<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:22:40 PM Central Standard Time, marie.adams@visionoflove.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">About your "Though Not of Gold" poem, I really liked it; it seems like the<BR>
kind of piece that stays with you all day, once you hear it. Just<BR>
wondering, though, I've mostly heard bards perform much longer pieces at<BR>
competitions; does anyone think very short pieces are just as acceptable?<BR>
Lady Serena Dominicci<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Little Dancer wrote:<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
For a circle a nice short piece is acceptable and often welcome. I do think that in competition if your piece is very short it really needs to pack a lot of punch to be memorable. There is a risk that just about the time they are getting into a piece it ends. So a short piece needs to grab the audience immeadiatly. For a competition a Sonnet is about the shortest thing I will do and I consider them to skirt the edge of being too short. <BR>
A competitoin piece needs to leave an impression with the judges that will last through the other performances to the point where they choose. This can be done in a very short piece but it takes more skill. <BR>
A poem, song or story should be as long as it needs to be to accomplish whatever you are trying to accomplish, and no longer. The trick is realizing when you have reached that point. <BR>
Still in most cases too short is better than too long. <BR>
<BR>
Robert<BR>
<BR>
P.S. I don't know who said it but one of my favorite quotes is,<BR>
<BR>
"I apologize for writting such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." <BR>
<BR>
That makes perfect sense to me. It's much easier to write a long poem than a short one. </FONT></HTML>