 |
 |
When I threw the question out I didn't expect a discussion about what 'Spoken Word' is. I don't mind what it is called what I am refering to is poetry that is written with the intention of being performed by the author and then being performed by the author. What do you make of it and the stuff out there? Is it any good and can we tell it is any good? Deborah On 19 October 2011 17:58, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Well now, Doug > > It's relevant. I was thinking to exclude it because of the _word_ word in > _spoken word_ > > I wrote something or other somewhere in the last few years about how most > commentators had -- many commentators -- taken the word to be the smallest > unit and then quoted Joyce’s Wake and, if I remember correctly, the > abnihilation of the etym > > If I remembered correctly, am I… > > Never mind > > I was thinking after writing my last post that, from Deborah's response > yesterday, the term should be _remembered poetry_ > > I have no desire to put her down, merely to question the usefulness of the > terminology; and, of course, it is not hers especially but a widespread > usage > > Calling it performance poetry because you commit it to memory and then > perform it, seems odd to me. I *perform poetry all the time. Many (most?) > of us here do, I am sure. > > This usage takes me back to The Poetry Society (UK) and its verse speaking > examinations, which may be a disease unknown in some parts of the world. > It tapped into ideas of elocution and recital which have little to do with > lively reading. > > I don’t see that allocating an unexpected meaning to _performance poetry_ > or _spoken word_ is useful > > I am not sure that I would agree sound poetry is a break away from > language as discourse; but I have trouble with the term sound poetry. It’s > certainly to do with performance. My worry was the seizure, intentional or > otherwise, of terminology by a limited view of what poetry might be > > It is my impression that a lot of spoken word is flaccid, those being my > words, but I am responding – in my fashion – to yours; but I don’t like > such a big generalisation > > I remember finding myself as tutor to a young man some years back who > listened to my comments on his lack of metrical awareness (I can’t > remember the words I used; I was as gentle as I could be) > > He: I don’t do that > > Me: What? > > He: Metre. We did that at school. I didn’t understand it and I don’t use > it. > > I reasoned with him, I thought, and the young man went sadly away > > I also remember writing some lyrics for a moderately successful band – as > well as I could with all the instructions; they should have written their > own. Nothing came of it because apparently their label said they’d be > dropped if they used the lyrics > > But before that I was told that it was a funny thing but my lyrics seemed > to fit all kinds of arrangement. I said it might be that they were more or > less organised metrically. > > And again: Oh, right, I never understood that > > > L > > > > > On Wed, October 19, 2011 16:27, Douglas Barbour wrote: > > Ah, & Lawrence > > > > > > where does Sound Poetry fit into all this (which I know you practice, & > > Bob C did, & the Four Horsemen, etc)? If one writes a poem & then reads > > it to an audience, one is in fact 'performing' on some level. Some do > > this well (I once argued that the great Phyllis Webb, reading her > > astonishing Naked Poems, gave one of the greatest 'performances' I ever > > had the pleasure to hear: the audience was transfixed); some do not. > > > > My problem, quite often with whatever it's called is that the language > > simply isnt stark, packed, concise & playful enough. You know, what makes > > a 'poem' interesting. > > > > Sound Poetry is something else, certainly a performance, but also a > > breakaway from language as discourse; it's after something other than > > that. > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > On 2011-10-19, at 6:44 AM, Lawrence Upton wrote: > > > > > >> I have been worrying about this > >> > >> > >> The term performance poetry was somewhat current to indicate an > >> emphasis; and then others began saying that they did performance poetry; > >> and it seemed that this entailed exclusions which were never much > >> specified > >> > >> Ditto spoken word > >> > >> > >> I have sometimes wondered if spoken word is using too many words. In > >> normal parlance, to speak is to speak words. Personally I reach for > >> other words such as utterance if I want to speak of poetry which > >> involves... er... utterance > >> > >> But if you say _spoken poetry_, what are you saying? Unless spoken word > >> poetry is understood as a kind of handshake... not that there is > >> anything sinister; but I sometimes wonder if this -- to me -- avoidance > >> of saying with any precision what one is doing is just lazy > >> > >> When I hear spoken word on the radio, it is often described as _the > >> best of spoken word_ which begs a few questions as well as making it > >> sound like breakfast cereal > >> > >> Not the best of poetry but the best of spoken word poetry, with the > >> built in redundancy I have noted > >> > >> It seems to me that there is more to this than writing with the > >> intention of performance. > >> > >> L > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, October 19, 2011 13:23, Tim Allen wrote: > >> > >>> That's what we used to call 'performance poetry'. If 'spoken poetry' > >>> is what we now call performance poetry then what does 'performance > >>> poetry' mean now? Or is 'spoken poetry' different because it doesn't > >>> have the same ethos as 'performance poetry' - to entertain and appease > >>> and ingratiate yourself to the listener with every trick in the BOOK. > >>> Is 'spoken poetry' > >>> more arty? > >>> > >>> Tim A. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 18 Oct 2011, at 17:11, Deborah Stevenson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Patrick, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am talking about 'spoken word' as in a writer/poet that writes > >>>> their own material and then memorises and performs it. Usually > >>>> writing with the intent to do so from the onset of writing. Does > >>>> that make sense? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Deborah > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton > >> 42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover > >> Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4 > >> wfuk.org.uk/blog ---- > >> Lawrence Upton > >> Dept of Music > >> Goldsmiths, University of London > >> > >> > > > > Douglas Barbour > > [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] > > > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ > > http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > Latest books: > > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) > > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 > > Wednesdays' > > > http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10 > > .html > > > > > > Why poetry? And why not, I asked, > > my right brain humming sedition. > > > > Phyllis Webb > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton > 42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover > Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4 > wfuk.org.uk/blog > ---- > Lawrence Upton > Dept of Music > Goldsmiths, University of London >