[Erik Olson]

Ross, I would have thought, in this digital age of ours, when Kindle and eBooks came out they would surely overtake print books in short order, however much to my disdain. But such is the futility of trusting to any future projection, now eBooks are ebbing as readers show a preference for physical books, on the whole; the sellers of the first are struggling of late. The extinction of traditional books as they have been since 1440 should have happened by now, according to all indicators when new-fangled eBooks first hit the scene. Oh, and by the way, archaic vinyl is on the rise, trending in a big way. They may soon overtake CD's; but it would be foolish of me to project any outcome one way or the other, so impossible to see the future is. As that wit Stephen Fry said with perspicacity:

"Books are no more threatened by Kindle than stairs by elevators."

[ross hamilton hill]

That's not my point Erik, no art disappears and books are great and it's not about success or popularity, whatever they are, it is about using what is available and how new mediums, new technologies, effect the arts and how artists can most effectively reach their audience.
I've put my views in another thread, I think it was about 18 months ago, it's too off topic to pursue here.

[Erik Olson]

Originally Posted by ross hamilton hill

Actually my point was quite serious, most young people get their poetry through songs, not books. If you check out Julie's link or my suggestion, these two poets are performance artists, Julie's a rapper, mine Kate Tempest, a performance poet who memorizes all her poems and wows them around the world.
The media has changed and slim volumes of verse are not going to make it in the future and are not making it now.

This seems a radical statement to me and for such a place as this at that. Should we all start rapping or singing then? Should we all become beat poets? Do you realize how our art is connected to the page? If this were religion it would be heretical. You would sound like a sure apostate.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Erik Olson

This seems a radical statement to me and for such a place as this at that. Should we all start rapping or singing then? Should we all become beat poets? Do you realize how our art is connected to the page? If this were religion it would be heretical. You would sound like a sure apostate.

If this were a religion, we'd probably all be apostates, or at least think we were, if we wanted to be worth a lick -- you're not a cat if you can be herded. But as you said earlier, Erik, it's impossible to predict how trends will go or what folk will fancy in years to come. And what does it matter, anyway? Though Michael's trying to read the tea leaves for some reason having to do with an article, I doubt he cares that much himself. I would add one name to the mix in this guessing game, though: Michael Donaghy.

Best,

Ed

[Gregory Palmerino]

Here's a poet (b. 1940) doing everything possible to ensure he "survives."

[Erik Olson]

My point is that our art is by its very nature connected to the page and that to abandon or assume the future obsolescence of the page is not good, especially since no one can see into the future to foretell the extinction of print books of poetry. That said an art which is connected to the page need not, therefore, be wholly restricted to it; the ways of reaching audiences ought by all means to be exploited, and by no means ought the page to be forsaken at the same time. In that respect, I am no apostate though I read my poems on Youtube and thus, broaden my audience, as well as allow those audiences to have the fruits of my vocation available to read in books. On the contrary, persons reached via other means should be more likely to buy an author's books. But apostate I would be if I abandon the page altogether and become a performance artist.

[Julie Steiner]

Performance poets--especially those who work in different genres and media--will definitely have an edge if we're talking about being one of the top two who are still remembered and appreciated in 2045. That sort of status requires becoming a cultural phenomenon, and modern culture has moved away from the page and into multimedia.

My own preference is still for the page.

I've attended only one poetry reading in my life--enough to realize that it's not my kind of thing. My brain can't deal with the barrage of distracting sights and sounds (and smells, from the cheese and fruit on a table in the back) in addition to the words themselves.

I have the same problem with audio or video links of poets in performance. Even when I don't look at the video (and thus avoid pondering why the end of the poet's collar is standing up in a weird way, and how it must have been folded in the suitcase in order to achieve that effect), I still have to focus so hard on ignoring trivia like vocal fry and glasses clinking that I don't have any energy left recognize clever wordplay, striking images, or even something so basic as rhyme.

Actually, one of the reasons I'm a singer is that I like to be able to see the words.

My daughters constantly mock me for mishearing pop songs. (Although surely I'm not alone in thinking that "no head lice" really is a more attractive quality in one's date than "no headlights," which is the actual Taylor Swift lyric.)

[Michael Juster]

No more crediting Taylor Swift for her interest in public health for me!

[ross hamilton hill]

Erik, it's not an either or situation, but I think I'm right that most people don't read poetry, most publishers don't publish it and most if not all poets don't make a living from it, that is unusual in the arts, when even a poet as famous as Seamus Heaney has a real job as an academic because even he could not make a living from poetry. ( maybe he could but you know what I mean) that is the commercial side of the equation. This situation exists in no other major art form. Why? As I see it the two major poets of my generation were Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, at their best their songs are poems. Neither can sing, Cohen can barely hold a note and Dylan has a terrible tone and a limited range, but they are great poets and songwriters, most of their songs would not rate as poems but many do. They have done more for poetry, formal poetry, than anyone else I can think of.
And my other point is poetry has always been an aural and oral tradition, it only became a print tradition around the time of the Romantics. Byron, Scott and Wordsworth all made an excellent living from the sale of their books.
I havn't studied this closely but certainly by the 20th century poets stopped being poets and became part-time poets who made their living elsewhere. There were exceptions and often poets got grants from the government or won prizes but sales of poetry fell and by my time around the 70's , book publishers never expected to make money out of poetry books and by now very few publishers will accept poetry submissions. Again their are exceptions but it takes sales of around 5000 to 10000 copies for a publsiher to break even on a book launch.
So my point is formal poetry actually moved over to song, while free verse was self published for small, very smalll enclaves centered around Universities.
I think the new generation of poets probably know this instinctively. Kate Tempest is immensely popular because she delivers her poems, all memorized, with enormaous verve and passion. I'm sure if I asked my kids (now 28 and 30) what poetry influenced them they would mention songs, not poems on the page, I remember my son listening to Korn when he was a teen, very confronting lyrics, the sort of subject matter never found in songs before.
Anyway it's specualtion, in 50 years time we will problably speak what is called Spanglish, a mixture of languages, and performers will appear in your living room as holograms, I was imagining been able to watch the Theban Plays and have the whole chorus chanting at me in this way.
But I wont be around for that.

[Erik Olson]

Just because most kids get their poetry through some other way, as through song, does that make songs better and more worth pursuing? Should I adjust my art to the mob? If you do you should start singing at once. What if what is most popular, as is very often the case, is not the best quality? Pop music is far more commercially successful with its MTV music videos and flashy and sexualized commercial marketing but it is not better than jazz and classical in my opinion. I think popularity is a poor gauge of quality. What is most commercially successful is not, therefore, more worth pursuing. A ton of what is popular is vapid and engages the reptilian brain and is very successful with scores of young people attuned to fast pace entertainment like video games and youtube clips. No one reads anymore one could say, therefore, I'll just sing or make youtube videos to keep up. That's a bad way of thinking if you ask me for an artist.