I want to promote poetry to the point where you got all the
I want to promote poetry to the point where you got all the baldhead kids running around doing poetry, getting the music out of the way and having only words, the spoken word, and then see what happens.
Hear, O seekers of rhythm and word, the fierce declaration of Russell Simmons: “I want to promote poetry to the point where you got all the baldhead kids running around doing poetry, getting the music out of the way and having only words, the spoken word, and then see what happens.” In these lines burns the vision of a prophet of culture, one who believes that stripped of adornment, stripped of sound, stripped of beat, the naked word still holds power enough to shake the world. He calls not for distraction, but for essence—for poetry to stand bare, fierce, and unashamed.
The origin of this vision lies deep in the tradition of the spoken word. Long before instruments, long before stages, there was the human voice. Around firelight, elders spoke in rhythm and chant. In the marketplaces of Greece, philosophers spoke their truths aloud. In the deserts, prophets thundered their visions. Words alone carried nations, uplifted people, and shook empires. Simmons, rising from the culture of hip-hop, knows that the beat is powerful—but he dreams of what would happen if the beat fell silent and only the word remained. Would it not pierce deeper? Would it not force the listener to face the raw fire of truth?
Consider the tradition of the griots of West Africa. They carried the history of their people not with drums or lutes, but with memory and the spoken word. They spoke lineage, victories, tragedies, and wisdom, weaving them into chants that preserved identity across centuries. Their words, naked and strong, built communities and nations. Simmons’s vision is kin to this: children, stripped of distraction, running with verse in their mouths, making the air tremble with their voices alone.
This vision also recalls the cry of the beat poets of the mid-twentieth century. Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and their kin sought to free poetry from the page and hurl it into the streets, into jazz clubs, into the ears of a restless generation. Their words were raw, sometimes wild, sometimes vulgar, but always alive. They sought, as Simmons does, to make words themselves into movement, to prove that poetry does not need music to be song, for the human voice is itself an instrument.
But Simmons goes further: he dreams of children embracing this flame. He envisions a generation in which the young, instead of being consumers of noise, become makers of words—crafting, reciting, declaiming. He speaks of “baldhead kids” not as scorn but as image: youth stripped to essence, unadorned, carrying only the voice. In this dream, the youth themselves become prophets, their words rising above beats, their tongues shaping futures. It is not only art he seeks to promote, but empowerment: to put power back into the mouths of the people.
The lesson here is mighty: we must never forget the power of the spoken word. It is the seed of revolution, the heartbeat of culture, the foundation of identity. When all else is taken away—wealth, instruments, even parchment—the human voice remains. And within it lies the power to heal, to unite, to call forth justice. Simmons reminds us that the word alone can command a room, awaken a mind, stir a soul.
In practice, let us act: speak your words aloud. Do not wait for music or accompaniment. Gather with others and share verses. Let children learn to recite, to improvise, to chant their truths. Encourage the spoken word in schools, in communities, in streets. Read poetry not only silently but aloud, with rhythm and breath. For it is in the air, in the voice, in the ears of others that poetry becomes living fire.
Thus the teaching endures: poetry must not be hidden behind the veil of sound, nor chained to the page alone. It must rise, spoken, bare, unadorned. Simmons calls us to trust the ancient power of the word itself, to believe that when all else is stripped away, words alone can change the world. And if we answer this call, we may yet see a generation of children running not with weapons, not with fear, but with verses blazing from their tongues.
DVNguyen Do Dieu Vy
Simmons’ idea prompts me to think about experimentation and cultural expression. How might a generation raised on spoken word poetry alone interpret the world differently than one immersed in music-driven culture? Could this foster innovation in language, storytelling, or social commentary? I also wonder if his vision is realistic—how willing are kids to engage deeply with language without the familiar excitement of beats or rhythms? It raises broader questions about how art forms evolve, how culture shapes creativity, and whether the next generation can redefine poetry on their own terms.
APanh phuong
This quote makes me reflect on the tension between music and language in performance art. If young people focus only on words, does that challenge them to appreciate language for its own power, rather than as a vehicle for rhythm or melody? Could this emphasis on verbal expression nurture sharper communication skills, creativity, and critical thinking? At the same time, I question whether stripping away music risks losing the motivational energy that often draws youth to artistic expression in the first place. How might educators balance the appeal of performance with the purity of language?
VHle viet hung
I’m intrigued by the social implications of Simmons’ vision. What does it mean for poetry to reach 'all the baldhead kids'? Is he addressing cultural barriers to literature and creative expression, or highlighting a desire to democratize art? I also wonder whether this approach could bridge gaps between traditional literary communities and youth culture. Could spoken word alone cultivate literacy, critical thinking, and artistic innovation in ways that conventional education might not, and what challenges might arise in fostering such engagement?
HLKim Hue Le
Simmons’ statement makes me wonder about the transformative power of poetry when stripped of music. How might focusing solely on words and spoken expression affect young people’s creativity or self-confidence? Could removing musical accompaniment reveal a deeper understanding of rhythm, metaphor, and narrative in language? It also raises questions about accessibility: will kids embrace poetry as enthusiastically without the energy and appeal of music, or could this pure form of expression open new doors for personal and social exploration?