Clark writes:
though poetry IS sound and rhythm and music and is enriched when heard as well as read, it need not necessarily be performed.
To be experienced fully, Spoken Word must be performed.
I see no problem whatsoever in Spoken Word and conventional poetry existing side-by-side in the canon of poetic forms. It's all good. Each form fulfills needs for different audiences. One need not supplant the other. One is not "better than" the other.
Spoken Word IS poetry, but it is also performance, so in that way it is also DRAMA. Spoken Word is a fusion of poetry and drama. Song lyrics are also poetry, but song is music. A lot of song lyrics would fail on the page without the music to back it up and the same can be said for Spoken Word. A great performance piece may fail on the page without the performance to back it up. So Spoken Word is really a genre of its own. There is poetry, song, drama and spoken word. They all share elements of poetry but they are all distinct genres.
I used to do a lot of spoken word, until I realized that the “performance” aspect of it is a whole direction on its own. To be a successful Spoken Word artist, you have to be more than a gifted poet. The poet must take on a persona, play a character, and play it well. For me, that is an added element of drama that I would just a soon not indulge in. As a poet, it removes some of the authenticity of the poem. Any poem can be entertaining with enough performance behind it. But that says nothing about the quality of the poem as literature.
So Spoken Word brings poetry to the people as a form of entertainment. That’s great. The poetry audience has expanded exponentially as a result. Fantastic! But they aren’t the same thing. Spoken word is poetry but poetry isn’t spoken word.
Bookmarks