performance vs. reading

3 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Fri, 2001-03-23 10:36

alison-(unverified)

performance vs. reading

any opinions out there on this topic?

there seems to be a division between "performance poetry" and the other sort ... what to call it?

i have seen a lot of sweating ranting (usually blokes i am afraid to say) performance poetry ... where the emphasis seems to be on "comment" - social, political, personal - and has a lot of leaping about ...

i have also been to a lot of "readings" where that rare creature - the poet - sits on a chair at the front and the audience sit politely all chin in hand nodding sagely ...

these two types do not really like each other much ...

i used to be half of a performing "duo" and we fell between the two ... we did not rant and we were not rare ...

where IS the middle ground? .... anyone else have experience in these matters?

Mon, 2001-03-26 12:51

Eddie Gibbons

From my own experience, readers tend to be good writers who concentrate on the content of their work and may lack something in the delivery. Performers (I refer to those usually found at open-mic sessions) tend to be very poor writers who try to cover this up by pretending to be Rock'n'Roll stars. But it's all bluster and no substance. Luckily, there are those who can both write and perform well: John Cooper Clarke, Benjamin Zephaniah, Lemn Sissay and Linton Kwesi Johnson come immediately to mind. I find the contents of books by 'performance' poets such as Murray Lachlan Young to be embarrassingly poor.

Mon, 2001-04-02 11:54

James Coon

If you get the chance, listen to some tapes/CDs of Charles Bukowski reading his stuff. Some of it was taped in front of a live audience (which became increasingly rowdy as the booze level rose) and some was taped in front of a mike in his kitchen. These are wonderful and give a special dimension to his work that is missing in just the printed page. I look forward to the next abctales event. Looks like I missed the first one.

Topic locked