Roots poets?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:32 pm
Following on from David's thread, I find myself pondering further on the differences between poetry and music. While poetry seems still be under the thumb of academics, music has broken free completely. Academics are still involved, but they are no longer calling the shots. It is the overwhelming popularity of music that has allowed this to happen, with the academics being forced to follow rather than lead.
There is a now a wide variety of musical genres, all of them (with the possible exception of 'pop'...and perhaps 'country') receiving a large measure of respectability in mainstream circles.
Vic talked about a similarity between 'folk' music and 'folk' poetry.
What about 'roots' music? That seems to reach back even further than 'folk', although perhaps it implies an Afro-American influence that our rhyming poetry lacks. It is certainly achieving a measure of popularity and credibility that few other genres can match.
We 'bush' poets are, in a sense, radical conservatives (at least in terms of our chosen poetic form, if not in our personal politics), and we are also reaching back to the 'roots' of poetry.
'Roots' poets. What do you think?
There is a now a wide variety of musical genres, all of them (with the possible exception of 'pop'...and perhaps 'country') receiving a large measure of respectability in mainstream circles.
Vic talked about a similarity between 'folk' music and 'folk' poetry.
What about 'roots' music? That seems to reach back even further than 'folk', although perhaps it implies an Afro-American influence that our rhyming poetry lacks. It is certainly achieving a measure of popularity and credibility that few other genres can match.
We 'bush' poets are, in a sense, radical conservatives (at least in terms of our chosen poetic form, if not in our personal politics), and we are also reaching back to the 'roots' of poetry.
'Roots' poets. What do you think?