Serious versus humorous

[Peely]

G'day All

When I am performing and I would like to do a serious poem, I like to use a sandwich approach (if I am lucky the sandwiches might be supplied). In all seriousness, if, for example, I have a 15 minute set to do, I might decide to do three five minute poems. The first and last poem of the set will typically be a humorous poem. The serious poem will be sandwiched in between them. In this way, your audience are still getting to experience a serious poem - in my case, since I don't seem to write much of my own serious poetry, it will typically be a traditional poem. Being a younger poet, I tend to struggle to find the right contemporary poems to suit me anyway - many seem to be written from an older person's perspective, it is not necessarily a case of not wanting to use them. If I had more in my armoury, I would certainly consider using them.

The audience reaction to a well-performed serious poem is typically quite different to a well-performed humorous poem. You know you are doing well if the room is almost silent (apart from you doing your stuff on stage), and all eyes are focussed on you. You are doing particularly well if you notice people in the audience who are overcome with the emotion in the poem and either have tears in their eyes or are crying (you can generally tell reasonably well that it isn't because you are doing a bad job as a performer). The applause at the completion of the poem will typically be just as long and loud as it is for a well-performed humorous poem. Just a side thought, maybe judges' tables need to be positioned in a way that they can see more of the reaction that the performer sees when something serious is being performed.

Regards


John Peel

[David Campbell]

Thanks, John...good points. The 'sandwich' idea fits in with Bob's idea of finishing up with something cheerful. I've never done any performance judging, but positioning the judges so they can appreciate the audience reaction seems a very sensible idea.

David

[Glenny Palmer]

....I haven't got time to reply to this at present ....Zondrae will have my head off if I don't get 'stuff' to her for croc's book....but I just can't resist saying......how can we clone Zondrae? God Bless the woman, as the way she approaches 'marketing' our craft is exaccerly what we all need to do......

exiting quickly before I'm bounced!........

[Zondrae]

Sitting quietly at my computer,

(blushing a lot but not saying much.) Running out of black toner, so I'm off to the 'refiller' shop to get another one.

[Vic Jefferies]

I have said this before but in my opinion the "Bush Poetry" community is such a broad church that covers such a wide variety of poetry and poetry performances I doubt there is a single answer to the question of serious versus funny poetry. What I do know is that at breakfasts and festivals the emphasis is on entertainment and the audiences in the main are looking for comedy, but, and it is a very big but, they will accept serious poetry if it is of good quality and delivered well.
I remember Leonard Teale touring the country and the RSL clubs presenting Banjo Paterson's works and he killed 'em. The essential ingredient was quality.
I think it is going to be very hard to convince Academia that bush poetry has merit if we continue down the dogs, dunnies and slightly blue road.
I would prefer to see us accept what we are in reality and that is folk poets. Non academic poets who write on life's experiences much like folk singers and songwriters do.

[Glenny Palmer]

Hey Vic,
Can you teach 'brevity'?.....cos I neeed that instruction. Well said...& in such a nice concise, short manner. Yeah. Well said indeed.
Cheeers
Glenny

[Zondrae]

Now Glenny,

I have to add; Vic is the real gem.

[Vic Jefferies]

Well, Glenny, unaccustomed as I am...thanks for the kind words.
High praise indeed! Thank you Zondrae.

[David Campbell]

Well put, Vic. I know there’s no simple answer, it’s more just a case of awareness-raising so that our public presentations, where appropriate/practical, better reflect the fact that we are, as you say, a ‘broad church’…writing about a range of issues in a variety of styles. That probably means defying people’s assumptions occasionally and taking a risk. It’d be great (in my opinion, anyway) if people came to a bush poetry performance expecting to be both entertained and challenged. If, as well as laughing like drains at some pieces they went away saying that this or that one really made them stop and think.

Stephen’s point about a serious song being easier to ‘sell’ than a serious poem is an interesting one. Why is that? And John’s comment about having trouble finding contemporary verse suitable for a younger poet is significant. Is that because there’s hardly anyone in that age group writing bush poetry?

Can we pin our hopes on all the work being done by those who go into schools? It might seem an odd comparison, but there are some similarities with tennis. Tennis clubs have been hollowed out in the last two decades. There are plenty of enthusiastic juniors and a lot of keen oldies, but there’s hardly anyone in-between. The juniors don’t stick with the game any more, so courts have been sold off, and whole competitions have disappeared as the number of teams has dropped dramatically. My local club has been hit so hard it might have to ask the Council to take over.

As Glenny says, we have to find ways of reaching out. Academia, with its entrenched attitudes, might be a bridge too far in the short term…but maybe, over time, they’ll begin to pay attention. Preaching to the converted is easy. And that can be a trap.

David

[Stephen Whiteside]

I think the reason why serious songs are easier to sell is that music provides more stimulation to the ear than simple spoken word. There is just so much more to listen to, and music and instruments are just generally more 'entertaining'. That's why you're immediately up against it when you rely entirely upon the spoken word, and the temptation is very strong to switch to vaudeville.

The difficulty with 'folk poet', Vic, is that, even though academia blesses free verse, not all free verse practitioners are academics - far from it, I suspect, and I imagine they would bridle at being excluded from the definition of 'folk poetry'.

I wonder if we are 'naive' poets - thinking of the naive school of art. Whenever I draw a picture I'm told it's in the naive style.

We could just be 'rhyming poets', but that does sound exceptionally flat and daggy.

I also suspect we should be reaching out more to musicians. Poetry and music work well together, and can be of mutual benefit. Audiences for music are generally much bigger than for poetry. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.) If you put an hour of poetry in the middle of a musical programme, you are probably going to lose most of your audience, but if you put an hour of 'poetry and song' in there instead, you will probably keep them - and leave them feeling they have had a taste of something a bit different. Even then, you probably want about two songs to one poem - unless the poetry is absolutely extraordinary.

Thinking a bit more about the tennis analogy, sport and the arts are generally for the young and the old. You get involved as a young adult (or perhaps younger still), then you have kids, and don't have the time for it all. Then, when the kids are grown up, you get back into it again. Perhaps it is more complicated than that. I don't know.

One last thing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Children - and their parents - are a great audience for poetry. Once again, you need to break it up a bit, and there are lots of ways to do that. Sing a song. Ask the audience some questions. Get involved with some conversations with the kids for a little while. Have a break for some exercises to relieve sore bottoms and numb legs - star jumps, or something like that. Keep it all moving, but it does work.