I don't see a difference between slam and not-slam poetry so much as a difference between poetry meant to be heard first, and poetry meant to be seen on a page first.
to me the difference is that slam poetry is more verbal and regular poetry is more written... I tend to find that my slam pieces read on paper badly where as my regular poetry pieces don't perform well... also i find slam poetry to be more agressive and in your face, where as regular poetry pieces tend to be more reserved and thought provoking, they both have the same emotional content they are just viewed in different ways... but maybe this is just how i write the two or perform the two...
I think people have the idea slam poetry has to be political, in your face, memorized, more verbal than written, more aural than reading, more emotively going for the jugular. I think a lot of that is false dichotomizing and limits both slam and page poetry. It's too bad because I think audiences are coming around to accept more of the entertainment performative angle over the content a lot of times & the poets in turn play to that, but maybe that's a sign of the times. Also, there's a tendency from poets to slam various tropes of oppression & traumatic experiences, which corners judges into an awkward, subconscious space~ "scoring" them seems weird, that might cast them as sexist racist/etc.I believe in slam as an outlet for pieces which aren't read very much on paper & that the proliferation of certain kinds of pieces and themes is a result of where people are culturally. I mention these two things up front because I think they shape people's perceptions about there being a "slam" poetry or style.There's some truth to it, but then again... I'm the sort who believes good poetry is good poetry.If you listen to tapes of Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Auden, Millay~ when they read, they have a reader's voice like actors have an actor's voice.Anne Waldman and Allen Ginsberg and and Baraka Bukowski and Kerouac~ those were and are poets who read their work with vigor, energy, enthusiasm. They're as much "slam" poets as poets or the other way around. Maybe part of slam is to bring that reality into focus and break those false dichotomies, at least it is to me. I think the challenge of a slam poem is the economy of it.Working a brain from the page can be linguistically, verbally slower and the form can be the litmus paper for the meaning to rise.With slam, you have to perform this, you have to bend the brain more aurally (yet I believe the best poetry does both), it has to work a little like a song. Really effective pieces often balance and cram a lot of really sharp images or clever wordplay into a short space, but if there's too much, there's a risk people couldn't have caught all of it, or if there's too little, then it's not satisfying. The slam poets I admire have a virtuosity with pacing~ sometimes the way they deliver lines, the characters they are on stage, even their breath becomes part of the form and the punctuation or their presence (Gottlieb, Rachel Mckibbens, Christa Bell,Buddy Wakefield).
my girlfriend and i were at the local poetry slam show last night, and all these people had different styles and it got me thinking what actually MAKES slam poetry. she's got a little beat poet style going on in there, some people read their poetry like speeches, others had a rap vibe, some tried to adopt the whole poe rhyming schemes, etc etc. so what really makes it slam poetry?
for me, at least, i think slam poetry is in-your-face, stand-up poetry(be it political or not) and regular poetry feels more like something articulated on paper for one's reading. not saying, of course, that the two can't merge.regular poetry can easily become slam poetry and slam poetry can look gorgeous in paper. i guess it kinda depends on presentation.
i guess the word 'slam' implies a certain kind of power and energy that is released through the performance that is different from regular poetry readings. the rhythm, the pacing, the intonation, etc. its like merging martin luther king with jack kerouac and all the in betweens. its about the words and the performance element, to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-30 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-30 03:01 pm (UTC)Brooklynne
good poetry is good poetry
Date: 2005-08-30 05:51 pm (UTC)Also, there's a tendency from poets to slam various tropes of oppression & traumatic experiences, which corners judges into an awkward, subconscious space~ "scoring" them seems weird, that might cast them as sexist racist/etc.I believe in slam as an outlet for pieces which aren't read very much on paper & that the proliferation of certain kinds of pieces and themes is a result of where people are culturally.
I mention these two things up front because I think they shape people's perceptions about there being a "slam" poetry or style.There's some truth to it, but then again...
I'm the sort who believes good poetry is good poetry.If you listen to tapes of Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Auden, Millay~ when they read, they have a reader's voice like actors have an actor's voice.Anne Waldman and Allen Ginsberg and and Baraka Bukowski and Kerouac~ those were and are poets who read their work with vigor, energy, enthusiasm. They're as much "slam" poets as poets or the other way around.
Maybe part of slam is to bring that reality into focus and break those false dichotomies, at least it is to me.
I think the challenge of a slam poem is the economy of it.Working a brain from the page can be linguistically, verbally slower and the form can be the litmus paper for the meaning to rise.With slam, you have to perform this, you have to bend the brain more aurally (yet I believe the best poetry does both), it has to work a little like a song. Really effective pieces often balance and cram a lot of really sharp images or clever wordplay into a short space, but if there's too much, there's a risk people couldn't have caught all of it, or if there's too little, then it's not satisfying.
The slam poets I admire have a virtuosity with pacing~ sometimes the way they deliver lines, the characters they are on stage, even their breath becomes part of the form and the punctuation or their presence (Gottlieb, Rachel Mckibbens, Christa Bell,Buddy Wakefield).
Ah, I could talk about this for hours...
no subject
Date: 2005-08-30 10:30 pm (UTC)for me, at least, i think slam poetry is in-your-face, stand-up poetry(be it political or not) and regular poetry feels more like something articulated on paper for one's reading. not saying, of course, that the two can't merge.regular poetry can easily become slam poetry and slam poetry can look gorgeous in paper. i guess it kinda depends on presentation.
i guess the word 'slam' implies a certain kind of power and energy that is released through the performance that is different from regular poetry readings. the rhythm, the pacing, the intonation, etc. its like merging martin luther king with jack kerouac and all the in betweens. its about the words and the performance element, to me.
-shrugs-