| Author | Message | ||
     Rondall Rating: N/A |
Check it out, check it out!!! I invited a very special guest to write a commentary on today's state of SLAM poetry. Regie Gibson of "Love Jones" fame and 1998 solo Slam Champion has written a great piece on his outlook on what slam is and what it is not becoming. I respect Regie as a poet. His genius is undeniable. That is why I am proud that Troy, the creator of the web site, has been so gracious in giving us a voice. Take a look and feel free to leave your comments and reactions. I will make sure that Regie gets an opportunity to respond to them. http://authors.aalbc.com/regiegibson.htm | ||
| Chris Hayden Rating: N/A |
Folks, see my take on brother regie's article over on the African American Literature page. | ||
| Jason A Rating: N/A |
Rondall, Just checked out the link in this email. Honestly, I agree with him on the stereotype poets however, being from the background I come from, I am kind of worried that he didn't include the "my father beat the shit out of my mom and I am more sensitive for it" all around (no color or sex needed) poet. Personally, I have stopped worrying about what other poets think as far as what kind of poet one can be. When we do that, it exhibits our concern over whether or not another poet is getting more props. I remember this going on when Saul Williams first exploded onto the poetry scene. When I first read and listened to his work, I was stunned because here is a guy who is doing what he wants to do. Not what has been dictated to him all these years. Marc Smith, same thing. We can go on back to the beats and the black arts movement if we want. What concerns me the most about this new "book" coming out is the fact that Regie Gibson (someone who I’ve always looked up to as an awe inspiring poet and a pivotal figure in the slam movement) is quickly cutting down younger and up and coming poets who have not learned or earned their props yet. If we cut down these fresh new voices, they will not grow into the poets who can continue our plight. To bring the word to the masses without the use of gimmicks or shticks. We all start out with styles we have seen or heard that aren't ours originally. I'd hate to admit it but I would fall into that "quasi-hip hop race cool” poet. That doesn't make me any better or worse for what I’ve learned over the years. I am a poet. That’s all I do. That’s all we all do. We write and perform poetry because we love it. Not because we want to be the next Eminem or Jay Z or Jack Kerouac or Regie Gibson. It is poetry. That’s it. Peace. Jason A just a poet | ||
| Lambd Rating: N/A |
Jason has put so eloquently into type what I had been wanting to say for years but never found the correct diction or tone. Thanks. No one should have the right to say that someone else's work is not poetry. Nor should anyone have the right to try and put another poet's work into some sort of arbitrary category. Poetry, by nature, is one person's thoughts put into verse. That's it and that's all. How it manifests itself is up to the individual. We may or may not like it, we may or may not even understand it, but that doesn't exclude it from being poetry. I've read some poetry that I thought was pretty lame. I've read some poetry that made absolutely no sense at all. But poetry isn't written for us. It's written for the individual and shared with us. We have to learn to be more open minded and most of all more accepting and grateful for the experience. Def Poetry and Slams are an outlet...I say let the poets let it out. We all want our work to be good. We all want our work to be well received. But should it really matter? Are you really trying to get rich by writing poetry? If you are, I wish you luck. Your chances right now are slim to none. You'd be extremely lucky to scratch out enough to get a meal. Poetry is supposed to be written for your personal enjoyment...Enjoy! | ||
| Troy Rating: N/A |
I know I'm all late hoping onto this thread but the beauty of this forum is that the elapse of time is not material to the flow of the conversation. Hi Lambd: Why should not an individual be able to say, "this is poetry" and "that is not poetry"? Why can a person, poet or not, say that "this is poorly written poetry" and "this is not"? If poetry is not written for others -- then who is it for? Otherwise it is just a diary of sorts. Once you share it with others then it becomes, naturally, open of critique. It will be evaluated for rhyme, rhythm, meter, form, words, subject, imagery, etc. People want to share what they enjoy. Being able to articulate the reasons in a meaningful manner is important. Regie's categories are just one more attribute which can be used to describe a poet; a poets that may have limitted themselves as opposed to being themslves. Perhaps the poet is one dimensional. Alternatively, this could be a good thing in the case of a poets has mastered the category, or rather defined the category -- a category others will be sure to emulate. Jason A: Do you really think Regie "quickly cutting down" younger poets, or attempting to offer younger poets the benefit of his experience. Of course it is normal for a young poet to start out by mimicing another style or popular poet. The idea is not to get stuck there. If you are not conscious of the trap you may get caught and never emerge and develop a style that is uniquely yours. Regie was making us aware of the trap. peace, Troy | ||
| Lambd Rating: N/A |
I yield to your age and wisdom, Master Troy. | ||
| Troy Rating: N/A |
While I often speak about the about the advantages or this forum, there are some disadvantages. Without knowing the people you are communicating with, and without the visual cues and tone present, as it is in a verbal exchange, it is difficult to accurately discern sarcasm from sincerity. When in doubt I assume the latter. It is not my wisdom, Lambd. Consider the following… Read this review of this review of Eric Payne’s book of poetry i see through eyes , reviewed by Kalamu ya Salaam http://aalbc.com/reviews/i_see_through_eyes.htm. Does anyone think reviews like this are helpful or needed? Is this an example of cutting down a fresh new voice? Should the reviewer have simply relayed the positive and ignored the negative? Who benefits? On another vein, as you know, many people have been very critical of Amiri Baraka*. They have taken their disagreement with his ideas and extended it to his poetry. Some are even judging him today on works he penned over 30 years ago. Many of these folks don’t know anything about poetry or even the subject matter Baraka’s poems address – but they feel they are worthy of critiquing his work. In my mind there is a time when the critique is warranted and there is a time when the critique is not. The messenger and the motive are important. We can learn a lot from our peers but not as much was we can from the ones who trod the trail before us. *b.t.w. Baraka published two new books over the Summer http://aalbc.com/authors/amiri.htm | ||
| Lambd Rating: N/A |
As I said before, I yield to your age and wisdom. You can take it any way you want. With or without the sarcasm. I know from reading posts from the past, that you are much wiser than I and you have convinced me with your argument. If your skull will not let you win me over to your side, you may continue discussing this with yourself. Don't force me to lose respect for what you say by reading too much into my posts. You are an intelligent man. You have convinced me already. Trust what you read. There is no sarcasm. | ||
| Troy Rating: N/A |
By design, this is not a two way forum. If I decide to add to an exisiting thread, the intent is not always to convince a single individual. Indeed it is done so in the the hope of soliciting a variety of opinions, or to expand upon a previous thought. While I may mention someone's name the purpose is not so much to target that individual but to indicate what prompted the statement. So when I ask "Does anyone think reviews like this are helpful or needed?" I really mean anyone. Admittedly, this is off the topic of "The Evolution/Devolution of SLAM Poetry" but related in the sense that someone is making a value judgment (in the case a seasoned poet). I brought in Baraka's situation because here is a case of where many non-poets are making value judgments. I was intrested in reading if anyone thought either or both types of critques are needed. While I may have been touted as a wise old sage, I know many of you are wiser that I on any given subject (even Chris ;-) ). I'm a supporter of poetry, not a poet. As a supporter of poetry, I find it valuable to test my beliefs against those of actual poets. If there is a misalignment of idealogy I'd like to understand the reason -- again this is bigger, must be bigger, than a two way dialogue. | ||
| Lambd Rating: N/A |
Some critiques are just for the sake of being critical. That's what I have a problem with. Whether or not a poet feels that his/her poetry is a poem is up to him. Be it good or great poetry, bad or terrible poetry. Constructive criticism should not only be welcomed, but cherished as well. I don't mind it when someone says that someone on Def Jam was horrible or the poem didn't make sense, or it didn't flow. That's something that is useful. When people become experts and start puffing themselves up and making statements about an artist's form of expression...(i.e.,'that's not poetry' etc.) that's what I don't particularly care for. Spoken word, in my opinion, is a form of poetry. Be it fast, slow, comedic, serious or gangsta rap. I'm open to varying opinions either way... | ||
| BBC Rating: N/A |
Lamdb, Interesting that critique and critical have the same root word. But, why do you think someone who critiques a work have the responsibility to be anything more than critical? | ||
| Lambd Rating: N/A |
I'm sure it was a type-o, however, it's Lambd. No harm done. I'm not understanding exactly what you are trying to ask me. Should a critique be something more than critical? I'm sure you understand that something critical is only an opinion. A commentary. Good or bad. I'm only saying that it should be constructive. As far as responsibility goes, should there be more? Enlighten me. | ||
| BBC Rating: N/A |
Lambd, yes that was a typo. Please forgive me. Yes, I understand that something critical is only an opinion, a commentary, good or bad. Since you said that it should be constructive then you're already assigned responsbility to the criticism. So, my question is why do you feel that the critisim has to be contructive? And, I am sure that you know, what's constitute being constructive is also subjective. | ||
| ABM Rating: N/A |
I guess an acceptable definition of "constructive criticism" would be that the commentary provide whomever is being critiqued with some direction for improvement and maybe some encouragement. But it seems to me that virtually any/all criticism can be "constructive" if those who are being criticized choose for it to be so. Also, part of the difficulty with prescribing any critical standards to SLAM is the question of whether and how best to judge both the writing and the performance. | ||
| Lambd Rating: |
Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly. Great definition. I think as far as the SLAM competitions go, isn't it the entertainment value that gets judged? |
