My first set of attempts at recording and commenting on “The Relique” was spoiled by a technical problem: I thought I was using one microphone, but in fact was using the built-in microphone on my tablet PC. I redid the recording to get a better-sounding podcast. So why podcast the spoiled attempt? Because I think the reading is usefully different and perhaps better, and because the commentary is fuller and more exploratory. By the time of the re-take, I had more of an idea of how I was going to say what I wanted to say. That led to a more concise and perhaps better commentary, but the first take is much fuller and more searching, even in its rambles.
Comparing the two takes is interesting. Comparing two takes of a student performance would also be interesting. Anything that enhances mindfulness while preserving discovery and delightful, serendipitous surprise is a good strategy for education, in my view. And thus I am bold enough to tax the listener’s patience with an inferior recording of the very same poem.
The Relic
From Poetryfoundation.org
Podcast: Play in new window | Download ()
Gardner,
I listened to both of these for comparisons sake. Here is what I thought: The first take reminds me of what it is like to listen to Gardner Campbell. The second take reminds me of what it is like to read Gardner Campbell. They are both compelling, but the experience is very different.
Interesting that in the process of doing the first take, something happened to the ideas you were mulling over to make them feel more solid and textual (at least to this listener).
Martha,
Interesting indeed. I take it the biggest difference was in the commentary (and its presentation)? Did the Donne feel more textual the second time as well? Did the quality (and varying reverberance and presence) of the audio shape the experience differently?
I was less patient with my own thoughts in the second take commentary, as I had a meeting to get to, and also because I was a little tired at that point of hearing myself talk. Or perhaps the second time I had grown more self-conscious about the rambling and took a more severe tack with myself. But it may also be that the first take was a rehearsal that solidified the direction of the improv, so to speak. Maybe I was just surer about what I must say and how I must end. (The first ending was kind of “found” in that respect.) A useful bit of knowledge, that.
Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful response.
Gardner,
I was explaining blogs to my mom today, and decided to show her this site. (No idea why, maybe because interrupting your recordings is my specialty). However, I noticed when playing the podcast for her, that the acutal text on the page would be extremely helpful. Is there any way to do this oh guru of the podcast?
Hope Thanksgiving went well; love to Fred, Alice, Ian, Genny, and you.
Ter
Ter,
Couple of ideas here. One would be to put the text into the blog post. For longer poems, that might not be ideal. Another would be to put the text into the “comments” field of the mp3 file itself. You’d be able to see it on an iPod or within iTunes (and presumably, other podcatching software).
One more idea: I could link off to a page that collects all the text.
Great question–thanks.
Gardo
Just stumbled on this post, and the rationale you have for posting this version is a nice capsule of why I dig you so much.
So pleased to hear someone pronounce “Magdalen” correctly in this poem (i.e. as “Maudlin”). As three syllables it destroys the meter.