Writen vs. Spoken poetry

[CharleyH]

What IS the difference between a written poem and a spoken-word poem?

IMO, a spoken poem is simpler, easier to vocalize in maybe a dramatic or musical way. A written poem (one meant to be seen on paper) might have more complex phrases, or stanzas not easily read aloud.

What are the things (features) that make a spoken poem different from a written one?

 

[hmmnmm]

I remember trying a couple audios, and found it more challenging than I expected, mainly because, as you say, what was written didn't really translate comfortably to the spoken. Had to pretty much redo what was written. It was also uncomfortable reading it. So reciting would be the thing there. And as you say, simplicity would probably be the key. I suppose if the foundation is simple but solid bedrock, you could build on it. If I was ever gonna try it again, that's what I'd try to keep in mind.

 

[CharleyH]

I remember trying a couple audios, and found it more challenging than I expected, mainly because, as you say, what was written didn't really translate comfortably to the spoken. Had to pretty much redo what was written. It was also uncomfortable reading it. So reciting would be the thing there. And as you say, simplicity would probably be the key. I suppose if the foundation is simple but solid bedrock, you could build on it. If I was ever gonna try it again, that's what I'd try to keep in mind.

Thank you. I think we'd all love to do more spoken-word on Lit, but I (for one) am never sure how to start. I KNOW there are poets on here who can give us some great advice. You for one, have given much. Again, TY.

 

[hmmnmm]

Thank you. I think we'd all love to do more spoken-word on Lit, but I (for one) am never sure how to start. I KNOW there are poets on here who can give us some great advice. You for one, have given much. Again, TY.

Always had a great attraction to the world of sound. It's like the wind: you can't really see it, but it has shapes and forms and you can certainly feel it. Incredibly fascinating. A world unto itself. Sound and sounds. Gets me giddy.

 

[bflagsst]

Musicality/lyricality or somethin'... There's a reason why song lyrics are simpleton/stupid. It's easier reading complex language/symbol than listening to it. The most lyrical songwriter ever is a shoddy poet:
---
So we go inside and we gravely read the stones
All those people all those lives
Where are they now?
With the loves and hates
And passions just like mine
They were born
And then they lived and then they died
Seems so unfair
And I want to cry
---

In a song it works, as a poem it's mediocre. All the slam poets are a step down from the musicality of songwriters, they have to use more complex symbols, but there isn't a performance poet bigger than Yeats, Keats, Shelley etc. Spoken word is between poetry and song. It's strange that spoken/performed poetry is alien to the archetype of 'poetry' now, the read stanza.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

Interesting topic. I was telling this critique group I go to that I probably wouldn't bring in any poems that I write because I think of them as being very context specific. I guess I'm not sure how they'll work out loud. I guess there's only one way to find out

In all the books on how to write poetry, they act as if all poems will be read out loud, but I think the Internet is changing that rule somewhat. It's a new, vibrant medium for the art and one that doesn't involve out-loud reading most of the time.

One thing that always trips me out a little is when there's an unexpected rhyme or bit of alliteration in a poem I'm reading silently and I notice it in my mind. It's hard to say whether I'm really "hearing" the rhyme, or more or less feeling it somehow, you know? I think at least for rhymes, they certainly work differently as actual sound waves instead of as pixels...

 

[Xelebes]

With written, you can do sight-rhymes that you can't do spoken. Also alliterative poetry doesn't have the impact with written as it does have with spoken.

 

[bronzeage]

I once did a public reading of tanka quartets. When I listened to the playback of the night, I realized my carefully crafted syllable count was lost when read aloud.

Some spoken poems lose meaning when read aloud.

"Would a gorilla
eat a tortilla?"

 

[Angeline]

I'm no spoken word poet, but I do read everything I write aloud, over and over, as part of my editing process. I feel anything I write should sound good as well as look good on paper. And of course some poems have certain rhymes or instances of assonance or alliteration, repetition, chanting--all things that can lend themself to sounding really good in a poem. Well, when one can make them work, that is.

Everyone who is not familiar with the sound files at UBU should check them out. There's tons of poetry recorded there, everyone from Yeats and Dylan Thomas to Patti Smith.

And Charley, I believe Lauren still has copies of some of my spoken poetry. If she wants to post links here, feel free--or not.

 

[Xelebes]

I once did a public reading of tanka quartets. When I listened to the playback of the night, I realized my carefully crafted syllable count was lost when read aloud.

Some spoken poems lose meaning when read aloud.

"Would a gorilla
eat a tortilla?"

That's because the icti don't match in the two rhyming words. The ictus in gorilla is the first syllable and the ictus on the second is in the second syllable.

 

[butters]

What IS the difference between a written poem and a spoken-word poem?

IMO, a spoken poem is simpler, easier to vocalize in maybe a dramatic or musical way. A written poem (one meant to be seen on paper) might have more complex phrases, or stanzas not easily read aloud.

What are the things (features) that make a spoken poem different from a written one?

an interesting question, Charley. I was about to go to bed but checked in here and you made me take stock

sound and rhythm, i would say, hold a greater share of making a spoken-word poem "work" than a written. your images need to have impact, because it's such an immediate medium you're using to try and convey all you want to show. with the spoken-word performance or simple reading, you don't have the same luxury to savour phrases over and over for their elegance, wit, intellectual pretensions et al as you do with the written piece. SO, what you do have to do is use language in a way that either a) is quirky or attractive enough to the reader for it to catch their attention (and that doesn't even mean the poem has to be any good, audiences are fickle creatures ) or b) make the words disappear. To do that, you need to be able to take the listener into the world of visions, flights of fancy, that your work inhabits. It becomes not about the words they're hearing, but about the images, the sensations they are experiencing because of the words/sounds/pacing. For me the very best might leave entire phrases resonating in my mind but the bulk of what i'm left with is the sense of having seen/felt/experienced sensations that were conjured by the poet's words.

so many poems fail when it comes to being read aloud; these are often very good poems, both as written and as 'out louders', the fault lying with the reader. like anything else, there are those with a natural flair for doing voice-work. most people don't have that, though there are those who can learn to make some sort of fist of things; the person with the natural flair, however, will make it all seem so easy, and can even make poor poetry sound good!

i don't know about you guys, though, but while i can admire the spoken word, and even envy the abilities of some out there when it comes to performing, i still would say i prefer the luxuries afforded by the time we have to peruse the written word and all its nuances.

 

[EroticOrogeny]

I once did a public reading of tanka quartets. When I listened to the playback of the night, I realized my carefully crafted syllable count was lost when read aloud.

Some spoken poems lose meaning when read aloud.

"Would a gorilla
eat a tortilla?"

Yes - for me they don't rhyme, just an apparent rhyme when read on the page.
But I still do often also consider the sound, especially when writing.

 

[Angeline]

an interesting question, Charley. I was about to go to bed but checked in here and you made me take stock

sound and rhythm, i would say, hold a greater share of making a spoken-word poem "work" than a written. your images need to have impact, because it's such an immediate medium you're using to try and convey all you want to show. with the spoken-word performance or simple reading, you don't have the same luxury to savour phrases over and over for their elegance, wit, intellectual pretensions et al as you do with the written piece. SO, what you do have to do is use language in a way that either a) is quirky or attractive enough to the reader for it to catch their attention (and that doesn't even mean the poem has to be any good, audiences are fickle creatures ) or b) make the words disappear. To do that, you need to be able to take the listener into the world of visions, flights of fancy, that your work inhabits. It becomes not about the words they're hearing, but about the images, the sensations they are experiencing because of the words/sounds/pacing. For me the very best might leave entire phrases resonating in my mind but the bulk of what i'm left with is the sense of having seen/felt/experienced sensations that were conjured by the poet's words.

so many poems fail when it comes to being read aloud; these are often very good poems, both as written and as 'out louders', the fault lying with the reader. like anything else, there are those with a natural flair for doing voice-work. most people don't have that, though there are those who can learn to make some sort of fist of things; the person with the natural flair, however, will make it all seem so easy, and can even make poor poetry sound good!

i don't know about you guys, though, but while i can admire the spoken word, and even envy the abilities of some out there when it comes to performing, i still would say i prefer the luxuries afforded by the time we have to peruse the written word and all its nuances.

Well said, Chip. My preference is to read as well, for exactly the reasons you gave. I prefer a written rather than spoken poem as I prefer to read the news over watching it on television. And I usually prefer a novel over a film. My imagination can usually supply more ideas and images, etc., than whatever is spoken. But as a writer I know I should never discount the power of sound and I try to incorporate sound into my poems. But I could never be a slam poet, for example, because I'm not a good dramatic reader, and I also think slam-type poetry tends to emphasize gimmckry and drama to make up for the poem not being so good. Not always, but often imo.

 

[EroticOrogeny]

I don't think I'm a very good poetry speaker. We had to do an audio poem for last year's survivor challenge. Its so wierd listening to your recorded self - sounds so different. I once tried reading one of my poems to my wife, but she much prefers to read them on paper.

 

[greenmountaineer]

an interesting question, Charley. I was about to go to bed but checked in here and you made me take stock

sound and rhythm, i would say, hold a greater share of making a spoken-word poem "work" than a written. your images need to have impact, because it's such an immediate medium you're using to try and convey all you want to show. with the spoken-word performance or simple reading, you don't have the same luxury to savour phrases over and over for their elegance, wit, intellectual pretensions et al as you do with the written piece. SO, what you do have to do is use language in a way that either a) is quirky or attractive enough to the reader for it to catch their attention (and that doesn't even mean the poem has to be any good, audiences are fickle creatures ) or b) make the words disappear. To do that, you need to be able to take the listener into the world of visions, flights of fancy, that your work inhabits. It becomes not about the words they're hearing, but about the images, the sensations they are experiencing because of the words/sounds/pacing. For me the very best might leave entire phrases resonating in my mind but the bulk of what i'm left with is the sense of having seen/felt/experienced sensations that were conjured by the poet's words.

so many poems fail when it comes to being read aloud; these are often very good poems, both as written and as 'out louders', the fault lying with the reader. like anything else, there are those with a natural flair for doing voice-work. most people don't have that, though there are those who can learn to make some sort of fist of things; the person with the natural flair, however, will make it all seem so easy, and can even make poor poetry sound good!

i don't know about you guys, though, but while i can admire the spoken word, and even envy the abilities of some out there when it comes to performing, i still would say i prefer the luxuries afforded by the time we have to peruse the written word and all its nuances.

I agree with every point you made.

I remember hearing voice recordings by Robert Frost and T. S. Eliot that I thought were horrible because they sounded like drama majors who were taking their first course in acting.

On the other hand, there are some poets who seem to have a gift for recital. Except for one or two instances early on in the poem, "The Lanyard" written and recited by Billy Collins had a nice and easy conversational tone to it. I also think it captures many of the points you made in your first paragraph.

 

[Epmd607]

I agree with every point you made.

I remember hearing voice recordings by Robert Frost and T. S. Eliot that I thought were horrible because they sounded like drama majors who were taking their first course in acting.

On the other hand, there are some poets who seem to have a gift for recital. Except for one or two instances early on in the poem, "The Lanyard" written and recited by Billy Collins had a nice and easy conversational tone to it. I also think it captures many of the points you made in your first paragraph.

TS Eliot, Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath = terrible readers/performers.

These three people were born into written poetry, have no idea how to perform a poem like their heathen ancestors had to, back when writing was scholastic/ecclesiastic.

 

[butters]

i could listen to Richard Burton read the telephone directory aloud.

i forget the name, but there's an irish guy whose voice is so soft, melodic, so ... so ... organic, that he's another who could make a shopping list sound a thing of beauty. some people are simply natural orators.

there is one person who has read poetry aloud to me as we've strolled the bank of the Thames; his was a voice naturally suited to the spoken word. his poetry i always admired, but his soft atlantic american voice ... superbly suited to the job. one of those rare poets who are able to read their work unselfconsciously and take you with them on mind journeys. his name is Guy Blake Kettlehack.

 

[butters]

I agree with every point you made.

I remember hearing voice recordings by Robert Frost and T. S. Eliot that I thought were horrible because they sounded like drama majors who were taking their first course in acting.

On the other hand, there are some poets who seem to have a gift for recital. Except for one or two instances early on in the poem, "The Lanyard" written and recited by Billy Collins had a nice and easy conversational tone to it. I also think it captures many of the points you made in your first paragraph.

I agree with every point you made.
that's because i'm right

i've heard some stinkers, too, both by famous and the unknown.

does anyone know if Walt Whitman has any recorded versions of his work? i'd especially like to hear his Song of Myself, but only if it's not going to put me off for life

 

[butters]

... there are some poets who seem to have a gift for recital. Except for one or two instances early on in the poem, "The Lanyard" written and recited by Billy Collins had a nice and easy conversational tone to it. ...

my son's managed to break the earpieces again and have no external speakers at the moment so i've bookmarked this site for another day's enjoyment. thanks for the link, gm!

 

[champagne1982]

Well said, Chip. My preference is to read as well, for exactly the reasons you gave. I prefer a written rather than spoken poem as I prefer to read the news over watching it on television. And I usually prefer a novel over a film. My imagination can usually supply more ideas and images, etc., than whatever is spoken. But as a writer I know I should never discount the power of sound and I try to incorporate sound into my poems. But I could never be a slam poet, for example, because I'm not a good dramatic reader, and I also think slam-type poetry tends to emphasize gimmckry and drama to make up for the poem not being so good. Not always, but often imo.

I am the same way regarding books to film and a journal over a television recording. However, I prefer a play to a script.

 

[Angeline]

I am the same way regarding books to film and a journal over a television recording. However, I prefer a play to a script.

Well yeah me too, but think about it: a script is not meant to be literature (though in some cases we may perceive it that way). It's meant as a working set of directions for performers. But I do agree that there is nothing more exciting than seeing a well-executed performance of a well written script. Many years ago I saw a performance of A Touch of the Poet, one of Eugene O'Neil's lesser known plays. It was directed by Jose Quintero (then the quintessential O'Neil director), and starred great actors: Jason Robards, Colleen Dewhurst and Milo O'Shea. I don't think my feet tocuhed the ground for a month after seeing it. But I myself could write a wonderful poem that unless it were read by one of those actors might not sound like such a much.

 

[champagne1982]

Well yeah me too, but think about it: a script is not meant to be literature (though in some cases we may perceive it that way). It's meant as a working set of directions for performers. But I do agree that there is nothing more exciting than seeing a well-executed performance of a well written script. Many years ago I saw a performance of A Touch of the Poet, one of Eugene O'Neil's lesser known plays. It was directed by Jose Quintero (then the quintessential O'Neil director), and starred great actors: Jason Robards, Colleen Dewhurst and Milo O'Shea. I don't think my feet tocuhed the ground for a month after seeing it. But I myself could write a wonderful poem that unless it were read by one of those actors might not sound like such a much.

It becomes a shared experience rather than the more personal one of reading. Once something enters the air and involves our senses we pass it into the realm of performance and audience. I think that's why I write over performing most of my poems. It takes something special to abandon the security of a one to one sharing of the written word and put yourself out there to an even broader audience of listeners, the scope of which involves people who may not be readers but are just as critical as other writers. Scary!

 

[annaswirls]

one thing I have appreciated when listening to spoken word poetry is repetition, since one cannot go back and re-read parts of a poem while fixed in time and space at the mercy of the reader


One problem I have with converting my written poetry to spoken is having to fill in the extra words

While leaving out extraneous words in a written poem is desirable (to me at least) as your brain can just fill them in automatically (and sometimes humorously) but when listening, it is not as easy to fill in the blanks. It is not how our brain is wired.

I find myself re-writing if I am going to read things out loud.

It makes me feel less of a writer and more of a performer. Both are fine just different.

 

[bronzeage]

Yes - for me they don't rhyme, just an apparent rhyme when read on the page.
But I still do often also consider the sound, especially when writing.

I consider all of my writing, poetry and prose, to be spoken. The page is just a transcript.

 

[PandoraGlitters]

I respect the opinions expressed in the thread, however I think people make more of a distinction here than really exists. Many of my favorite writers on paper are wonderful read aloud, as well. Sylvia Plath, Simon Armitage, Billy Collins, BJ Ward, Sharon Olds, all of these poets sound great aloud as do many poems by AnnaSwirls, Tzara, Angeline and Patrick Carrington. Not every poem every poet writes is going to be appreciated aloud as much as on the page but I find that people often DO love to hear, say, ee cummings read aloud and that this can add a different dimension of appreciation for the work.

Poetry has its roots in sound and I believe language that is written can never fully be divorced from the spoken as a reader will "hear" the language in some way even when it is read silently. If this were not the case, poets would not care about sonics, meter, rhythm, or even delicate differences in diction where connotation is less the issue than the feel of a word on the tongue.

Some of my poems work better aloud than others (for example, a sestina will not carry its full weight in the ear) but I would not make the great distinction between spoken word and written word in poetry that some make, even given the different goals of slam poets. I worry that people sometimes use these distinctions as a way to sneer at young, urban poets. Example: at the 2008 Dodge Festival an older white poet following such a poet sneered "well I'm not going to get up here and do the dozens." It was a very uncomfortable moment that somewhat unraveled the lovely mood of shared community.

I hope that any poetry community would be able to appreciate the benefits of diversity afforded by multiple expressions of the art without having to slot poets into strict categories that may ignore the vast gray area between, say, shape poetry and slam poetry. Most language is meant to be read and heard. Poetry is no different.