Donations are essential to keep Write Out Loud going    

<Deleted User> (2736)

Jump to most recent response

Wigan Slam 12th April Tudor House Hotel

The Wigan Words 07 Slam involved some 14 slammers, 5 judges and an appreciative audience. Compere Julian Jordon spread his usual bonhomie over the proceedings.
First up was Hilary Walker with a very humorous and well recited piece about Reality TV and the cult of the C list celebrity. This deserved a higher score than it got, but that’s a problem at every slam – the early contestants get lower scores than they should. This was followed by Dan Robinson’s ‘Chalet Love’ a visceral piece on holiday bonking which seemed to be littered with swear words but these were all relevant to the subject matter rather than gratuitous (as so much slammers’ swearing is).
Dave Morgan read his ‘Farewell to the Jungle’ a narrative poem at once poignant, allegorical and humorous. This was followed by a piece by Degsy Jones about absolution. Not his best work, I felt. it seemed cliché-ridden and imageless to me. Martin Higgins’ poem about having the perfect home was competent: it had good rhythm and musicality and the killer last line: ‘Grief dulls this Ikea gloss.’ Gordon Zola recited a rappy work about classical composers that not only had excellent rhyme and rhythm but also involved the audience and went down really well.
Musician and student Shaun Fallows gave us ‘My Hands’. Some nice internal rhyme in this but I think it needs development. As it was it was too short for a slam. Scott Devon recited his ‘Three Nights’: rappy, staccato, with Ionescoan degeneration of language into mere sounds, judicious repetition and varied pace. Well liked by the audience and judges.
Then Peter Crompton took the place apart with his ‘Sex sells’. This had lovely rhymes, beautiful alliteration, humour, varied pace and machine gun, clinical delivery. It was good to hear a true poet at work. A wonderful performance that demonstrated no less than sonic mastery of language. Outstanding.
Baz followed with a poem about creatures that get eaten. Whilst it was witty (‘all you need to do is very quickly evolve’) the scansion and rhymes were not maybe as good as the humour. Lindsay Ashton’s piece again was humorous and had a fair rhythm but needed more work on scansion and some different rhymes. Louise Stoddart gave us ‘Kinky’ and ‘City’. The first was short and sweet, the second a bit listy for me though not without wit and charm.
John Cleys squeezed in ‘Turn Me On: A recipe for Love’,an epitaph, ‘Drive Me Like A Fire Engine’, and ‘Temptation in the garden’. His usual competent,witty verse and, I should add, for me a greatly improved delivery. Monologue Joe was last to perform with a song ‘Jesus has come to Wigan’, a thoroughly enjoyable, irreverent piece about the local delicacy (pies).








After the scores were added up, first was Peter Crompton, second Gordon Zola and third Scott Devon. Peter now has the opportunity to compete in the regional finals organised by Apples and Snakes.
It is worth noting that all contestants scored and performed well, especially the first-timers. Thanks to Gillian Forester for putting on this event. My apologies to anyone whose name is spelt wrongly. These are my own views and do not necessarily reflect what others felt about the performances.

Some of my own thoughts about slams are these: performance poetry is not the same as text-based poetry and often the transition from page to stage doesn’t work. I would like to see more recital and less reading, more poems written with performance in mind rather than a poet just picking something to read out of a sheaf of latest works. Speaking and listening (and performing) are active, immediate skills; reading and writing are reflective skills. What might be a great line when I’ve got time to chew it over by re-reading may not work at all when I can only hear it once.
Rhythm, musicality and aural fireworks sometimes but not always characterise the best slam poetry. Those whose slam poems use rhyme need to be just as good at metre and scansion as the best of the text-based rhymers. Too often, an otherwise good idea is ruined by lazy rhyme or clunkingly unmetrical phrasing and some slammers would do well to listen more actively to the likes of Tony Walsh or Peter Crompton. The non-rhymers have it easier in a way, though they need to work harder if anything on aural flow.
What to do about the early performers getting unjustly low scores? It might help if there was a longer open mic session (Julian and Paul did one brief warm-up where the judges scored) of brief acts where the judges scored at least six before the main event. In an ideal world, judges would agree on their criteria in advance and not judge text-based poems as highly as performed ones, if that makes sense.
Finally, I see no sense in having five judges and only using the three middle scores. It means that any judge who votes highest or lowest at any time might as well not be there. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me?

James
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:47 am
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

Hi James/ discussion board,
A well informed review there and a good indication of the nights proceedings for anyone who wasn't there.
Got a few good tips from your text in regards to the transition from paper to performance, this was my first slam (and only the second time reading in public) and pretty much straight away i felt a little out of my depth and wished i'd (1) stuck to my usual style and not tried to write a "poem" and definateltly (2) wished i'd learnt it well enough to recite!
I also agree with the fact Hilarys score should've been much higher, how to get around the issue of first up is one that needs to be looked at, i would've had her in third, i didn't understand the system of disregarding the highest and lowest scores either, this doesn't give you a true average does it? (may need a little help with the maths myself!)
Saying that though and to end on a positive rather than a rant, Peter well and truly deserved the win, he was fantastic and i wish him all the best in the regional heats

Martin
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:37 pm
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

Last night the best man won.
Well done.
Baz
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:25 pm
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

Sorry guys but I have to say I didn't enjoy the Wigan slam. No offence to Julian, Dave and Paul etc it's just that this was the third slam I've entered in the last few weeks where I've gone on either first or very early and consequently stood no chance of winning. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I think I should win, but it would be nice to have a fighting chance, so to speak.

When I first joined WOL approx 18 months ago I was full of enthusiasm at finding a group of like-minded people who would actually listen (politely) to my ramblings and scriblings without squirming (as my wonderful husband did on more than one occasion - 'Quick Paul, come and sit down and listen to this new poem I've written and honestly tell me what you think' - poor love!!) and at that stage I'd never heard of a slam. I was interested in the idea of a competition (being a secret closset-competitive bitch) and surprised that Julian, Dave and Paul were all somewhat anti-slam. Now after my recent failures I understand their misgivings and know where they're coming from. Apart from the issue of going on early I have some other observations.

My understanding of the rules for most Performance Poetry slams is that random judges mark the poets on the following critera:
1. The content of the poem
2. The performance/delivery of the poem by the poet
3. The audience reaction

Now here is where I'm going to upset some people.
I believe that 'Performance Poetry' should be just that 'Performed', and not 'read' . When was the last time you saw a comedian reading his jokes from a piece of paper, an actor in a play with his script in his hand or a rock band reading from sheet music. Yes, it's harder to recite from memory, it takes time to learn and then rehearse and rehearse again and it takes balls to stand up on stage and go for it, without a net. It's also the scariest place to be when you forget the next line but when you deliver word perfect the buzz is almost orgasmic, honest. So, in my opinion anyone performing well from memory deserves a higher score than someone reading from a piece of paper, in the performance catagory.

Call it sour grapes if you wish but at the Contact Theatre slam I was marked ' 2' by the guest poet. This was for a poem recited well, without mistakes, plus a reasonable audience reaction considering I was on second out of fourteen.
I can only conclude the scorer (a professional performance poet) absolutely hated the poem and with the greatest respect to all the other poets performing I was left feeling:

1. I was a crap performance poet.
2. I was the wrong gender
3. I was way too old
4. I was the wrong colour
5. I was way too commercial
6. I hadn't survived enough mental anguish in my life

Now I can't do much about points 2, 3, and 4 and I take issue with 6 (having dealt with the death of my mother as a child, the still overwhelming sadness of infertility, the drama of foreign adoption, marriage to and subsequent divorce from an alcoholic, single parenting of a traumatised child with severe behavioural problems - I swear I could write text books on attachment disorder or attention deficit- all whilst trying to hold down a full-time career, I think like most women of my age, I'm well qualified to call myself a survivor) so I decided to work on points 1 and 5.

I applied to join two similar projects being run in the North West and open to up and coming (well okay !!) performance poets wanting to challenge themselves and commit to a programme of personal development within their creativity and on both occasions I was unfortunately unsuccessful.

Now two slams later and no more progress I hold my hands up and accept that for a whole variety of reasons (some of which I'm responsible for) I don't appear to fit the mold. So congratulations to Peter, Allan and Scott on their acheivements. I was so pleased for Scott, and Allan, in my opinion, sometimes doesn't get the credit he deserves. I think Peter was excellent and I think he'd be unbeatable if he recited from memory.

So I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. Those of you who know me will know I'm not usually given to throwing tantrums but it seems it's back to the scribbling board for me and definitely NO SLAMS - you can keep em !!!
Hilary Walker xxxxxxxxxxxx


Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:49 pm
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

I thought the slam was interesting. It displayed many poets all with different thoughts of poetry. Poetry is something you cannot teach. You either have it or you don't, you could tell someone how to do it, but it's what comes from your head and your heart that makes it good.
It's not fair to say if someone's poetry is good or not. you can say whether you like it or not, but what you hate someone else could love...Marmite.
Some poets write but cannot act. If they prefere to read their poem rather than take over the stage should be ok. I think that there is a chance that the slam's could change the pure way of how a poet thinks. Though I would still go to them and compete as it is a good night to get the beer flowing and enjoy others poetry as well as showing them yours.
Don't write to win, write because you want to.
Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:45 pm
message box arrow
Hi all

Sorry I couldn't make the Wigan slam - many congrats to Pete and also to Alan/Gordon and Scott.

Thanks to James for the kind words in reference to my own mumblings in his excellent review of the night.

I provide my take on some of the points made by others on this thread in an earlier posting on this discussion forum in response to Julian's "Are slams a waste of money?" opener. NB Please read my comments below in the context of my earlier posting.

(Welcome back!) Whilst remaining a fan of a good slam, I agree with several of Hilary's points: I personally think the awarding of a 2 in any but the most extreme circumstances is uncalled for. I dislike the practice of ruling out top and bottom scores - which I think stems from balancing out friends/rivals' friends in the audience. The judging system which Hilary outlines (which we discussed recently, with one judge for each category) is the fairest I've seen but still left room for some boo-ed decisions. At the very least the judges should be advised to base their votes on those criteria and, as someone who spends very many hours learning and practising performing my stuff, I agree this should be rewarded in a performance poetry competition. Graft as well as craft should be recognised. The winning poem/poet should demonstrate both, I feel. (A lot of craft is graft, by the way. Perspiration/inspiration and all that. ) There could also be some "levelling" advice maybe ie something like "a 6 is ok, 7 is good, 8 is very good, 9 is excellent, 10 - out of this world." Or something?

That takes us onto thin ice of discussing levels of skill and experience. I'm lucky enough to have seen most of the top performance poets in the UK and a dozen or so of the world's finest. Maybe we're all 2-scores in comparison? But a high-scoring poem in one competition would score lowly at a senior level. Against which benchmark are judges voting? Most slams locally/lately have been "all-comers" which can have several effects including new starters entering for mic/stage experience but ending up feeling disappointed/worse, a whole range of actual and perceived injustices for many poets, through to experienced poets/perfomers choosing not to enter such a field for whatever reason.

In terms of the early/late scoring phenomenon, two points. 1) I've seen it work in reverse - people who've seen little poetry giving out 9s and 10s too early to less-than-great poems, thereby leaving thermselves nowhere to go and 2) I think it is fairer if the competition is kept to a fixed, fewer number of poets (6? 8? 10?) who do 2 rounds with last in the first half going first in the second. (Then semi/final etc)

Closing comments: Respect to Hilary as a poet, perfomer and for sharing some of the points below. Let's remember that slams are meant to be fun and were invented to put a bit of zip and showbiz into what, for most people is, at best, a stuffy medium. I repeat my wish for standard Uk rules and regional/national eagues.

Meanwhile, I'm a big fan of the wisdom on the following site - 50 mistakes that poets make at http://www.thewordsmithpress.com/content/article.php?article=29. Don't know about you, but I'm guilty of 49!?

Finally, look out for my new poem, with the tongue-in-cheek title "Slam Winning Poem" which aims to expose all the flaws and tricks in the medium. (Although it might get me thrown out of the Poets' Magic Circle!!)

Keep scribbling!

Tony






Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:32 pm
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

I really don’t think there is a completely fair way to judge a slam, I’ve also been near the top in the last few I’ve competed in and I feel I’ve suffered for it. I do feel as though the best performance on the night actually won the guys reading was spot on though I felt his second poem was very similar in style and rhythm to the first.

I was a little bit fed up as, and I’m not being an ego maniac here but I know how good a performer I am and how well I put something across. There were a couple of people at that slam who were quite frankly shit yet scored higher than me. Am I going to moan about it? No, what’s the point. Over three or four poems I know I would wipe the floor with them but so what.

I really don’t feel that you should be marked down for reading from paper. My memory is crap but I know how well I can actually do a poem so why does the paper matter? I write it down so I don’t have to remember it. The performance is I feel more to do with rhythm and sound than a visual representation of he poem. So unless you’re dancing across the stage why does it matter if you read from paper? I only learn a poem if I’m doing something else with it like stripping or dancing on stilts both of which I’ve done.

I have done lots of paid performances but have only ever won one slam, not bothered it’s a lot of luck to be honest. I’ve run my own poetry night

I saw Hilary perform in Liverpool & Wigan and I thought she was stronger in Wigan, maybe it was the poem. I’ve also done the Contact Theatre and found it very weird so I wouldn’t think twice about it.

Who said you can’t teach poetry? Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. I already had the basics but I’ve learned so much over the last few years by attending courses and by watching other people. I’ve also taught poetry. I’d be interested to know which poem that person read.

dam robinson
Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:46 pm
message box arrow

Scott Devon

Hi guys,
l agree with a lot of what's being said on this discussion. I don't want to brag but l'vr probably done more slams than anyone, even you Tony. When l was in Newcastle l used to do one a week.
The problem with slams as l see it, is each one is unique and some arent slams at all but talent contests. If you don't go on more than once it aint really a slam. The point of slamming for me is that you have to produce the goods again and again as you go through the rounds. Did a slam once with six rounds and l tell you it's exhausting. That for me is what slamming is about the maintenance of self belief throughout. I also think someone should invent a pro slam where you have to read from memory.
Also, the first thign l do when l arrive is scope the judges for age and gender. If they are 35 or above, there's no way l'm gonna win. If they are in there twenties l stand a damn good chance. Also, if the judges are female l'm kanckered.
The slam scene simply needs to evolve, l would like to see a ranking system, do we allow props or not, etc. It just all feels a bit amateur to be honest, even the so called big slams in this country like the UK championship feel amateurish.
I've kinda waffled here people sorry, so to surmise, l agree with Hilary that slams are age and colour biased. I agree with Tony that we need a ranking system or a league system and l agree with Buddy Wakefield when he said that, 'when winning becomes the objective the words get lost.'

Scott Devon.
Newcastle slam champion, 2005.
Sun, 6 May 2007 12:52 pm
message box arrow

<Deleted User>

I agree that the Wigan slam was easier than I expected, especially for new poets like me who have nothing to lose.
However on this forum, several people have mentioned the 'brutality' of many slams, that can reduce people to tears.
Should another slam be organised at the Tudor House, could we have a 'brutal' one please, as I would like to see one.
It would feed my sadistic streak that enjoys seeing people getting upset for no reason.
Like football fans who cry when their team loses etc.

Mon, 7 May 2007 09:48 am
message box arrow

<Deleted User> (7790)

Don't know why I came up as 'anon' below. It was me. Not a serious thought in my head. My skeleton's a composite of funnybones. If I get osteoporosis it will just mean I succumb to hollow laughter.
Mon, 7 May 2007 10:20 am
message box arrow

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message