start writing it specifically to perform, mainly because most of mine ends up in print, not being publicized via an acoustic medium.

Wow, I need another coffee. I must say I write for me,then share when I feel my poem will reach out and touch someone emotionally,either written or spoken that will be my choice. I just love the process.

Found this interesting although it did veer occasionally into the realms of randomness!

I know some incredibly funny performers who perform (Mark Niel would be a great example) and some incredibly deep ones (Anthony Anaxagorou rarely makes a joke) who are definitely entertaining AND poetic.

I honestly think that any writer who doesn't consider their audience at all (page or performance) is involved in some kind of therapeutic process. I acknowledge some great work is created this way, although some seem to believe it is the only way great works can be created. It is possible for the performer to pursue cheap laughs, but it is also possible to open hearts and minds by taking an active interest in what impact your words will have.

The idea that much performance poetry would be improved by better diction is an interesting one. As a classically trained actor I would agree that clarity is definitely useful. But it is also possible to engage certain audiences more effectively if you use more informal language, particularly in terms of dialect (which might make the work less universally accessible).

I would also suggest it is possible to use rapid delivery where not every word can be fully absorbed by anyone in the audience to make a point within a poem, but some people seem to think that speed is the only way a performance poet can show skill.

I love poetry and find it most accessible when I hear it.

I have loved Shakespeare and Zephaniah's work since I was a youngster and passionately believe in the word that is written to be heard.

Interesting discussion and I agree with much of what's said here, especially by Isobel.
Yes, performance poetry covers a multitude of (I was going to say "sins", but maybe that sounds critical!) from simply reading a poem out loud at one extreme to something approaching rap at the other. I consider all to be valid, and all can be either good or bad (or anything in between). Do we need different terms to distingish between them? Quite possibly, although where you draw the line could be problematic. I might suggest the the whole range is "spoken poetry", of which "performance poetry" is a subset in which the poet's performance skills are more to the fore. I don't know what you call all the rest! - Suggestions?
But do we want to box things up? Might that mean that people only go to spoken word events that are labelled as something they recognise? Might they then miss things that they would enjoy, or that would stretch them? (I'm not sure about this - I throw it in as a suggestion...)
I feel that one of the appeals of spoken/performance poetry is the variety of poetry you can encounter. Published poetry, to me, seems to be mostly a very literary subset of the whole genre. I think that poetry is like art, music and food - as wide a range as possible should be available, so people can choose what they want to enjoy/appreciate depending on their personal taste and what mood they happen to be in at the time. I like asparagus and I like chocolate cake, but I wouldn't want to live on one and exclude the other. Similarly I like literary poetry, light verse, and energetically performed poetry - they are different things that meet different needs.
I like performing poetry because I like the instant feedback and I like to know that people have gained something from my poetry - even if it's only a momentary laugh. For me, it takes a lot be beat the feeling I get when a stranger comes up to me at the end of an evening and says "I really enjoyed your poems". But I also write poems that I wouldn't perform - they just wouldn't work in performance.