Vaudeville?
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:51 am
Just catching up on some old posts after getting kicked out of bed by a 2 year old bed hog 
I've taken the liberty to cut and paste Glenny's points she made as I think they're valid and worthy of discussion.
G’day All,
With all the disruptions of recently moving house, I have not actually seen any of the poems referred to in this thread. However, I have seen the discussions. It seems to me that we need not be so focused on “what is Bush Poetry” but more on how we allow it to be perceived out in the entertainment world. For some time I have been grieved to see what I label “Vaudevillian” often overtaking the hard won professionalism of some Bush Poetry presentations/events. Some of these performances are quite funny and can have the audience laughing their heads off; some are bordering on the “Comedy Club” type innuendo and/or outright smut. What alarms me is, if the sensationalist seeking journalist is present, that the picture that graces his/her publication will not be of a highly skilled artist/craftsman who has earned his/her reputation as such, but some clown, in his clown costume, beaming his clown smile, under the heading of “Bush Poet.” What image of our genre do we expect the public to then adopt?
We can argue interminably about definitions, and never reach a conclusion or a remedy by doing so. It is impossible to overcome any problem without first identifying what that problem is. I therefore suggest that the aforementioned is distinctly a considerable component of the problem of any perceived loss/future harm to our genre’s credibility. What to do to overcome this? I suggest that any such “Vaudevillian” events are required to be promoted as exactly that, and not as “Bush Poetry.” How to enforce this? Exactly the same way that we already do with, eg. “Free Verse.” That is a genre that also has its own following, and I am yet to see an ABPA sanctioned “Free Verse” component in any of our genre’s festivals. If our association is to be seen as more than a “toothless tiger” surely it could start demanding that “Vaudevillian” events be conducted/advertised as such…perhaps as “Vaudeville In Verse” or “Comedy Club Bards” or whatever. This should eventually eliminate such sad scenes that I have witnessed, where a very dignified elderly lady has sat squirming through a parade of explicit innuendo and sometimes foul language, when she came with the valid expectation of hearing quality poetry.
Now, before the machine guns are trained upon me, I make this distinction. Truly professional performers know their audience; they know what mix is appropriate, and I do not consider those such as Greg North etc as “Vaudevillian.” There is a vast difference between a clever and professional writer/artist, and a much less proficient performer chasing a cheap laugh.
I see no impediment to applying this requirement to written competitions. Written judges are ABPA accredited and should be given the same guidelines as the performance judges. They have not been accredited by the ABPA because they can’t sort the wheat from the chaff. And I think…this is what Val may be referring to, at least in part?
Goodo.
Obviously certain performers and/or performances have rubbed Glenny up the wrong way. But can't vaudevillean theatrics enhance a performance? Wearing a silly hat, dressing up or getting into 'character', puting on a silly voice or accent or exagerating mannerisms can all compliment an act, as long as they're not too OTT(over the top) that they simply drown out a poor poem.
As for innuendo, there's a fine line . . . I agree that 'knowing your audience' is a proffesional trait that any performer should have an awareness of, but in my limited experience I've heard performing poets say things that I have found very funny whilst thinking "I couldn't of said that", and I'm sure somewhere in the room (amidst the laughter) someone was more offended than entertained. Obviously foul language is not acceptable and I reckon comic bush poets can be proud of that - where other genre's of live comic performance unneccessarily saturate their performance with it and unfortunately (some) rely on it. But with humour someone is always going to be offended. What if there's one dignified elderly lady squirming in her seat whilst 30 or 40 others are cacking themselves laughing?
I assume most people love to hear good quality bush poetry from a performing bush poet, but I reckon the bulk of the crowd are there for a laugh.
As I said, very valid points worthy of discussion . . and it does deviate from the previous thread that I've taken this from. And as Marty (sth) said "we are a broad church" I'd like to think we can discuss these things without anyone getting over-sensitive when someone has a differing view. We're all mates, so let's continue to cordially chew things over in the knowledge that we'll not all agree on all things except . . . that we've all got a passion for our bush poetry.
Marty
I've taken the liberty to cut and paste Glenny's points she made as I think they're valid and worthy of discussion.
G’day All,
With all the disruptions of recently moving house, I have not actually seen any of the poems referred to in this thread. However, I have seen the discussions. It seems to me that we need not be so focused on “what is Bush Poetry” but more on how we allow it to be perceived out in the entertainment world. For some time I have been grieved to see what I label “Vaudevillian” often overtaking the hard won professionalism of some Bush Poetry presentations/events. Some of these performances are quite funny and can have the audience laughing their heads off; some are bordering on the “Comedy Club” type innuendo and/or outright smut. What alarms me is, if the sensationalist seeking journalist is present, that the picture that graces his/her publication will not be of a highly skilled artist/craftsman who has earned his/her reputation as such, but some clown, in his clown costume, beaming his clown smile, under the heading of “Bush Poet.” What image of our genre do we expect the public to then adopt?
We can argue interminably about definitions, and never reach a conclusion or a remedy by doing so. It is impossible to overcome any problem without first identifying what that problem is. I therefore suggest that the aforementioned is distinctly a considerable component of the problem of any perceived loss/future harm to our genre’s credibility. What to do to overcome this? I suggest that any such “Vaudevillian” events are required to be promoted as exactly that, and not as “Bush Poetry.” How to enforce this? Exactly the same way that we already do with, eg. “Free Verse.” That is a genre that also has its own following, and I am yet to see an ABPA sanctioned “Free Verse” component in any of our genre’s festivals. If our association is to be seen as more than a “toothless tiger” surely it could start demanding that “Vaudevillian” events be conducted/advertised as such…perhaps as “Vaudeville In Verse” or “Comedy Club Bards” or whatever. This should eventually eliminate such sad scenes that I have witnessed, where a very dignified elderly lady has sat squirming through a parade of explicit innuendo and sometimes foul language, when she came with the valid expectation of hearing quality poetry.
Now, before the machine guns are trained upon me, I make this distinction. Truly professional performers know their audience; they know what mix is appropriate, and I do not consider those such as Greg North etc as “Vaudevillian.” There is a vast difference between a clever and professional writer/artist, and a much less proficient performer chasing a cheap laugh.
I see no impediment to applying this requirement to written competitions. Written judges are ABPA accredited and should be given the same guidelines as the performance judges. They have not been accredited by the ABPA because they can’t sort the wheat from the chaff. And I think…this is what Val may be referring to, at least in part?
Goodo.
Obviously certain performers and/or performances have rubbed Glenny up the wrong way. But can't vaudevillean theatrics enhance a performance? Wearing a silly hat, dressing up or getting into 'character', puting on a silly voice or accent or exagerating mannerisms can all compliment an act, as long as they're not too OTT(over the top) that they simply drown out a poor poem.
As for innuendo, there's a fine line . . . I agree that 'knowing your audience' is a proffesional trait that any performer should have an awareness of, but in my limited experience I've heard performing poets say things that I have found very funny whilst thinking "I couldn't of said that", and I'm sure somewhere in the room (amidst the laughter) someone was more offended than entertained. Obviously foul language is not acceptable and I reckon comic bush poets can be proud of that - where other genre's of live comic performance unneccessarily saturate their performance with it and unfortunately (some) rely on it. But with humour someone is always going to be offended. What if there's one dignified elderly lady squirming in her seat whilst 30 or 40 others are cacking themselves laughing?
I assume most people love to hear good quality bush poetry from a performing bush poet, but I reckon the bulk of the crowd are there for a laugh.
As I said, very valid points worthy of discussion . . and it does deviate from the previous thread that I've taken this from. And as Marty (sth) said "we are a broad church" I'd like to think we can discuss these things without anyone getting over-sensitive when someone has a differing view. We're all mates, so let's continue to cordially chew things over in the knowledge that we'll not all agree on all things except . . . that we've all got a passion for our bush poetry.
Marty
