Well, I like readings, when the [poet knows what s/he is doing (& not all do). I also suspect that recordings of a live reading are more interesting than those made in a studio.
And,to L’s point about actors: I generally agree. Remember trying to teach an actor to speak Phyllis Webb’s amazing, minuscule, ‘Naked Poems’ — which demanded what I guess she would ahem called ‘underacting.’ But then I had heard her read them, & she is one of the finest readers ever.
Doug
On May 18, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Halvard Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well, I'll just make one point. Not right or wrong, as Lawrence says, but
> still I find that the less there is of the poet between the poem and my
> receptors the better. So, I guess I'd prefer hearing the poet's voice via a
> recording to hearing the live poet read. And to either of those I prefer
> the words on the screen or the page.
>
> "*Vraiment*,
> Poetry can be so many more things
> Than what people mostly believe it is."
>
> --Anselm Hollo
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Remains-To-Be-Seen-Works/dp/1933132787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367618323&sr=8-1&keywords=Halvard+Johnson>
> Winter Journey <https://www.createspace.com/5376388> <-- Newest!!!
> Trapeze <http://issuu.com/swirlmag/docs/halvard_johnson> <--- Newer!!
> Junkyard Dog
> <http://gradientbooks.blogspot.fi/2015/01/halvard-johnson-junkyard-dog.html>
> <--- New!
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> ok
>> I meant "much prefer" rather than the "must prefer" that I sent.
>> As to the preference for reception mode, i don't think there is any right
>> or wrong.
>> I could perhaps argue my position; but don't feel that keen to assert it!
>> All best
>> L
>>
>> On 18 May 2015 at 15:22, Halvard Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer the words on a screen or on a page to the sound of the writer's
>>> voice recorded or not.
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 18, 2015, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I must prefer being in the reading presence of a poet I value than
>>> hearing
>>>> a recording; but that creates certain difficulties, logistical
>>> difficulties
>>>> that are probably insurmountable -- only a few can get to the gig.
>>>> I find it wearisome that we should be considering the idea of ac-tors
>>>> reading poetry for us. They are not trained to read poetry but to
>> perform
>>>> plays. There are overlaps of course, where poets write plays or poems
>>> that
>>>> work "dramatically".
>>>> In my radio experience actors mess it up.
>>>> I'm not saying that poets don't mess it up. Many do. But they have the
>>>> potential incentive to learn to read poetry aloud.
>>>> *
>>>> The author limits himself to linear writing. He just doesn't mention
>> the
>>>> poetries that might come under the turgid heading of vispo
>>>>
>>>> L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 May 2015 at 09:30, Bill Wootton <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting observations here, not least :
>>>>>
>>>>> Poems, by contrast, [with recorded readings] often seem more like
>> acts
>>> of
>>>>> specialized witnessing, and this makes the witness himself an
>> essential
>>>>> figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a place for recordings I think but I like to think even my
>>>> clumsy
>>>>> or 'arrived-at' readings offer me something that passive listening
>> does
>>>> not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/2015, at 3:37 AM, Max Richards wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/books/review/toward-an-oral-art.html?emc=edit_bk_20150515&nl=books&nlid=22180501
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> :: from the desk of Halvard Johnson ::
>>>
>>
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2 (UofAPress).
Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).
There is no life that does not rise
melodic from scales of the marvelous.
To which our grief refers.
Robert Duncan.
|