By the numbers...

[ms_spelt]

I'm starting this fresh thread because this topic doesn't belong under the heading of this year's team and how they did-on that topic i have only to congratulate the team for giving their all and welcome them home-but this is a topic that i feel needs addressing and i'd rather adress it over here than confuse it with the results of this years team.
i've been crunching the numbers on our past years teams-not just this one-and the numbers are not encouraging.
this year we finished 64th and last year in the same vicinity although slightly higher and in the year before that only slightly higher-so we're slipping a bit at a time although we are in roughly the bottom 15% of all slams at NPS for the last 3 years.
to see us in the top 15 to 20% you have to go back to St louis-4 years ago-and the last year shane slammed for vancouver.
how much can one man or woman spike a curve?
rather a bit it seems.
in 96 we beat providence on pure points-and lost on time penalties-providenec went on to win and we had a great inaugural year.97 we sent only andrea thompson and in 98 the team failed to make semis but cass king placed 6th in indies.
then came shane.
under shane our stats soar.
and even when the team fails to make the semis shane not only makes indies he bests cass king's sophmore effort and then goes on to win indies the following year.from that point on we are a powerhouse.
our teams benefit from having shane to cut their teeth against in local comps and they benefit from having him anchor the squad.and then he steps down after st lous-and we can assert the remarkable talents that comprised the teams after him-and there is no doubt they were comprised of good poets-but we begin to see a drastic drop in our standings.
and then those top talents leave our scene.
and our numbers drop again.
meanwhile our nearest regional rivals-who we have to beat to qualify for NPS under the win 2 system-are producing champions constantly.and boise who we also have to beat in that comp finishes just two shy of us at NPS this year.
these numbers do not augur well.
and i'm not saying that we have to win or make semis every year.and i'm not saying that the numbers are all that matters.
what i'm saying is that under PSI regulations you have to place at a ceratin level by the numbers in ordert to go to NPS at all now.and we are sliding towards being on the outside looking in rather steadily.
personally,i love shane and love what he did for this scene-but i think his absence also reprsents a chance for us to all step up and fill that space instead of banking on one person all the time.
but we must step up.
we have asked teams to sign a contract outlining min. levels of commitment from them.it is time that we started making a systemic effort to make a commitment to them as well.
we need to invest way more in talent development than we are-and that's not to disregard what we have done but we must do more.
not just the development of our emerging talent but of our top tiers as well.
just because folks are winning slams loaclly doesn't mean they are going to win when we send them away to NPS or any other major tournament.
and no-winning isn't all that matters-but....
seattle and toronto finshed in the top 50% at this years NPS.
i would have been damm happy with that.
but 64?
and before that 60?
and before that 59?
top 50% of the field and sure i'll embrace the moral victories-but bottom 15% and sliding?
moral victories start to sound like excuses.
and frankly i think the team we sent was good-damm good.
and I'm hugely dissapointed it didn't do better-and that i wasn't there to cheer them on.
but that doesn't change the facet that we all as a community need to look at the numbers and say that we need to do better.we need to help allour poets grow into the full breadth of their talents.
and the numbers say that we aren't doing that.
we posted numbers like this before shand and after shane-which says to me that he warped the curve and we thought we were warping it-so we slacked off a bit,maybe.got a littel complacent, maybe.
PSI loves us courtesy of IWPS and would welcome us doing a WOWPS and is even whispering loudly that we should look at an NPS.
I endorse doing a WOWPS and in time with the right team and conditions,I'd seriously consider an NPS.
but right now i'd like to lobby hard to bring slam camp here.
it didn't happen this year because the US economy is in the tank.and because they always schedule it when folks have to choose between it and NPS as an expense.
I'd like to hash out a proposal that would see it come here-we've got more than enough options in the realm of where to hold it and my understanding was that the schedule it ran on was simply that the place they had for it in upstate new york was only available then.
but WHAT IF....
we did it-and brought the best teachers of performance poetry to our back yard at a time of year that worked to ensure the growth of the program-and of our local talent?
i think we'd see those numbers tell a different story.
and i think we'd produce an even more talented scene than we already enjoy.
and i think we'd do it as a team and a community instead of pointing at any team or individual as being the one that lead us to glory-or to ruin.
it's be us taking a shared respsonsibility in building a shared prosperity.
please give this some serious consideration-i'm not carping for the sake of it-i genuinely believe i have identified something that is a valid concern and i've constructively offered a potential solution or at least a starting point for discussion towards a solution.
our other option is wait a few more years till we come in last-at NPS or a win 2 bout.and according to these numbers we're heading to that at a disconcerting rate.
so please.let's come together to raise the level of everyones game.
 

[admin]

At least three people said to me some version of "It's weird to have NPS without Ms. Spelt." You were sorely missed by many at the tournament. The St. Louis crew, especially, mentioned that.

As for standings, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on 64th, because if we wanted to score higher in our second bout, we could have. I took a 1.5 point time penalty because I was playing with the audience, trying to make them laugh louder. I could have cut through the laughter and finished on time, but we had no chance of qualifying for semis at that point so I choose not to worry about the scores. RadaR took the highest score in that bout, but also took a time penalty. Scruff read a piece that was partially from the page, and Zac did one of his most abstract pieces. We all decided to go with poetry rather than the points.

If we were in a Win 2 bout, we'd never have made those decisions. We would come with our aces, and avoided time penalties.

I also find it very strange that you're emphasizing standings when we agree that 'The points are not the point, the point is poetry.' I met a lot of the very competitive teams that went to semi-finals. For them, it was all about the points, and to win they shelved originality and used the conventional slam formulas. They also didn't seem to be having much fun.

I went to NPS with RC's saying in mind "It's not about winning the poetry slam, it's about being remembered as the best poet." That's not easy to measure, however, in the second bout, I know that we made people look at what was possible on stage in a new way. And in the first bout, I know that Scott Woods was busting his gut listening to "Golden Age". That is how I measure success, not by scores or standings.

[Sean]

Along these lines I'd say that we (Vancouver) did more poems per capita than any other teams down at NPS. We opened up the Canadian embassy almost every night to american poets and were smothered by kisses and well wishes. To say that we were loved down there would be an understatement.

I would say that the scores/ranking at NPS could also could be down because those whom we might expect to put time in just on the poetry are spending most of their time organizing. Randy, Lisa, Chris and Myself who have been doing the day to day heavy lifting for the slam shows aren't writing as much. Others like Susan McIntyre have been doing so much organizational work they probably barely have time to think, let alone write. It seems like either you can help the show or write for it but its very difficult to do both.

That being said we have by far one of the greatest audiences in North America. Of the teams that made finals none of them can match our audience in intensity and sheer numbers and most of the teams in semis would kill for half our audience numbers. I think once our volunteer schedule is more set and those poets who perform regularly but only volunteer once in a blue moon are more integrated within the show structure we should see some thunderous new stuff coming out. And regardless of whether it scores high or not, I'm looking forward to the season starting up...some special is coming down the pipeline me thinks.

[superjill]

Yes people can step up to fill Shane's shoes but they are not. What about if we ask Shane to teach the new poetry scene what he knows?

[superjill]

Yes people can step up to fill Shane's shoes but they are not. What about if we ask Shane to teach the new poetry scene what he knows?

And Barbara and Brendan.

[ms_spelt]

i apologize if it came across as me taking away from the teams and it's accomplishments.
my point was simply that it is a competition and our numbers have slid dramatically.
a small slide can be ascribed to the ineffables but this has been something that has displayed itself since st louis.
and YES-the embassy cipher is exactly what the team should be involved in at nats.
it is about the poetry and the community and walking away being remembered for your art.
but it is also a tournament-and the competition at both the local and international level is why we enjoy those large crowds.and it's not just because they come out to watch the act of competition(although that is part of it)it's that the comp done right brings out excellence in all the poets who are striving.
and that's the key for me-i don't want us to ever get content or complacent and stop striving.
when you stop striving mediocrity sets in.
i'm simply pointing to the numbers to back up my assertion that we can do better,and in fact we've been slipping.
we have some talented poets like shane, brendan and barb who could be engaged in the talent development in the scene.we already have a youth slam which is a step in the right direction, but when i suggested even sending our alternate to slam camp everyone balked.
it would have cost us more or less the same to send our team to nps with lisa and our 5th place finisher to masterclass with the best in the field.
we had the money and we refused to use it to learn-and our numbers are dropping steadily.
psi would love to have us host another event,after the success of IWPS and WOWPS certainly looks doable-and will bring with it some opportunity to improve our talents on stage and off.
and myself-i'd love to convince PSI to bring slam camp here.
but we keep looking at going to more and more tournaments and less and less at developing the talent that goes to them.
and that bothers me.
if we'd finished 30th i'd have been beside myself with glee-we'd have beaten toronto and seattle.
but jesus-64th?
and yes,i've been in that spot where you have to realign what you are after and simply go out well.excellent choices made by this years team.they did they best they could with what they had and they served us proudly.no argument there.
but we cand and should do better.
we can and should be giving our teams more resources to be better.
and we aren't.
talent development needs to be a priority.
that's all i'm saying.
i've been calling for talent development for some time and it keeps falling on deaf ears so i'm a bit frustrated is all.i get the nagging sense that some folks want the glory but none of the work.
and regardless of the scores,if you want to be remembered as the best poet-after you are dead and gone-you have to be willing to do the work.
it's a craft and it requires constant dedication to it.it requires a willingness to always learn how to do better.
that's all.
we've been ignoring the sinking stats and telling ourselves the points don't matter.
and to a degree they don't-but they are an indicator.
and they indicate we have some work to do-so let's commit to doing it.
chris and the rest of the team-bravo.
you didn't let us down.
we let you down.we sent you out there without giving you-and the last few teams as well-all that we could have.
this isn't on the team.this is on us.
so let's look at what can be done to better and let's do it.
that simple
 

[admin]

Alright. I understand your point better now.

However I think this raises a broader question: what is Van Slam's goal at NPS?

One option that I'll mention is that maybe our goal, as a community, doesn't need to be winning (or placing well) at NPS, but rather, bringing an alternative approach that emphasize the love of the art over the slam formula.

At NPS, there was a lot of grumbling by the veterans that slam is becoming formulaic and dull. The team that used to play court jester at NPS, as I've told, was from Normal, Illinois (their town is called Normal, but they're weird – get it? sheer brilliance...). They weren't at this year's NPS, probably because Robbie Q (one of Normal's driving forces of weirdness) moved to the Chicago Green Mill team. Green Mill was disqualified from team piece finals for recruiting 30 audience members ahead of time to jump up and act as sperm during their poem about conception. It was one of the most memorable moments of the entire tournament. Clearly a rules violation, but who cares? This is a poetry show, not a death match.

I suggest that Vancouver, which already has a reputation as weird and fun-loving, would made a great successor to Normal. In other words, I'd love to see us take on the mantle of the PSI court jester. Forget the scores. Go there to blow minds, and make people think about poetry in a whole new way.

[Sean]

You read my mind. Lets put the G back into Gong show!

[ms_spelt]

this is a conversation that is going to have as many different answers as their are members of the slam.everyone who gets to even have a chance to make a squad will have a different set of artistic and otherwise priorities-that's part of what lends to a diversity of voices.
and there are ways to push the boundaries without deliberately violating the rules.and essentially throwing the match and then claiming you did it in the name of art.
if the scores don't matter then let's stop slamming altogether.
no more PSI no more local competitions no more CFSW.
no more tournaments of any kind.it'd save a whack of money-no more sending poets all over the place to compete.
we can just stay home and put on an open mic.
but we aren't about to do that.
because we like the big stage and the big crowds and the all expense paid trip to the Big Show for the lucky winners of the playoffs.we love the rewards the competition brings buty when we don't do so well at the competition-locally or internationally we talk up a storm about how the scores don't matter and it's all about the art.and when we win we are all too happy to believe the scores mean we are super special.
i think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
we aren't as good as the scores would lead us to believe-or as bad.
and i've acted as an official for too long locally and internationally to advocate throwing a match.
the sperm piece you mention could have worked without shills planted inthe crowd-in fact,it would have been a stronger testament to it's power as a piece if it could get the crowd out of their seats without having to prearrange it.
and no rule violation.the crowd is there for every poet to use-without resorting to shills.
the piece-if done within the rules-actually moves the crowd into a giant performance piece-but the team has to take the risk that they won't be able to move the crowd into joining in and do everything they can-within the rules to move them.using shilsl is lazy and the trick of con artists and carneys.
it lacks faith in the work-that the only way to get the entire crowd involved is through the use of plants in the crowd.it's cheap.it doesn't advance art.
the piece is brilliant-but in order to achieve the full measure of it's brilliance it needs to happen within the rules.
and vancouver has pushed boundaries within the rules by defying expectations.
in 2001 everyone expected Shane to defend his indie title.the 2001 Van Slam team did nothing but team pieces-in fact they had the plan to have nothing but 16 team pieces.they didn't get to use them all but they could have if they'd gone the distance.
now THAT is something to point to with pride.
going where no one had gone before,in the name of art and teamwork-and all within the ligitimate scope of the rules.
if the scores,the competition and the rules don't matter to people then they need to quit slam.but slam shouldn't quit it's scores,competition and rules.
if you want to be court jester at NPS you are free to go on your own dime and hit all the side stages.
but the team goes on the community's money,to represent them in a competition.
Van Slam 2001 did that.it didn't make semis.but it did us proud with pushing the boundaries of art.it played within the rules.it took what it did seriously.
it's NOT all about the party.
it's about the poetry.
which brings me back to my central point-we need way more talent development.
from local and home grown to sending people to slam camp to bringin slam camp to us.
all of it.we need to push the boundaries of ourselves as artists if we are to push the art.
and being unwilling to admit we have something to learn doesn't push our own limits let alone what can be done with the art.
and yes-if i'd been at NPS i would have been a sperm-without any prearrangment.
and yes-if i'd been at NPS i would have attended a cypher or three.always do.
i've been in the top ten van slam poets every year for the last ten years-and i still don't think i'm doing enough.i believe i can and should be better.and i'd dearly like to see this scene start to put it's money where it's mouth is around art vs scores.
if we give a damm about the art then let's work harder at producing better artists.instead of simply spending our money on our top four, who after they get their junket then decide that scores don't matter.
that's hypocritical-to believe in the scores when they bring you reward and then discard that belief when they bring you work.
and I fear we are pandering to that on our current tack.
let's put in place an equality of opportunity.let's build a system of talent development that rewards those who are willing to the work to improve as artists.such people will inevitably rise to the ranks of the team and the teams will get better-by any measure be it scores or the ineffable aesthetics-that come with all art and art appreciation.teams of artists willing and enabled to do better is justifiable and worthwhile.
formulaic stuff occurs when people rest on their laurels and or bite the style of those who are doing just that.
i believe that a system of talent development will push both the scores and the art in bold new directions.
and not a lot of other scenes are doing that.
so here it is- how about working hard to get better.
how's that for a radical concept ?
or we could" put the G in Gong Show."
but that's been done and is frankly a bit cliche'.

[admin]

This is a big topic, and I don't expect that it can answered in a few messages back and forth. But I do believe that it's something worth talking about. It cuts to the very core about how we view the poetry slam on the deepest philosophical level.

I agree that poets can push the boundaries and remain within the rules of the poetry slam, and for the most part, I believe that this is the best, and most respectful way to treat the art form. However I also see the value in what the Green Mill crew chose to do at Team Piece Finals. It reminded everyone that, in the end, art is about spreading beauty and wonderment. Everyone I met at NPS listed it as one of the high points of the entire festival.

Again I will pose the broader question: what is Van Slam's goal at NPS?

Is it to finish in the top 30? Or something else?

Most likely, it will be left up to the members of each year's poetry slam team. But I still think it's a subject worth discussing.

After being to NPS, I saw that many of the American teams treat NPS like a military operation. To them, the points are everything, and if they lose, the entire tournament is a disappointment. I kept wanting to say "Stand down, soldier." To me, it seems antithetical to the very nature of poetry as a creative art form.

So why do we have scores and a competition? My answer is that the scores and competition are there to challenge the poets. It provides the form, the mold, in which to pour the art. For the audience, the competition provides an extra dose of excitement. It draws in an audience that is accustomed to watching events in which competitors are measured in a concrete way, such as sports. In the final analysis, I believe that a poetry slam is an exhibition and the competition is a gimmick to draw an audience. The randomness of the judges and of their scoring is one way that we emphasize this.

I realize that Ms. Spelt and others view it differently, but if we all had the same viewpoint, then we wouldn't have the chance to have these intellectually-stimulating discussions!

[ms_spelt]

spot on faust.
thanks for fielding this in the manner i intended it.
i have long believed we needed to have this discussion-and by long i mean back to our origins.
a discussion about what we hoped to achieve as individuals and as a team was one i kept trying to bring up and one that kept getting shunted aside.
one of the reasons i have pushed for a mission statement is so that at times like this we can return to it and examine our core shared goal/s even if we have to debate(and we should engage in lively debate)about the best means to achieve them or in what order etc.
and yes,i know the folks you mean-or rather the type of folks.
i'm trying to suss out that middle path that goes between working too hard and playing too hard.if we forget to play than we lose the vital essence of what we do.if we forget discipline we lose the ever important structure that gives it form and force.
we need to strike a balance between these poles,i feel.
i don't want to see us adopt the militaristic approach-but nor do i want to see us adopt the exact opposite approach either.i think of pirates-i'm from a nautical background and family.they have and have always had a certain sense of what it takes to do the job and when called upon to perform step up and do their duty to crew and ship in a efficient and skilled manner-but there is also a loseness of morale as well.their tis time for fastening the mainsail and swabbing the deck and taking your turn on the watch-and their is time for drink song and shore leave -icuz while Captain Bligh was an amazing seaman he misplayed his hand badly when it came to that one.
all of it together-discipline and play-makes for a healthy ship and a great crew.and booty.much booty ;)a top 30 finish or higher would be great-but not necessarily the entire measure of how i'd gauge success.
i think that a thorough exploration of this question needs to dovetail into our system of talent development-and we do need such a system.
i think if we had a system that pushed and empowered all our poets to become better we'd see the rise in not just numbers at NPS and other tournaments but you'd also see groundbreaking art being developed as well.
stuff we could undeniably be all proud of.
and booty.
never forget or underestimate the value of the booty.