Sorry? Doug. Nothing to be sorry for.
I think it's a problematic area. In itself, I mean. And I hesitated to say
it because I do not associate the _problems_ with Chris.
He may be about to do something wonderful.
It was just that in the manner of his description I did want to ask Why?
I think that considering poetry as a linear and sonic practice is leaving
little room for the visual over and above the visual inculcated in the
inner ear by the visual.
The things which I do seek out those areas where there is visual *and
where there is sonic.
Early this summer I was chatting with John Drever and he raised the
question of how far what I am doing with him *is poetry as poetry,
suggesting it may be heading more into music; and someone else just wrote
of it as cinema. He was using these terms as indicative and descriptive
rather than naming forbidden territories
John was saying that he would like to get into things with more semantic
content again. We had (my) words coming out of our ears and speakers a few
years ago.
I saw a reading many many years ago now, 74? 75? of Ed Dorn reading
Gunslinger in which everything was worked out -- in the way he was dressed
and the way he stood... Not in the way you'd say Did you see Kylie
Minogue's outfit? and that dance?
This was another league; but so understated. I remember it though because
while some are better at reading and some are worse, this man was as near
perfect as...
I saw Ted Hughes approaching perfection that way, though in that case I
found it as enjoyable as falling downstairs; but he'd thought about it and
worked at it
One thing i didn't raise in my post was the question of _live presence_
and my belief or axiom that the recording is less desirable than the live
event and, to me, not as interesting.
Yet I've just agreed to the publication of a recorded work because it's
not an article of faith or anything, no meat on Fridays or something, and
one cannot hope to be seen by more than a fraction of those who are
interested; but it remains that, for me, a compromise is made.
Actually I am not against the totally studio and a project I am working on
with Wilt Azevedo in Brazil will probably end up with a number of things
that are just switched on... There's a Peter Finch article somewhere that
I liked where he describes the M of Ceremonies switching on a tape
recorder, as was, and then turning it off n minutes later.
On Fri, August 24, 2012 17:12, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Ah, hey Lawrence, sorry about that.
>
>
> I actually remember a number of early attempts at 'visualizing' poems on
> screen (then as little films) & how I hated them, as most of them
> ham-handedly presented the most obvious visuals of the imagery &
> metaphors in the poems. Able only to make singular that which was
> multiple.
>
> One could laugh..., but that was about it.
>
>
> I think it's possible to do something interesting, but that requires a
> truly visual artist at work...?
>
> Now I do know that some sound poets have made use of technology to play
> with their voices while others just use their voices: Henri Chopin /
> bpNichol, eg.
>
> Doug
>
>
> On 2012-08-24, at 9:48 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> ah
>>
>> when I say _sonic emphatic_ I mean _sonic semantic_
>>
>> old tired brain tripping over its own cliches
>>
>> L
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>> ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: poetry video
>> From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, August 24, 2012 16:39
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>>
>> Well, I read Chris's post earlier; and thought about it; and decided
>> that I had nothing much to say.
>>
>>
>> I shall try to pick my words carefully... if I can. I don't wish to
>> offend or tell anyone I am right and they are wrong. Not on this case...
>> I think
>> the best thing I can do is say what I don't want to do and why!
>>
>>> Poetry video, as in music video.
>>>
>>
>> Immediately puts me off! Not that I see many music videos these days. I
>> *can enjoy them. I can put myself in that mode. (Now and then I go to
>> McDonalds.)
>>
>>
>> But I get little out of it when they tell stories floating off from the
>> song. Or when they show pictures of the famous people singing in mid
>> celebrity strut. It all begins to blur for me; and though they are
>> different they all look the same in my memory.
>>
>> But that is where I am now. I was quite up to my ears in some kinds of
>> pop into the 80s. I remember one of my partner's kids sort of boasting
>> sort of moaning how much we were into pop music... I also remember a
>> seemingly interminable intellectual argument manqué with his sister when
>> I failed to
>> agree that Jesus and Mary Chain owed nothing to Velvet Underground. (She
>> played me hers and I said Velvet Underground and she said What's
>> Velvet
>> Underground?)
>>
>>
>> Let me show my age and refer to the video of Dylan's subterranean
>> homesick blues. I really liked that. That was doing something. I still
>> don't know what and I value that.
>>
>> Then a while after there was a video (I use the term loosely) of LIKE A
>> ROLLING STONE and that was him getting on and off planes and looking
>> remarkably like John Cooper Clarke.
>>
>> Not very interesting.
>>
>>
>> I remember the Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer video and I quite liked that.
>> And recently I have been getting into some Kate Bush videos though
>> some of the more interesting ones have disappeared from the web.
>>
>> So in terms of music videos, maybe I am not the best person...
>>
>>
>> I think what I can draw from this paucity of examples (as one draws
>> treacle from a treacle well) is that I am most interested when something
>> happens *between the music and the image.
>>
>> I am thinking of a musician, I won't quote the name because I am scared
>> I
>> am misquoting slightly, who says I believe that he doesn't need a visual
>> with the sound work – we're talking electronic and electro-acoustic
>> here
>>
>> & I can understand that but something else may happen when genres are
>> put beside each other and maybe he is just not that visual
>>
>> so when Chris says
>>
>> First you lay down and edit the sound
>>
>>>> track which is a reading of the poem and then you collage visual
>>>> video images along with the sound track.
>>
>> That's fine. I won't disparage it; but it doesnt engage me.
>>
>>
>> I was told off a while back by a friend who said “Lawrence you always
>> say that”, so I hesitate, but I cannot see the attraction.
>>
>> I don't much like illustration. Illustration can support weak material
>> and it can expand strong material. Mostly it just sits there
>>
>> I am more interested in use of the visual which treats the sonic-visual
>> as one thing, as the sonic-emphatic can be
>>
>> I have seen a number of films going with poetry and found them
>> soporific; and I tend to think of a black beast I have mentioned here --
>> putting the sound of wind and running water over Wordsworth's Prelude
>>
>> Maybe no one's interest – and that's fine – so I'll shut up now and see
>> if there are any takers
>>
>> L
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, August 24, 2012 15:44, Douglas Barbour wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect Lawrence could fill you in, her, Chris, but I know it's
>>> going on, although I havent paid too much attention. UBUWEB probably
>>> has some....
>>>
>>> Doug
>>> On 2012-08-23, at 8:25 PM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Poetry video, as in music video. First you lay down and edit the
>>>> sound track which is a reading of the poem and then you collage
>>>> visual video images along with the sound track.
>>>>
>>>> I did this about 20 years ago and the analog videos went around the
>>>> world. But I have yet to see this again... surely i was not the
>>>> first and this must be happening again, esp given computers and
>>>> multimedia which in the analog days would cost tens of thousands of
>>>> dollars.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, must rush to catch the bus to buy a mike and headphones.
>>>> (My
>>>> pro mike is back in Narrabri so it is much cheaper to buy a new one,
>>>> for now.) Watch out for me on youtube!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Douglas Barbour
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>>> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Latest books:
>>> Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
>>> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
>>> Wednesdays'
>>> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-pres
>>> s_10 .html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why can’t words mean what they say?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Kroetsch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Lawrence Upton
>>
>>
>> http://sho-zyg.com/upton.html
>>
>>
>> Visiting Fellow, Music Dept,
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>> ----
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Lawrence Upton
>>
>>
>> http://sho-zyg.com/upton.html
>>
>>
>> Visiting Fellow, Music Dept,
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>> ----
>>
>>
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
>
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
> Wednesdays'
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10
> .html
>
>
>
> Why can’t words mean what they say?
>
>
> Robert Kroetsch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----
Lawrence Upton
http://sho-zyg.com/upton.html
Visiting Fellow, Music Dept,
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
----
I think what I can draw from this paucity of examples (as one draws
|