I recently composed a very long treatise on Slam and where I thought it should go. I posted it online for public consumption and comment in December of 2011 (“Poetry Slam: The Next Level”). The last part of that document contained a section entitled “Death by Slam: The Competition and how it will kill NPS & Slam”. As notorious as it sounds, this
(
Read more... )
I like the suggested rules changes. However, dropping props and costumes requirements will make the even even more like a theatre (which may be good or bad). I would definitely start doing my haibuns-with-imbedded-haiga (a bit of poetic prose, some images/photos, and a closing haiku or a few). That would be so much fun.
Interestingly enough, when you mentioned poets you love, you also mentioned proven winners (at the nat and any other level). What does it say?
Reply
I am all for the differently-timed rounds, and when I brought it up in the forums, one of the objections was that poets would get really angry if assigned to the 1-minute round. I think that is nonsense. Some of my best poems are short, and I'd rather present one of them than something I tried to stretch to 3 minutes.
Also, I'm surprised to see Scott laud mandatory group pieces, seeing that he generally coaches teams that bring zero group pieces.
Reply
" I'm surprised to see Scott laud mandatory group pieces, seeing that he generally coaches teams that bring zero group pieces."
yes, that was funny and surprising to me, too. It looks like Scott is trying to mix things up as much as possible. Yey for this.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment