Messages

1

General Discussion / Portable Digital Recorder tips?

« on: April 22, 2011, 11:13:07 PM »

say, family, i am going to buy a portable digital recorder for my latest summer tour, and i want to use it to record my stuff live for a cd.

any models that work really well for you?

love,

big poppa e

2

General Discussion / Re: can we change IWPS to Individual North American Poetry Slam championship?

« on: December 28, 2010, 03:05:32 PM »

this has been a great discussion! thanks all y'all for shedding some light on this idea!

3

General Discussion / can we change IWPS to Individual North American Poetry Slam championship?

« on: December 22, 2010, 05:13:29 PM »

there was a running joke at IWPS that the Canadian poets represented not only their lovely country, but, in fact, the entire world. granted, there was one guy from Australia. However, calling this event the Individual WORLD Poetry Slam seems not only inaccurate but, really, more than a bit arrogant.

what do y'all think about a name change to reflect the true make-up of the poets represented?

Individual North American Poetry Slam?

INAPS?

just thinking out loud... what do you guys think? pros and cons?

big poppa e

4

General Discussion / Re: why are storm poets allowed to participate in IWPS?

« on: November 28, 2010, 01:43:18 PM »

thank you guys for talking with me about this. i really do not disparage alvin or taylor for going to iwps, i just couldn't understand why it was allowed in the first place. i understand... shoot... you have slots to fill... you gotta fill them somehow... i get it.

thank you!

5

General Discussion / why are storm poets allowed to participate in IWPS?

« on: November 27, 2010, 11:46:05 PM »

i don't really understand this at all, so i'd love to start a conversation about it.

i thought the original purpose of IWPS was to have each officially-sanctioned poetry slam venue to name a champion through open competition who will represent that scene at IWPS, which would be the all-out battle of the slam champs for global domination.

however, we also have people who just decide they want to show up and slam and represent no one but themselves. i understand if you have a poet who is not part of an established scene and has no way to get to a slam to qualify as that slam's champion, fine, that's why we came up with indie poets or storm poets. however, what is happening now is that people are either trying to be a scene's champion and not winning and going to IWPS anyway as a storm poet, or they are not even bothering to try to win their scene's championship and going to IWPS anyway.

why is this? what is this accomplishing?

i can see why someone like seth walker is allowed to become a storm poet because he doesn't really live anywhere right now because he is busy touring all over the country. he is a man without a slam.

however, why is alvin there in the mix? why is taylor mali in the mix? these people both have plenty of opportunity to win the championship at their prospective venues, yet they are going as storm poets instead, apparently circumventing any sort of open slam process.

no disrespect to either of those poets, but what is the purpose of IWPS? is it just an open slam now? anyone from anywhere can pay the money and get in and slam for the top spot? that seems kind of lame to me. i thought this was about determining the champion amongst champions, but it's just another slam now. some people feel the desire to go through the process of slamming openly for the right to represent their scene, and some others just circumvent that process and go storm.

what am i missing here?

to be perfectly honest, i see no reason why we offer poets a chance to slam as storm poets. if you are not a member of a poetry slam scene, then start a slam and have a competition and name a champion. if you didn't make the top spot in your scene's IWPS qualifier, then tough luck, kid. only now, it's not tough luck, if you don't make it, you just go anyway.

ideas?

6

General Discussion / articles about gabrielle bouliane in the buffalo newspapers

« on: February 05, 2010, 01:06:29 AM »

family,

i don't know if everyone has seen these, but can you post links on your facebook for these articles?

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/artsbeat/2010/02/take-it-from-a-girl-whos-already-half-angelgabrielle-bouliane.html

http://www.buffalonews.com/obituaries/story/945274.html

http://www.buffalorising.com/2010/02/bunny-up-for-gabrielle.html

http://www.buffalorising.com/2010/01/lost-but-never-gone-gabrielle-boulaine.html

thanks.

eirik

7

General Discussion / A Handicapper's Guide to NPS 1998... a trip down memory lane...

« on: December 08, 2009, 04:58:18 AM »

rediscovered this article about nps 1998 in austin. reading through all the names makes me smile...

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:523749

8

General Discussion / Re: 100 poems in a row with no repeats... come join us...

« on: August 25, 2009, 02:34:00 AM »

here's the thing that occurred to me while reading your response... why is it that something that is to be considered bad is said to "suck balls?" because... i don't know about you, but i think that's actually pretty nice. in fact, i think things that are really pleasurable and kinda awesome should be said to "suck balls."

some examples:

"dude, that new quentin tarantino movie rocked! it totally sucked balls!"

"oh man, you do not want to take me on in street fighter 9 because i totally suck balls at it and will kick your ass!"

now, if someone would say that your poetry is so bad it "kicks you in the dick," then that, my friend, means your poetry is really bad and causes people pain. however, if your poetry "sucks balls," well shit i just might buy your poetry a drink and take it home with me.

9

General Discussion / 100 poems in a row with no repeats... come join us...

« on: August 23, 2009, 02:48:25 AM »

so, the austin poetry slam has a history of people going as long as they can without repeating.

the first record was set by danny strack. he performed 39 poems in a row without repeating. it took him quite some time. the slam is weekly, and there are three rounds slam, so the most you can do in a week is three if you make it all the way to the third round. that's about 4-5 months with no repeats.

when tony jackson heard about danny's feat, he challenged himself to do the same, and he made it all the way to 40 poems in a row with no repeats.

well, shit... i saw this as a bunch of happy horseshit, so i went and doubled tony's record and did 80 poems in a row with no repeats. it took me about nine months. some weeks, i didn't make it out of the first round, so i could only perform one poem that week. but lots of times, i made the second and third rounds.

danny and i are now racing each other to 100 poems performed in a row with no repeats, and the first person to make it there wins! what do they win? we haven't really thought about that yet, but the audience at the austin poetry slam will certainly hear a whole hell of a lot of poetry from the two of us, lots of old stuff that hasn't been heard in forever, lots of new stuff written on the fly, experimental stuff, golden oldies, greatest hits, and very definitely b-sides.

100 poems in a row without repeating. think you can do it? i freaking challenge you to join us! we start next wednesday.

p.s. and this includes quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals to make your team, too, so you'd best be holding some shit back to save until then. or else write some new shit!

10

General Discussion / Re: Preselected, qualified judges for NPS?

« on: August 22, 2009, 01:45:47 AM »

the very heart of the what poetry slam is supposed to do is this: get the audience involved and get them to be a part of a thrilling experience with poetry.

the judges and the scores have NEVER been for the poets nor have they been meant to rank one poet or team of poets as better than another. the judges and the scores have ALWAYS been a trick, a gag, a tool, a method of giving the audience a voice and making them an active part of an amazing show.

the moment you start picking "professional" judges is the moment you force the slam to be about the poets and their egos and actually making the show about ranking one poet or team as better or worse than another, and that, my dear friends, is the death of slam.

the moment you take the audience out of this equation is the moment you kill slam. the scores and the judges are NOT for the us. they are for the audience.

11

General Discussion / no repeat rule

« on: August 13, 2009, 10:42:37 PM »

from what i've heard, the rule that says poets may not repeat poems in the finals at NPS has been repealed. is that true?

i think it's a wonderful idea as our finals should be a showcase for the best our community has to offer, plus i as a member of the audience want to see what these teams used to get there.

here's an idea... what about a no repeat rule that states that once a poem is performed at nationals, it must be retired from nationals, that was you cannot repeat year after year?

discuss?

12

General Discussion / Re: Nationals top 10

« on: August 10, 2009, 10:13:30 PM »

1] being a part of one surely must have been one of the hottest bouts in all of the national poetry slam this year, and doing our best to not just compete with our fellow teams from dallas, ft. worth, and minneapolis, but to elevate the entire event with our love and energy. what a joy that whole show was, especially gathering at the beginning to give love for our temporarily fallen sister, amy weaver, and chanting, "for amy!" before the show.

2] seeing the different reactions to my absurdly voluminious prop violation, err, i mean beard. dudes in general gave mad props, especially young white dudes, but girls for the most part just kinda went ewww... although black girls tended to want to touch it and smell it and rub their faces on it. so many different reactions to the same beard, although pretty much the same reaction was garnered to the idea of having a zip-lock baggie holding snips of said beard... yeah... most people just held up their hands like they didn't wanna get any of it on them.

3] respectables, the home of the most unfunniest comedy open mic and the unsexiest erotic showcase of pretty much all time. what about that room seemed to suck the very life out of everything that happened within its walls?

4] fucking whoopeecat in the hot tub in front of everyone was kinda awesome, especially when j. bradley got out his quad-dildo called "group piece" and started yelling SHA-CLACK-CLACK at the top of his lungs.

5] looking over the huge crowd at finals and thinking, "well, lookie there... look at what we did..."

6] the mad love the local press gave us, which was really cool. i don't think we've had better media coverage since chicago 1999 and austin 1998.

7] finding myself sitting at the edge of the jacuzzi with danny solis and henry sampson and talking about "the old days" then realizing "holy shit i'm sitting with the old men of slam and talking about the old days!" then looking around at all the apple-cheeked half-nekkid kids filling the pool... then sighing... and realizing i was exactly where i needed to be.

8] just being able to wander hallways, wander city streets, wander random sidewalks, and being able to see someone i knew every moment of every day. so wonderful to be surrounded by such family.

9] my teammates rocked, and i am really glad i picked this year to come out of slamtirement. next year, though, i wanna go back to hosting again. fuck being on a team, dude, it's too damned stressful! i wanna just be a host again!

10] being challenged by some random drunk poet on a line from a poem i read, rolling my eyes at him and getting really annoyed, then forcing myself to work through it with him and ending up re-writing the line and making it way better than it had been. i totally surprised myself and didn't know i had it in me.

13

General Discussion / Re: banning interaction with the audience as a "prop violation" is absurd

« on: July 31, 2009, 06:52:32 PM »

and another thing.

if this rule were to pass, if an entire audience can be labeled a prop, then the whole prop rule itself must be completely reworked to incorporate this change.

no longer can someone claim something is NOT a prop if "all poets had equal access to it all night," which means not only is the audience not allowed to be interacted with in any way, but also the mic, the mic cord, the mic stand, the stage, the walls, NOTHING can be touched, NOTHING can spontaneously incorporated into a poet's performance, no, they must remain rooted to the spot on which they stand for their whole poem otherwise any interaction with anything in the room or on the stage whether animal, vegetable, or mineral or else someone will yell PROP FOUL.

the chilling effect on this and the resulting massive restructuring of the prop rule would put such restrictions on poets and performances to genuinely be one with the room and be present and able to be spontaneous that... jesus... do we really want slam to be that? just some poet on the mic not moving not touching the mic not touching the mic stand not interacting with the audience not provoking a call and response not leaving the stage not touching anyone or anything? that sound so fucking boring...

this idea of calling the audience a prop is monumentally stupid.

again, what do y'all say?

14

General Discussion / banning interaction with the audience as a "prop violation" is absurd

« on: July 31, 2009, 06:34:10 PM »

i think the notion that the entire audience can be used as a prop is absolutely laughable. the klute has put an agenda item on the slam masters meeting that would BAN physical interaction with the audience, and i think this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.

how in the world can you limit audience interaction?

have any of you seen how fucking amazing sonya renee's piece about the game TAG is? she starts from the audience, the gets in people's faces, she hold out her hand to be slapped, which then spurs the audience member to raise their hand, and then they slap high fives during the piece. how in the world can this type of thrilling performance be BANNED as a fucking prop foul?

how can the entire audience be a prop?

now, i can understand banning poets from groping audience members inappropriately or hurting people or hitting them or knocking over tables or something dangerous like that, but it would fall under some kind of rule about personal conduct, not a prop foul.

any rule that would cause an entire audience to be labelled a prop is foolish and limits what it is that we are supposed to be doing, and that is interacting and MOVING an audience.

if you pass some kind of rule that says merely touching an audience member during a performance suddenly makes them into a prop, then what's next? are we not allowed to do call-and-response pieces because it would make the entire audience part of an illegal team piece? if we are not allowed to interact with the audience, then does that also ban starting a poem from the middle of the audience? does that mean any attempt to leave the stage will be considered a prop foul since it causes the entire room to be a prop?

this is fucking ludicrous!

if there is some kind of rule, let it be that not be touched in a threatening manner, and let this be some sort of improper conduct foul, but the idea of limiting interaction with the audience for fear of being slapped with a prop foul is utter horseshit.

the only thing even remotely close to this that makes sense is the banning of secretly instructing audience members beforehand to do something specific during a poem to make it appear as though it we spontaneous. this is something i can understand. but limiting spontaneous interaction with the entire audience for fear of getting a prop foul? nonsense.
a
ideas?a

15

General Discussion / Re: gee, thanks marc and taylor for the "press"...

« on: July 30, 2009, 05:03:13 PM »

taylor, on my third re-read of the article, it was clear that was the case, and i think you did a great job in both giving her a touch of what she wanted while steering it in a positive direction, so good job!