Print

---

Hi Chris

I take all your points as valid/


>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.

I understand this, although in Canada, people like me learned most from bp
& also all Four Horsemen. Possibilities.
>
'appropriate contexts' are important. I find that as a remnant bibliophile
I still want to be able to read for myself, not just listen, & often find
that the kind of performance poetry often described by thatb term simply
hasn't the linguistic depth to capture my ear for long. But, yeah, why
shouldn't they enjoy what they do, the audience response, & not worry about
print?

I confess, here to David, that I like my own poems enough to find something
in them worth repeating aloud when I read in different times & places
(ideally finding something new in them as I do so). So I don't in any way
denigrate their 'seriousness' in doing so. At least in my own mind, of
course.

Doug

Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320      (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm

        There is no real
        world, my friends.
        Why not, then
        let the stars
        shine in our bones?

                Robert Kroetsch