Within the last fortnight I've "performed" my poetry at mixed mode (poems and songs) venues.

Both live events were enjoyable, as it happens, but that's not usually the case...

Let's leave aside the problem of how long it takes singers and musicians to "set up" - even though that used to piss me off massively on the London scene.

Here's the rub: MCs will often say singers do two songs; poets do two poems, but that's not fair, because the singers will usually take up to SIX times as much performance time as the poets under such as arrangement.

And singers will (usually) shamelessly bang out mouldy old covers- which have become contemptible by their familiarity through damnable reiteration. Poets, in contrast, are genetically wired to do original and (when they can) their most recent material.

If I have to endure one more halfwit belting out 'Mustang Sally' in a fake American accent I swear I will go home and batter my budgie - out of sheer frustration.

And when the singer / band isn't / aren't doing covers, they will inevitably be croaking their way through their own material - often lamentable bedsit miserythons of the worst order.

The broad, though exaggerated, truth of the matter is this: songwriting is about the safe, crowd-pleasing expression of the banal and commonplace - and poetry-writing is, well, almost the opposite of that.

The two live formats, generally, don't mix; at least not on equal terms.

Unless you are an exceptionally gifted songwriter, such as Roddy Frame, Morrissey or Steve Forbert, the poet will usually think you are stoopid and bland.

So if you run a live poetry event which also has singers and musicians performing, you are best to strictly control the time alloted to music: otherwise there will be a drift away, in boredom, by poets, for whom blandness is a metaphorical dagger blow to the heart.

In music the human voice is a conduit for melodic or harmonic expression, the words are secondary. Nobody expects profundity or wit from all lyricists. When it comes it's a bonus. The two arts (poetry and lyricwriting/singing) are not really comparable.


And I've heard enough poetic repetition at live gigs to last me a lifetime. At least with songs you can tap your foot or listen to the musicians...

steve , when you have seen six busty witches dancing to mustang sally , , , i promise you it takes on a whole new relevance :)

'Seven busty witches'? Is this the alternative lyric for seven swans a swimming/On The First Day Of Christmas?

Seven witches -- that's six short of a coven. Or do they do the equivalent of five-a-side wicca? Compact team, compact spells?

I always convert the word 'mustang' to 'musty' and imagine a slightly mouldered dame with rotting plaits.

Songwriters have at least got the music to cover up their banalities.

Most poets don't have much more to say than most song-writers. I'd say the ratio for banal and profound was about the same for poets as song-writers.

Oh, Shoeless, I should have excluded the entire Busty Witch Rock genre from my sneery analysis.

In my book, anything busty is by definition good. Sonic and aural qualities aren't really factors.

Mr Waling, my dear, are you talking about your poems .. or mine?!!

'There was a young fella from Wigun
Who everyone said had a big...'

Moxy, enough of mouldering dames already. I live in New Brighton. Must you rub it in?!

My own experience of mixed poetry/music events has produced mixed feelings too.
I can associate with Steve when he says the ones performing their own material it's often lamentable and miserable and to be honest there have been times i've had to leave the room because of the depressing effect it's had on me.
I can switch off mentally to miserable/lamentable/wallowing poetry when it's being read live but music to said style of lyrics is often in the same vein and slowly but surely seeps into the bloodstream.
Not my idea of a social evening i'm afraid. I want to go home uplifted as well as drunk as a skunk with a smile wider than the amazon on my face thankyou very much. Better still when there's a glint in the eye for what's to come. :-)

The profound in poetry and lyrics doesn't always come across when performed live. The mind of the individual has to be very astute to take it in from a few relatively short minutes of a performance. It usually takes longer for it to permeate the senses.

Siren says:
In music the human voice is a conduit for melodic or harmonic expression, the words are secondary. Nobody expects profundity or wit from all lyricists. When it comes it's a bonus. The two arts (poetry and lyricwriting/singing) are not really comparable.

The late and great singer/ muscian/ poet Jake Thackeray...a Yorkshire lad, would certainly have given your opinion a run for it's money.
I would queue in the rain to hear such as Jake again.. and I come from the school of not queuing for free beer.

Considering I said that when profundity and wit come they are a bonus it is reasonable to assume that implied that they do occasionally come. Mr Thackeray's reported brilliance can hardly be said to give my opinion a run for its money then, can it? As I've said before on this site; I do wish you people would read my posts before answering. If people take your misappropriations of my opinions at face value without reading my post I am not being fairly represented.

Siren, it sounds like a job for Max Stafford Clark. Or is it Max Clifford?

"Mr Waling, my dear, are you talking about your poems .. or mine?!!"

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

God preserve us from profundity.

John Cage aux Folles.
I'm anti-found myself.

The older I get, the less convinced I am by the idea that poetry has to be "profound" to be any good. Most people, I guess, write about things that are important to them; and that other people are not necessarily interested in. Like your holiday in Florence, or how unfair life is. But it's the way you say it that makes it interesting, makes somebody want to read it or hear it again, not what you say. Even someone like Seamus Heaney isn't interesting because of what he says (or does not say) about "the Irish situation"; he's popular for his lovely vowel sounds and for the way his poems come to a conclusion, not because he's got anything more original to say than your average newspaper columnist. Even with performers, that's true: John Cooper Clarke is good because of those very Mancunian phrases, and the attack of his rhythms, rather than anything else.

Poets who try to sound terribly profound often fall flat on their faces; poets who just try to say things as they see them often end up being accidentally profound. Personally, I've always tried to do the latter, and if somebody finds something I've said significant, well, that's nice; but it wasn't what I tried to do. I just tried to speak about what I saw, or what amused me, what interested me at the time, in as interesting a way as possible, with a little dash of "unexpectation" thrown into the mix.

I have to say I agree entirely with Steve on this one. Much modern published poetry in particular tries desperately to tick the profundity boxes, leaving a glaring hole where the beauty of language should be. I know Steve would probably disagree with my definition of beauty in language, mainly because I am an old-fashioned formalist, but we both broadly seek the same thing from poetry.
I am bit sick of people having what they believe is a profound thought, scribbling it down in banal (yes, banal) language and then trying to blow everyone's mind without ever really learning their craft. People seem to want shortcuts to profundity through poetry. Leave philosophy to the philosophers and LISTEN to the sound your poetry makes in your head.
Steve touched on the idea that profundity or insight should be almost a by-product of poetry. I would second that. As I have said on this site before; poets should impress with their cleverness, not their wisdom. If they really are wise, that will shine through in what they write without them trying. Few performance poets have ever said anything which has completely changed the way I look at anything, but plenty have said things in ways that have made me fall in love with language all over again. Meaning is not quite incidental to poetry, but should perhaps be in the periphery of vision.

Personally I try never to start a poem with an idea in mind. I try only to concentrate on the words' relationships with each other. Occasionally I have written things which sound like I am trying to be wise, but I can assure you I am merely trying to be clever.

As someone great once said, "Oh how I long to be banal, timeworn and trite."

Wait a minute, I said that and now I've almost achieved my goals.

er... that's a good thing isn't it?

are you sure you mean banal, Paul? or are you going a little far with that thought?
Cx

I just write the bastard things.

Well, I hope the bastard appreciates them, Moxy.

No, the bastard doesn't.

Just thought I'd qualify one thing that Siren said, that poets should impress with their "cleverness". I think I know what he means, but there is nothing worse than the poem that seeks to impress with the "cleverness" of its rhyme scheme or the "look-at-me" images that are ever-so-amazing. I'd rather a poem's language be plain as a pikestaff and its meaning as clear as water, than that the poet be merely seeking to impress.

That's why I say the poet should look primarily at the object of their poem, the thing or experience that it is about, not either to the audience (look how clever I am!) or to trying to drag some profound utterance from what is often a banal experience. "The slightest loss of attention leads to death..." as Frank O'Hara says, certainly the death of the poem.

Honesty, and the poet as an eye, not merely an I. Write what is in your heart, not what will get you admirers.

cf. John Keats and Negative Capability - the removal of the ego from poetry.

cf Freud's Toyshop -- Toys R U: The removal of ego from lego?

Isn't that just...er...'l'

or 'L' -- so much more adaptable.
50 on a Roman bingo card;
or you can use it in a game of skinny tetris, which is not too dissimilar to skinny Lego -- simply rotate to fit. Most egos don't rotate to fit nor do they have a numerical value. Some are skinny and are referred to as 'beta.' A lot of skinny poems have 'L' in them and could be better.