Hi Douglas,
the key point, and i'll go blu ein the e-space trying to make it, is that
performance is present throughout writing. Writing and performance are damn
near inseparable. So, the debates between 'performance poets' are
interesting but secondary. These debates too often retain the sense of
performance as a secondary or less serious mode of poetic practicec. Not
that those who do it take it any less seriously perhaps, but certainly the
literati will.
When it comes to sound poetries there is a n utterly serious body of poetic
practices that is based in an appreciation of vocal grain and vocal
incidentals and 'non-verbal' communication right throughout the twentieth
century - at least that long a tradition. Some streams are nourished by
nonsense, some by Artaud and more recent extreme voice work (i'm thinking of
conections to Diamanda Galas, Meredith monk, Shelley Hirsch, Phil Minton . .
.) and that's where the vocal improvisers and sound-text composers are often
shaking hands over the boundaries. I'm think of Dutton's use of khoumi and
Monk's use of Inuit mouth-mouth rapid exchange - the term escapes me but i
can look it up.
There are those who forward themselves through the slams. Some of them are
great 'live', some less so. Some translate better to the page than others.
Of the better I'd say poets such as Jean Breeze are worth reading on a page.
But they ought to not feel that the page is a validating space. They do and
that's where they make their mistake. What not be 'live' and stay 'live' and
have one's work be oral ephemera and what's wrong with that.
I talk about appropriate contexts. A page, a screen, a small room, . . .
I also like producing versions for differing purposes and differing
audiences. So a piece might take several differing forms and evolve through
time and differing readerships / audiences / witnesses . .
lots of dots
dot dot dot
love and love
cris
|