What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat.
May I add at this point that many of the derogatory comments relating to bodhran playing which will most likely follow in this thread are to be taken with several pinches of salt. I like John Joe Kelly's playing aswell. I heard a recording just minutes ago of Francis McIlduff of Belfast (more famous for excellent pipng and low whistling) playing the bodhran at first light. He is barely mentioned in the same breath as John Joe Kelly, Ringo, Junior Davey etc, but his bodhran playing is first class.
I love bodhrans....the only problem that I see in most music is that they are not loud enough. The pitter pat pitter pat in the back ground just is not enough to get my blood pumping.
Have you ever sat next to a VERY loud bodhran in a session? I have, in a session in An Teach Beag in Clonakilty in August this year. I couldn't hear myself play, let alone the whistle player on my right, or anyone else in the session for that matter. The middle-aged bodhranist on my left studiously ignored all attempts to get him to quieten down, and ten minutes after I joined the session the leader lost patience, reached across me with his foot and kicked the rim of the bodhran, making it perfectly clear that it and its owner were surplus to requirements. Our man got the message and immediately packed up and left. A rare case of someone literally being kicked out of a session!
Generally, I enjoy bodhrans in sessions here in Bristol. There are usually one or two in a session - one of them frequently being an excellent player from Norn Iron (hi, Jenny!) - and the playing in my experience only adds to the quality of the session.
I was told once about a summer school in Ireland where in one of the beginners fiddle classes the tutor was having a problem trying to get one or two pupils to loosen up their very stiff bowing wrist and hand. So he sent them along the corridor to a bodhran class for an hour's tuition. Problem solved.
The bodhrans at our session have driven away good players so we've attempted to solve the problem by requesting that only one of them play at a time. They seem to be a bit thick though, and when the craic gets going, they can't contain themselves, and they all (three or four) jump in and drown things out. They've been spoken to politely, yelled at, and shunned, but like I said, they're thick. I'm fairly new on the session scene, but my experience is that good drummers are rare. I suspect that any drummer who is a veteran of this board is good because they are interested enough in the music to really be part of it as contributors, not simply to hang out, drink the beer, and pretend to be "musicians".
Donnchadh Gough, John Joe Kelly and Tristan Rosenstock are all superb and unique players. My favorite player, however, has got to be Sean McCann of Great Big Sea, a fantastically popular band from Newfoundland that plays both traditional and original songs and tunes. His playing is not flashy, but it not only keeps the beat but, rather than adding to the music, it is the music. No one but Sean McCann, so far as I can see, has the ability to make the bodhran the core of the music, the central part that everything revolves around. That deserves merit.
By the way, when I say 'popular', I mean to say that I'm surprised and impressed that a group that has remained so true to its traditonal roots has managed to get national-if not worldwide-acclaim and popularity. I realized that the wording could be misinterpreted.
I love the kind of flat playing continuously insisting on the basses. There's a bodhrán player called Niall McQuaid I think, in Galway, he plays this way. hes the guy playing the bidhrán in Galway postcards It's a very unassuming style, but I find it very up to the point.
Just to second what has already been said about Fra McIlduff; he is a class bodhrán player and he certainly taught me a lot. He and his brother are great percussionists, althought they are both primarily known for their virtuosity on the pipes. In my opinion it's a great asset if you can play another instrument; you can appreciate the music and how it should be accompanied much more. No surprise that JJ Kelly plays a schneaky mandolin.
Bodhran players can add , rather than detract, IF played within the players skill limits. e.g. even a beginner , if playing simply, and not too loudly, by tapping out the beat (in strict time of course) can 'set the pulse' of the music. A skilled player can add much more of course - see this video of John Jo in a recent session in County Clare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWXUEiFKUQ8
(poor video quality -but great playing). This clip was during a particularly exhuberant few minutes - but as a 'proper musician' he also knows when to hold back - or stop playing altogether.
Dose = amount of medicine or poison administered at any one time ~ a measure of concentration varying from pleasurable to bearable to toxic ~ depending on the method of delivery can also result in extensive bruising and pain...
Thank you ceolachan. Bad bodhran playing can be like a dose of the cl#p. Does anyone like Bodhrans? In the hands of a skilled musician they,like any instrument, can be fantastic. However, in the hands of a novice, they are usually truly destructive to the music. So yes, I love a well played bodhran......Such a pity it'e such a rare beast.
When Trouble in the Kitchen let Benno loose on a bodhran solo it's amazing. I guess it's because when he isn't playing the bodhran he's on the flute or the guitar that he knows how to get it just right! Oh....and Gino Lupari is pretty amazing too!
I guess it's like any instrument - there are those who are amazing, there are those who just think they are amazing, and there are those who are pretty awful! (the good, the bad and the ugly!)
Thanks to those who replied to the question and for the rest of you , bad fiddle playing,bad banjo playing or anything else played badly can ruin a session.There seems to be alot of musicans who don t like bodhrans full stop. But i have reliased that the good musicans know what a bodhran has to offer.
Michael, do you mean that literally? That a well-played bodhran just repeats what the tune does w/o notes? I don't know that I'd agree with that.
Still, I suppose, that's kinda-sorta what happens, and it explains -- at least to me -- why the bodhran is so unpopular. I like the effect, which happens in, say, symphonic work, by creating a whole new tone out of each note. But it's only really pleasing as a special effect, I'd say. A little bit goes a long way, which is probably why bands like the Bothy Band used it so sparingly. But in a session, having that sound occurring tune after tune is tedious, in my opinion.
That's another reason why multi-instrumentalists who bang the drum can do so well -- not only because they likely have greater sensitivity to the tune but because they occasionally don't play drum.
Punters love them, to answer the question, which causes much jealousy among "hierarchy" melody players.
Anyone with ears adjusts to the level at which it needs played, because a pitter patter bodhran at a full session is a waste of time.
For example, I was at a session the other week, one flute player and me, so I played by hand rather than stick. That is commonsense.
There are many fine exponents of the bodhran, all capable of enlivening and adding to a session.
............Ilig Leahcim, in the green shorts. And in this corner, bodhran bliss, wearing red shorts and waving a matching red rag. Now I want a clean fight with no.......
Actually, all of the above is true at different times. What else is new?
We have a local tuba player who knows how much to play, and when not to play. In anyone else's hands.......
Mr Bliss's answer, "the punters love 'em", should be over on the Bruce's/Starting Over's diatribe of a thread.
I think the bodhran can have a very effective place in a performance setting or a recording. Donal Lunny is my favourite. But to say the punter's love 'em in a session setting shows up a particularly irritating arrogance. That of wishing to transform a session into a performance. And If you could find a session melody player who would be jealous of then, then that would be one tune player I'd rather not play with also.
"What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat"
Saint, I'm with you there.
Been playing the drum for over 20 years and learned in the (I later found out) "Kerry" style. Friends and relatives said I ought to see Flook so I did. Experimented with "Top End" style for a while (see JJK clip above) but Kerry style felt more natural to me and fits into the sessions I play in.
Saw Flook recently and JJK was playing mostly Kerry style apart from the tracks where Top End was part of the arrangement.
I agree with most of the above comments, apart from the silly ones. But they're to be expected.
that's interesting then. So do we agree? Do we agree that your statement, "the punters love 'em", while undoubtedly true, is, to the session playing musician, irrelevant?
Thanks for the JJ clip its a pitty there is not more clips like this around.I just listened to Teada s new cd and the playing is excellent .I think Tristan has got it spot on .
Can bodhran bliss actually answer the question instead of talking sh*t.
PB, I think "irrelevant" is the operative word here. The point against which you argued at length--"to the session playing musician" any notion of performance is irrelevant.
And in my neck of the woods, some of the punters (i.e., non-playing participants) get it, too.
Will, some of the punters in our local get it too, but I'm not as quick to write off everyone in the room who doesn't "get it" as "irrelevant." It’s my opinion that we live in a world of people, and when we go out in public we are among them – but not above them.
No one has mentioned Jim Higgins or Siobhan O'Donnell. Both understated players who use tone and no pyrotechnics although they are capable of it. I still go back to Ringo who I had lessons with this year on Inis Oirr.
1. You do not consider sessions performances.
2. Punters do consider sessions performances.
3. Punters like the bodhran.
4. You play the bodran.
There are only two ways you can reconcile this apparent contradiction. Either:
a. no matter how hard you try, you just can't stop yourself from performing.
b. No matter how many times a musician might say to you that they are not performing, you don't believe them.
Yep, this persistence in logging onto a site about sessions and telling us we're public performers reminds me of the habits of a certain Canadian keyboardist who was roundly berated (by some of the same people) for being undable to tell the difference between a session and a performance. Weird, really.
Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.
I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear.
The funny thing to me, Will, is that you and I agree completely on the perspective of the session musician. Our only stumbling block is the difference regarding the punters perspective. I will never be comfortable going into an environment that includes non musicians and pretend that they aren't there, or to ignore them if they try to express appreciation for what we're doing. I don't want to grill them and find out if they understand the session from my perspective before I thank them, and I don't want to ignore them, but to them it's a performance. So what's the big deal? So what!
You assume too much, Jack. I don't ignore them, but we do gradually help most of the regulars understand the differences between a session and a performance. It's called communication, craic even. I'm not sure why you keep jumping to the conclusion that I ignore people or treat them with hostility. Imagining that you know how I behave or think in a session stikes me as strange, eh?
Some of the best craic we've had is joking with newcomers about how an Irish session works. Laura and Gail come to mind. Neither plays the music, but they come almost every week, sit close, and visit with us between sets, very much part of the circle. They've learned to "show appreciation" (if that's what it is) by buying a round instead of clapping.
One way to understand the differences might be to compare thesession.org with this site: http://www.performances.org/. Right in your neighborhood, too, PB.
Really, to me, insisting on this separation of musicians and "audience" misses a huge part of the magic of a good session. And misses the point and spirit of this site as well.
So how long does it take before the punters understand that you're not giving a "performance"? As for clapping; I clap too if I think someone played a tune particularly well. (I do this on tunes I'm not playing) Am I not getting it? There are also a few folks (non musicians) who regularly show up to enjoy the music, buy us rounds, etc., but they'll clap now and then for the same reason. I'm curious now... do you instruct people not to clap? Did you tell Laura and Gail not to clap? How did they come to avoiding it?
Clapping in and of itself isn't much of a bother. But it can get in the way. Sometimes a punter will start clapping, thinking the set has ended, but just because all of the louder instruments stopped doesn't mean that our lone mandolinist or a more tentative player isn't taking the opportunity to continue on a tune s/he wants to play and keep the set going. I've also noticed that clapping encourages the musicians to start pandering to the "audience," or hike up their anxiety levels because they're suddenly aware that they're "performing." Both indicate a shift in attention and attitude that can kill the intimacy of a cozy session.
We consciously do a few things to encourage participation in ways other than clapping. If a particularly rousing set gets them clapping, I've been known to tell the punters (with a big smile on my face), "No need for applause--it only encourages us!" Also, clappers quickly suss things out if they start clapping, thinking the set has ended, but we launch right into another tune. If one of the musicians later says, with a chuckle, "Help! Stop me before I diddle again!" or "Ha! We fooled 'em that time!" it takes the possible embarrassment away, but they still get the idea. In other words, we find little openings to draw people into our circle with humor and direct communication.
I've lost count of how many times someone new to the session experience has come up to me afterwards and commented on how refreshing it is to enjoy music played for its own sake.
Laura and Gail introduced themselves early on and started asking questions about how our session works. We lied to them mercilessly, but they figured it out anyway.
Point being that we don't have a rule against it, but we prefer to create an environment where people can engage without assuming that we're playing music for their attention or even benefit. They're free to sit and listen, join in, whatever. But they're also free to sit nearby, eat a meal, and have a conversation about the latest episode of Survivor.
Actually, I think what happens is that the lyrics beg people's attention. Songs tell stories, and we all instinctively respond to that, like sunflowers turning to the light. Instrumentals don't "mean" anything, don't require a casual listener to decode any message.
Your conduct doesn't sound any different than what happens here, but there are always people in the pub who want to show their appreciation regardless. To them we can only assume that they believe we are in the act of performing our skills on our chosen instruments for everyone's appreciation (including ourselves) and they just want to acknowledge it.
After they thought we were done only to find out we were still going a few times, they lose interest and settle into their conversation or whatever. Others who are more interested will eventually learn that it doesn't necessarily mean the "set" has ended and they'll wait to make certain if they intend to clap. Others still might have gotten the idea (as Laura and Gail did) that clapping isn't necessary even though they might be enjoying and appreciating the result of how we perform our musical skills.
And as you said: the singers get applause from everyone. But does that mean that part of the session is a performance and the rest isn't? Why even try to make a distinction? Why does the word "performance" cause so much controversy? Why can't we acknowledge that we're performing our skills in public but it's not a formal performance? I think even the punters understand that much. It just seems like we're demonizing the word "performance" when there's no need to.
No one is demonizing anything Jack. There you go again, ascribing attitudes to people whose heads you're not inside.
This conversation is similar in substance to the one with poor Bruce, for whom playing music means performing. I think the barrage from the peanut gallery here made it quite clear that many session musicians and session.org members don't see it that way. And "performance" is a term they'd rather not dwell on. It's a "session." We don't need another word for it.
Will writes: "There you go again, ascribing attitudes to people whose heads you're not inside."
Not exactly -- I said, "we're demonizing the word" not "you're demonizing the word." To exclude the word all together and make it forbidden reminds me a little to much of when people become too PC about certain things... that's my point. I don't think it moves the discussion forward regarding what a session is or isn't. Instead, I think it's useful to acknowledge the word for what it is, what it means to the punter, and then move on.
The difference between the conversation we had with Bruce and this one is that Bruce was unable to separate the word "performance" from "session" the way you and I can. I do think you and I agree on what a session is essentially, where we differ is about the meaning of the word "performance." You seem to want it to be excluded all together even though the meaning of the word describes the act of playing music in public -- like we do at sessions in pubs. Whereas I recognize the perspective and experience from the punter’s point of view to be just as legitimate as our own. We’re all in the pub together.
Lol, then demonize away, Jack, but leave me out of it. Maybe you should've written "I'm demonizing...."
Heh, I don't care what word you want to use instead of "session." You can call it an enterprise, function, engagement, production, exhibition, affair, execution, etc. All of them perfectly good synonyms for "performance" (as in "we are now going to execute some tunes on our instruments"). And you can deal with the unfortunate or inappropriate connotations each of those might bring to your session. If you want to talk about sessions like a linguistic semantacist or ESL student, that's your perogative.
But given your stated understanding of how a session differs significantly from a formal performance, I don't see why you'd want to. You can "perform" your tunes to your heart's content...I prefer to play mine, and lower the risk of misleading people into thinking a session is a formal performance (which we both agree it isn't).
Why didn't Jeremy call this site www.theperformance.org?
I'd like to think I'm not demonizing the word performance, though I can understand people getting that impression. For that I'm sorry.
I like performances, I love a good performer, in the propper setting. I even liked performing myself, though long ago now.
And I agree that the topic seems a bit done to death of late. However, The interesting point about it, for me anyway, is that I think it very neatly defines what a session is (and given the name of this forum, we can't complain about that). Namely, live music without performance. And as soon as a performance element comes into it, it, by definition, is no longer a session.
Of course there are grey areas, like everything. And I've often participated in sessions that for one reason or an other turned into performances. Two grey areas that irritate me though, are 1. when the punters in the pub, usually through simply not knowing what's going on, demand a performance. And 2. when one of the musicians (or drummers) in the company start to play to the crowd.
And I hope Jack can see that I've gone out of my way to describe how I relate positively to the punters and anyone else in the pub (despite his insinuations to the contrary).
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music or a play to an audience
~~~
When you're in public you have an "audience" whether you like it or not. Granted, we aren't playing to them -- but they're still there and think of themselves as an audience.
So I guess the bottom line is, as MG puts it, when the word "perfomance" comes into it he feels he is no longer participating in a session. This gives the word "performance" too much power in my opinion. If someone in the bar thinks the session is a performance it has absolutely no effect on me. I couldn't care less -- I still enjoy myself regardless, and it has no effect on the session whatsoever.
Jack, can you see the difference in the two definitions you provided. One says nothing about an audience. The other does.
And Michael and I have just given two instances where the "performance" aspect *does* in fact interfere with a good session--(1) when punters demand a performance (insisting that you cater to them, and (2) when musicians start to play to the crowd for their own ego's sake. Both of these can ruin the intimacy of a good session, and they are examples of why your notion of audience is at odds with session craic.
It's not about the word. It's about the concept of dividing the pub crowd into players and audience, and all the attendant pitfalls that can follow. I don't mind an audience at my gigs. But I prefer my sessions with a roomful of participants.
Jack, I concur. If someone in the bar thinks the session is a performance it has absolutely no effect on me either. I still enjoy myself regardless, and it has no effect on the session ... (except, however, when that person claps loudly between tunes and complains when you sit with your back to them, etc).
But the being in public and having an audience thing is not as cut and dried as you state. An example someone came up with earlier was having a conversation in a bar. You are in a public place, so does that give the guy stood next to you the "right" to listen to your conversation? You are in public, and the conversation you are having is tailored accordingly, and if the guy next to you can hear it, so be it. Even if he wants to listen, to eavesdrop, that's OK. But is he "allowed" to laugh outloud at one of your jokes?
I'm not saying people should pretend not to be listening to your music, or that they should refrain from showing appreciation in some subtle manner, just that the polite thing to do is to realise that it's not their conversation. I disagree with Will here, I think there is a divide
To me, a session is like a potluck. I don't discriminate against people who didn't bring food or choose not to eat, even if I'm stuffing my pie hole. But it would be a bit odd for me to go to a potluck with the idea that I'm going to eat in front of other people for their entertainment....
Yes, sessions can be community events and they are great. But it's not easy in a town of busy itenerant tourists and rowdy students. I don't mind that I'm going to play music in the same room as them, but would mind if it was for their entertainment.
And yes, ther is a world of difference between performing before admirers and playing to the crowd. But I wonder where banging the bodhran within an intimate group of non-performers because the punters love it fits?
Will writes: "Jack, can you see the difference in the two definitions you provided. One says nothing about an audience. The other does."
Yes, Will, I see the differences, but I also see the similarities. I did address that in that same post. When you "play" an instrument you "use a musical instrument to produce music," but when you play tunes in public you "present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience." The audience doesn't think they're "eavesdropping" or at a "potluck" (unless your session is happening at a potluck.) They're enjoying your performance whether or not you think you're giving one. Big deal.
Oh, and quite often the people in the pub at our session don't think they'r at a potluck or a performance. They think they're at this peculiar thing called a "session." And so do we. So that's what we call it.
To tell the truth I play mostly mandolin on our Sunday session, because this is indeed a paid performance, and not a real session. We play a number of tunes, but we are required to "entertain", and would play to/for the crowd to an extent.
At a real session I would play the bodhran. Where that fits in with
"But I wonder where banging the bodhran within an intimate group of non-performers because the punters love it fits" I have no idea as it is a concept that is foreign to me.
Problem is Michael, you always jump to extremes, certainly where bodhrans are concerned.
If anybody ever even so much as indicates they're listening to the music at our session, we club them to death with a tenor banjo. It's just plain sensible.
By "advertised" I mean it's listed as such in various calendars around the area.
The Grinter is fully keyed... and so is my bodhran.
I play the bodhran at our session because we seem to have frightened all the other playersl away. (joking) Because I also play flute and concertina it's impossible to play the bodhran too much -- often only once or twice a night at best. But I love to play it, and I love the sound. If another player comes in I usually just leave it in the case. If another concertina or flute player comes I'll play it more often to give them a chance to be the only flute or concertina on a few tunes. If another flute or concertina player is there... and another bodhran player as well... I uh... flirt with the ladies more. If the other flute, concertina, or bodhran player is a ladie I would like to flirt with... I just sit there and listen politely...
Perhaps I should have said it brings out the worst in you, Michael, the mere mention of the B word. Your usual humour, and reasoned argument, seems to desert you.
If a group of individuals sets up in a public place like a restaurant or a bar and has a private conversation at a volume that might intrude on everyone else's enjoyment of that public place, they have a responsibility to be sensitive to those other people's needs. (I'm acutely aware of this, having recently been seated with a group of very loud and obnoxious clients in a beautiful but very reserved and quiet Paris restaurant.) Obviously the punters can't impose topics of conversation on the group, but they can expect them not to use foul language, break out in fistfights, etc. In the same way, the output from a session needs to be "pleasant" in fairness to the other people who share that public space. So it's not a public performance in the audience-versus-stage mold, but it is to the extent that punters have a right to expect quality music.
Why clap for singers and not for tunes? For some reason, our culture sees singers as going out on a limb much more than players of musical instruments. The clapping is usually more to encourage the individual and congratulate them for taking a risk, rather than to compliment them on the song or its performance.
What does the publican expect when s/he invites a session? It would seem to me that it is expected that punters will enjoy it and hence stick around and spend money. At one of the pubs we play at it is required that we will be playing among the punters (paying customers) and not in the more comodious and quiet back room.
Yes, I appologise. My usual humour does escape me when I talk about bodhrans, though not, I hope, my reasoning. But it's hard to reason with someone who glories in "performing, at a session".
Mr Bliss classes himself as a multi insrtumentalist, but the one the thing he does not do is play the tunes that are the backbone of what everyone else here accepts is a session. By his own admission, they bore him. And I don't blame him, it would be boring to simply bang a drum along with them all evening, in the same way that it would be boring to sit at the bar and just listen to them all evening. At the very least, he seems intelligent enough to realise this. Instead, he'd rather perform.
Grego's take on why people clap for songs - to congratulate the risk of it, - is interesting, but i'm not sure it's the whole story. For starters, there tends to be silence from the punters for a song and this is for two reasons which are interdependent. The first - and it was mentioned earlier - is that the narrative that is the words asks, especially to non musicians, for a more structured approach to listening than do instrumentals. The second it that performers are attracted to singing for this reason. Bliss's attitude is a classic description of this.
Michael, have you met me? Who said I do not play tunes, who said I glory in performing at a session, who said I do not like tunes?
I perform, musically, for pay. At a session I join in,in a quiet unassuming manner as befits the world's supreme bodhran player. You may find someone as good, or you may prefer someone else, but they will not be better. All a matter of taste.
And my dear Saint, you mention beginners like John Joe Kelly at the start of this thread, and then suggest I know little about bodhrans. Surely a contradiction there somewhere.
I think the singers get the unanimous applause because the cues are so clear. The room gets shushed, everyone's paying attention, the song has a clear beginning and end, etc. And about the applause: depending on how well the singer does the applause are either for the performance or just the relief that it's over.
Mr Bliss, it's difficult sometimes to clock the difference between bravado and serious comment, which is as it should be of course. I can't be arsed to search the back catalogue for your postings, but, correct me if I'm wrong: I seem to remember you talking about playing O'Carolan tunes on the mandolin, and the lownesome boatman on the whistle, and the blues moothee. And I think I remember you talking about the value of the inclusion variety of stuff because of the tedium of jigs and reels. And I seem to remember you talking about not having the dexterity to play jigs and reels fast enough. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, I don't know you, (though I suspect we would have a bit of a craic if we met). Though you must admit, the statement, "at a session I join in, in a quiet unassuming manner," is a little at odds with you cyberspace persona here.
Because... unless the room is shushed you can't hear the singer at all. Also, it's impossible to sing if there's noise in a room like that. You can still hear the tunes provided punters aren't screaming at each other or laughing like rabid hyenas. Also, the tunes are continuous throughout the night and the punters don't feel they have to give them undivided attention as they would during a formal concert. Why do you think the room gets shushed?
That's a brilliant answer mate. Absolutely no sarcasm, I love it.
"The tunes are continuous throughout the night and the punters don't feel they have to give them undivided attention as they would during a formal concert." Perfect.
Why do I think the room gets shushed for a song? The two reasons I mentioned above, inherant narative of words and projected ego of the singer.
This gets to the rub of it and I'm pleased. The whole concept of punters NOT feeling like they owe the tunes undevided attention is the whole basis of the non-performance ethos. It's music that neither asks nor deserves attention from those not participating in its creation.
I agree with you on that llig - I've never once felt that a session was a performance - in any sense of the word - I play in a pub in public because there arent many house sessions going on. And if I want to play with others thats where I have to go.
And for any of you who are interested - 'Tommy Tiernan - sums it up on his live DVD - all about how your almost at that perfect state in a session where the tunes are flying - and someone always comes with a song 'annnndddd eeeeyyye dunnnoooo' - Highly recommended for anyway who just loves and old tune session without songs every second set.
PS - not saying I dont like songs or singers - I just think there really is a time and a place. And good on the sessions that have an equal number of both tunes and songs - thats great - it just wouldnt be my ideal session.
Okay - I'm bracing myself to get shot down now for expressing an opinion - just like MG did on the 'Our Band' thread. Ducks for cover.....
But Michael... if you asked those punters how they thought the musicians performed at the pub that night, they might say, "Excellently!" or, "It was pure sh*te!" but I guarantee you they would be very unlikely to say anything like, "Well... it wasn't actually a performance, you see... it was a 'session' -- and sessions aren't 'performances'."
bb writes, "I've never once felt that a session was a performance - in any sense of the word - I play in a pub in public because there arent many house sessions going on. And if I want to play with others thats where I have to go."
Of course, bb, but what do the punters there think you're doing? I'm sure they enjoy listening and watching you perfoming your skills on the fiddle. I can see it now...
1st person to 2nd: Gosh... she performed that tune beautifully! Don't you think?
2nd person: No... she wasn't performing you eejit... it's a session, and people aren't performing -- they're just wiggling their fingers around on instruments. Geesh... goes to show what you know.
a lot of folk have mentioned great bodhran players on record or on stage, but how many can say with their hand on their heart that they'd like one sitting next to them in a session, unless they could be sure it was a sensitive genius like bbliss ?
Yep mr button, good posting, to the crux again, quite right.
But the question is a misnomer.
It would be like asking a horticulturist how beautiful a flower was. they'd say "lovely", of course. But I guarantee you they would be very unlikely to say anything like, "Well actually, the flower is just an abstract shape to attract insects to aid pollination."
Now I understand that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners, but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code. Let's look again at the meaning as it appears in the dictionary.
per·form v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience (punters)
Now I realize we aren't playing to the audience, but they're there, and some of them are listening, and that makes an audience.
audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or other live performance (other meaning session)
Since the dictionary has already defined that to perform is the playing of tunes on an instrument, then the punters in the pub who are listening become the audience that makes the event a "performance.” These are just the facts according to anyone who doesn't know or understand the ITM sessioner's secret code. Sessioners avoid the term "performance" because they don't like the connotation, and I understand that, but the rest of the world still goes by the English language according to the dictionary when they try to perceive what's happening at the pub during a session.
I really don't know how to make it any more clear than my prior post. I think the best way to describe what a session might seem like to punters, or what punters believe they are witnessing, is more or less an "informal performance." If punters are interested enough to want to get inside our heads they might realize the shortcomings of that definition, but few will bother. A vast majority will go away thinking that's what they saw -- an "informal performance" of Irish music.
"bbliss" is perhaps getting too close to "bb". For the sake of clarity, and to confer suitable respect, I propose that the name Bodhran Bliss be used, which could be shortened to BB.
Clapping at the end of a song. Heeuuuch! or Yeeeeehaaaa! at the end of a tune. No admiration implied. OK?
Well, real-world use of words doesn't come from the dictionary. It's the other way 'round--dictionary definitions are taken from real-world usage. Unfortunately, they too often come from formal written sources, rather than straight forward street vernacular. So most native speakers of a language don't go around citing dictionary definitions and taking them so literally. Thank heavens we don't all go around talking like dictionary definitions....
Words take most of their meaning from context. Take them out of context--or USE THEM IN THE WRONG CONTEXT--and you create confusion and misunderstandings.
Our sessions are so unlike performances that it would strike me as odd if anyone described one as any kind of performance, informal or otherwise. If the punter's in Jack's scenario were commenting on our session, the conversation would much more likely go as follies:
Punter Bob: "Not bad for a bunch of drunks. That one in the corner can really play."
Punter Joe: "Yeah, every now and then they'd all get in the same groove--imagine if they actually practiced!"
Punter Bob: "Well, I suppose that's the difference between a band gig and whatever this is. What'd the bartender call it--a session?"
Punter Joe: "Yep, just like the one's I saw on vacation over in Galway. 'Cept the Guinness is better over there."
Come to think of it, it would also be really strange if the people in the pub thought of themselves as an audience. Most of them aren't really listening--they're eating, drinking, talking, reading, watching telly in the back, or throwing darts. Not at all typical of audience behavior I've seen at "performances."
Ask Joe or Bob what they thought of the performance and they'll answer that in a similar way as well. And I bet they won't correct you on the use of the word either. You'd have to explain it to them first before they'd even notice.
I disagree. No doubt San Francisco has some "performance artists" who abuse their audiences by ignoring them while they juggle cabbages or pose mannequins on stage and it's considered not just a performance but high art.
Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them.
I've tried to get people to refer to BBliss as BB and not 'bb' - it doesnt work - and now people tend to call me beebs BB = Bodhran Bliss the talented and if I say extremely modest Bodhran player. bb = Beebs - the one who has taste in tunes
Seriously. If you asked Joe or Bob what they thought of the "performance," I think they'd laugh and tell us to keep our day jobs.
The regular punters get it, of course. And many of the irregulars get it, too, because they've come to an Irish pub, so the whole concept of a session--as we understand it in all of its differences from a formal performance--fits their expectations.
Bliss, here they just turn the sound off so those who want to can watch the game. We did play in a pub where the manager kept turning the sound back on (and up)--didn't take long for us to find friendlier quarters.
Geez, I have no trouble keeping beebs and bliss apart--haven't you seen a pic of beebs?! No mistaking her for a hirsute goat thumper.
Funny, so are most of the sessions I've been to elsewhere. Seems like most sessions go out of their way to find a pub with a side room or snug big enough for the players, off a bit from the usual bar crowd. And I've played in brilliant sessions with big names where between every set some lout of a punter was yelling at us to stop or leave. I've overheard punters call a session a "private party."
Jack, I'm starting to worry that you might not really understand just how casual and nearly invisible a session can be. They are so unlike any kind of performance, in intent, appearance, vibe, etc.
Happy? Yes, thank you. Sitting here cheerfully thinking about the fun I have at sessions. I thought we were just chatting about this again, since you and Michael and Bliss rekindled the topic.
Well, I happy for you too, but unless a news bulletin goes out to the general public and English professors around the world are updated concerning this new exclusion for the meaning, most punters are still going to be going by the dictionary definition for what it means if people are playing music in a public place. I’ve been to a fair amount of pubs where sessions are in progress and the punters give every indication that they believe what’s going on is an informal performance of some sort regardless of what the musicians think of what they're doing. I have yet to visit the pub where you hold yours; it would be interesting to see these edified punters of yours.
Aiiieee - cant you guys argue about something worthwhile - like
* Is BBliss the Best Bodhran player ever in the world - or is he the Best Bodhran player ever in eternity
Okay -but dont you agree that it is neither here nor there if the punters think themselves as an 'audience' and think that we are 'performing'? I mean really - who cares what they think? unless you are getting paid to do it and even when I get paid to do it I could care less if there are people there listening or not.
Wow, these dictionaries are powerful books, I guess. Let's see, what does Merriam-Webster have to say about Jack?
n: 1: a man, laborer (e.g., lumberjack), or sailor
2: any of various usually mechanical devices: as a : a device for turning a spit b : a usually portable mechanism or device for exerting pressure or lifting a heavy body a short distance
3 : something that supports or holds in position: as a : an iron bar at a topgallant masthead to support a royal mast and spread the royal shrouds b : a wooden brace fastened behind a scenic unit in a stage set to prop it up
4 a : any of several fishes; especially : any of various carangids b : a male donkey c : JACKRABBIT d : any of several birds (as a jackdaw)
5 a : a small white target ball in lawn bowling b : a small national flag flown by a ship c (1) plural but singular in construction : a game played with a set of small objects that are tossed, caught, and moved in various figures (2) : a small 6-pointed metal object used in the game of jacks
6 a : a playing card carrying the figure of a soldier or servant and ranking usually below the queen b : JACKPOT 1a(2)
7 slang : MONEY
8 : a female fitting in an electric circuit used with a plug to make a connection with another circuit
Yer right, Jack, the dictionary has certainly clarified things for me. I now have a much more complete picture of who you must be.
Beebs, that's too easy. We have it on Bliss's own word that he is the best bodhran player the universe has or will ever know. Others may be as good, but none better.
Which, come to think of it, also applies well to, say, a stone dug out of a field. Others may be as good a stone, but none better.
Remember: we are each of us unique...just like everyone else.
bb writes: "Okay -but dont you agree that it is neither here nor there if the punters think themselves as an 'audience' and think that we are 'performing'? I mean really - who cares what they think?"
I don't care what they think we're doing either, bb. But I don't think we're above them; their experience is just as valid as ours. To us it's a session... to them it's an informal performance. Who's right and who's wrong is irrelevant, but for all intents and purposes -- both are right. You can educate the punters about what you're doing the way Will has in his pub, but that won't change the facts. The only difference will be in the definition.
I dont think we are above them at all. I just dont care if they are there or not, it doesnt bother me, unless they are noisy, and annoying and start singing the 'fields of Athenry' - then I have to tell them to feck off.
Sigh. Jack, there you go reading what you want into my posts instead of what they really say, and getting all condescending and sarcastic. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, you take it down to the level of a junior high playgorund argument. Not a flattering position to take.
We've been through this before. For the sake of anyone else reading this (since you apparently refuse to comprehend it): words derive meaning from the context in which they're used, not from a dictionary. Dictionaries merely document commonly assigned meanings. Lots of words have more than one meaning, sometimes even meaning the opposite of one another. (E.g., depending on who's saying it and under what circumstances, f**k can mean either "let's make love" or "I'm gonna kill you.") So the fact that "performance" can mean "to execute a skill" or "musical or theatrical entertainment for an audience" doesn't mean both of those definitions necessarily apply to the same real-world phenomenon. Love making would become prohibitively risky if we typically misunderstood each other so drastically....
Will, it's disappointing that you feel it necessary resort to ad hominem. I have not described you with words like "condescending" and "sarcastic" nor have I compared your discussion abilities to a "junior high playground argument." I refuse to engage any further if you insist on insulting me in this manner. Thanks for the discussion thus far, but I won't respond to your future posts unless your attitude and language improve.
bb writes: "I dont think we are above them at all. I just dont care if they are there or not, it doesnt bother me, unless they are noisy, and annoying and start singing the 'fields of Athenry' - then I have to tell them to feck off."
Yea... hahaha... that's when I start caring too.
But it would be like me seeing punters chatting and drinking in a pub only to find out they didn't see it that way themselves. To them they might see it as something else and could even argue the point, but for me it wouldn't matter -- they're chatting and drinking in a pub as far as I can tell. Which one of us is wrong?
Maybe this is too much of a philosophical discussion that none of us here are qualified for... I know I'm not. But I just can't see that a tree doesn't fall in a forest if the loggers didn't think they cut it down.
Used in moderation and in appropriate tunes, I find the sound of the bodhran anywhere from entrancing to hair-raising, and I like it a lot. To judge from most posts here, the instrument is being abused a lot! It's like a heavy spice, you don't want too much, and you certainly don't want it in every dish you cook.
I have a tar, which could be a tame version of the bodhran, and I love playing it though even with its relatively mild voice I suspect my neighbors might not, so I rarely use it anymore. I believe I'll take it out into one of our pretty parks some fine day and play away as much as I want. It's truly meditative....
Jack, I'm tempted to let you off the hook, but I can't. Your reasoning is flawed, and whenever someone reveals that flawed reasoning, instead of re-examining your position or posting a reasoned explanation of it to move the conversation forward, you resort to cheap sarcasm, ridicule, and patronizing language. I'm calling it as I see it.
It's impossible to have a civil discussion with you--and then you accuse me of being insulting because I've pointed out your unreasonable and condescending rhetoric. You attack, and then cry "I'm the victim!"
Enough goes on here at the yella board--like the gang-up on Bruce--that would cross my threshold for basic civility, and yet I can abide Jeremy's decision to let much of it stand. But your relentless incivility when someone disagrees with you or challenges your idiosyncratic notions of what sessions are about crosses the line. I hope you come to your senses before Jeremy does.
Apologies to the innocent bystanders who stumble on this sordid scene. I'm sincerely disappointed that it's come to this again, but I'm tired of ugly rhetoric trumping reason. I'm tired of listening to people who think that if they say something is true often enough, it must be true, even when it flies in the face of other people's reality. That's what's wrong with public discourse in America these days, and I'm sad to see it infect a community I've enjoyed for many years.
I think the answer's staring you both (Whoosis + PB) in the face. Will, it's simply that your session is different to Jack's. We all have different tastes in sessions and the way they are run, adn this leads us to hold different ideals and definitions of what a session should be. I imagine Jack's session to be much more like a performance than yours, Will. I get the impression that his would be a lot more serious - less getting up and walking around and chatting, little or no noodling of half-remembered tunes, just set after set of well-rehearsed tunes played by people who play together on a regular basis as a band. That's fine if that's what you're into. I think unless you've been to each other's sessions there's little point in discussing it further because it's all speculation.
I don't think you can really judge how the sessions compare in Ireland either. I doubt either of you have spent long enough as a regular in one particular session over there to get into the musicians heads enough to judge their ideals and definitions of how a session should be. I would think you'd have to be going every week for a few months or years to get a feel for that.
I can only make a point from my own experience of sessions I've been a regular at in my local area, and people in my area who I've played with. Someone like bb for example, I play with her quite a lot, and we're good friends, so I know what tunes she plays and her likes and dislikes, and how she views sessions and what her ideals are. They're a bit different from my own, but I nevertheless have a broad understanding of how she works. Now, Jack, you've seen her YouTube posting right? I can tell you right now that if you take those 3 musicians out of Bridie's kitchen and plonk them in a pub in Sydney or Melbourne, if the 3 of them were playing the same set together, they would *not* play *any* differently if there were other people in the pub. The only issue might be if there were distractions of some sort to take their minds off what they're doing. To them, it doesn't matter who's there listening or not listening, or taking pictures of them with a camera, or making a video of them.
But you take Ado out of Bridie's kitchen and put him on stage with Katiebee and the other people from his band, now *that's* a performance.
A performance has to come from a performer, not from any perceived audience. If the person playing tunes doesn't feel some sort of responsibility to an audience, then it's not a performance.
Here's another example. There's a YouTube posting of Simon Thoumire playing some tunes for the camera. This is a performance. There's nobody in the room where he's playing, at least nobody that you can see, but he is aware that he is playing for a potential audience who download his posting. That's why he makes an announcement before he plays. Now, if you secretly filmed him through a hole in the wall of his house playing concertina alone, that's not a performance right? This 2nd scenario is how Will et al view sessions.
Mark, I've been to a lot of sessions and ours is really no different. But that's not even my point. It's quite simple actually; what the session is to the musicians isn't necessarily the same as it is to the in the pub. We see it as you describe -- they see it as a performance. According to the definition of what a performance is they're correct. According to our definition of what a session is -- we're correct. Who's wrong? Neither. Who's correct? Both.
I think I summed it up best in my response to bb: If a tree falls in the forest, but the loggers don't think they cut it down -- does that mean it didn't fall?
bb, I am concerned that you may be at risk of being mistaken for such a controversial figure as bodhran bliss.
I urge you to immediately change your name for your own safety. You could be called.......you could use the name "starting over"!
I'm sorry the people in your pub think it is a performance, but that doesn't make it one. That's just their misunderstanding of the situation due to their inexperience with sessions. Do you find you get a lot of requests for songs and stuff? This tends to happen when punters have misread the situation and think that the music is there for their benefit.
I've never contested that, Mark. I have no idea what Jack's session is like, and he can make it as much of a performance or not as he likes. But I'm not the one characterizing Jack's session. He's said plenty about mine, however, as though he's been there.
It's not what Jack wants a session to be that I've argued against here, but his insistence that my session and others can't be anything but a performance. In my understanding, he's missing some essential differences--the same differences that other people have highlighted to me about their sessions vs. more gig-like approaches to the music.
And I really don't care whether Jack gets this or not. But it does strike me as rude and insensitive that he persists in telling people here that their sessions must be performances, even though several people have tried to explain the differences to him and put him on notice that his relentless insistence on this rude. A bit like Michael's crusade against bodhran players (but at least Michael gives a well reasoned stance for his point of view).
And when Jack stoops to ridiculing my posts instead of addressing the reasoned points in them, it makes civil dialogue difficult if not impossible. I eman, this is a guy who once, rather than respond substantively to my post, told me to go make love to my wife. What's the point in trying to reason with that? And why is this repeated ugly behavior tolerated?
Sorry... I left out the word "punters" in this line: "what the session is to the musicians isn't necessarily the same as it is to the [ punters ] in the pub"
As far as I understand it Jack, you're saying that *you* don't think that the playing you do in your session is a performance, but that the punters *do* think it's a performance. This logically means that the punters don't understand what's going on, which is understandable; you're in San Fransisco. So maybe it's up to you to educate them and involve them more so that they *do* understand what you're doing. That's assuming you care, of course. But then, if you care what they think, then that means you feel some responsibility towards them, which means that you *are* performing for them. Thus bringing us back in a full circle. So, what do you think?
Will writes: "He's said plenty about mine, however, as though he's been there." This is a lie... I never said I knew what Will's sessions were like. Even in this thread I said, "I have yet to visit the pub where you hold yours." Why Will is resorting to lying now is anyone's guess.
Mark... as I told bb: I don't care what the punters think. My point is simply that they believe their seeing a performance. For them it IS a performance... even if we don't think so and don't care. For us it's a session... not a performance. simple as that.
Will, I why does it bother you what Jack thinks about your session? You know yourself that his assumptions are off the mark, so isn't that enough? If he's going to sessions in Ireland and experiencing them all as "performances" like gigs, then all his musical experiences, whether at a gig or session, are going to be of "performances". Therefore he misses out on the feeling we get when we go to sessions such as your own. That's his loss, not yours.
"My point is simply that they believe their seeing a performance. For them it IS a performance... even if we don't think so and don't care. For us it's a session... not a performance. simple as that."
But even if the punters think it's a performance doesn't make it one unless the musicians also see it that way.
It's like a magicians trick. The people watching might think they are seeing something like a person getting cut in half, but just because that's how they perceive it doesn't make it actually so. The magician knows this.
"If a tree falls in the forest, but the loggers don't think they cut it down, does this mean the tree didn't fall?"
See, I can't tell if Jack thinks he's being logical here, or if he's misrepresenting his "opponents'" position just to make his own look good.
And it's nonsensical. Of course it doesn't mean the tree didn't fall. But neither does it mean the loggers in fact cut the tree down. If the loggers never laid a blade to that tree, then obviously it fell for other reasons.
The only difference with the magic trick is that people would know from their own common sense and experiences in life they couldn't possibly be witnessing someone being cut in half. With sessions on the other hand, most people would not have experience of session culture unless they've played the music themselves, especially in somewhere like SF, so any conclusion they come to about what they are seeing will be flawed due to their ignorance. Therefore I conclude that Will has managed to educate his punters to an extent, whereas your punters don't know what the feck is going on and think it's probably just a gig. You seem to be happy with that, so endov.
In this thread above, Will wrote: "Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them."
Jack wrote: "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point."
How would you know what my session is like?
And then you accuse me of lying? Nice. How civil of you.
Mark... I'll say it again. I never made assumptions or claimed to know anything about Will's sessions. If you think I did -- please point it out.
Mark writes: "It's like a magicians trick. The people watching might think they are seeing something like a person getting cut in half, but just because that's how they perceive it doesn't make it actually so. The magician knows this."
So your position is that a session is like a magic trick? And you think I'm not making sense? Cop on!
Will has described his session differently in other threads. He has described it as a wonderful musical event in other threads -- I never doubted this. In this thread however it sounds like a different affair all together where people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies.
I never said chatting, cookies, and half playing tunes detracted from making wonderful music. In a nutshell, that's the aspect of a good session (which isn't a performance) that Jack seems not to understand, and is apparently unwilling to admit exists, except in the minds of self-deluded session musicians.
Wrong... Mark. I was referring to the way Will described his own session. I never claimed to know the slightest thing about his session and you know it.
Will wrote earlier about his session: "Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them."
And PB, you go on to say "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point", and you infer from it that "people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies"
So what you're saying is that we're not arguing about sessions as performances at all. This is personal, and it has to do with your misinterpretation of Will's posts about his own session, and Will's frustration at your misunderstanding. Ah, okay, then I can go now. I see that this isn't actually a discussion at all, then.
Update on my philosophical allegory: If loggers cut down a tree and it falls, but the loggers don't think they cut it down, does this mean the tree didn't fall?
Mark, I'm trying to avoid an argument with Will. I stopped talking directly to him after he started with the ad hominem back there. I'm simply trying to get across my point regarding sessions and what they are to the public when you hold them in public places. That's all.
Still mis-stating the argument. A more accurate metaphor might look like this:
"If loggers cut down a tree in the forest to make fence posts out of it, but a nearby cabin owner thinks it's for his firewood, who's on the short end of the stick when the loggers haul the tree off to the mill and make fence posts?"
Jack, you are saying that the loggers must have cut down the tree just because that person from the environmental group accused them of it. Dude, I hope you never get called up for jury duty
My very next post implicity acknowledged this by showing how you made assumptions based on that text. Okay, now I know you're not listening. Blah blah blah, with your fingers in your ears.
Mark writes: "you infer from it that "people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies""
Will writes: "drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends."
Well, I would never assume from what Will said that people are only half playing tunes. I would assume that when they lauch into sets (his words) they play them in full. The chatting and eating cookies I think you got right. Same at our session, but without the cookies. We've never had any of our punters buy us cookies, or "biscuits" as we call them.
Will said "noodling misremembered tunes halfway through"
For me this does *not* equate to "people only half playing tunes".
I would infer from this that, because it is not a performance like a gig, people at the session would feel free to pick out a tune between sets so that they can remember it properly to play later, or maybe they are turning to the person next to them and saying "do you play this one" "oh yesion before, so this is my assumption. Am I right, Will?ah, I know that" "I can't remember the 2nd part, how does it go?" "isn't it this?" "no that's the corner house I know that one - oh I know it's this" [launches into set].
I've never been to Will's session so this is my assumption. Am I right, Will?
would infer from this that, because it is not a performance like a gig, people at the session would feel free to pick out a tune between sets so that they can remember it properly to play later, or maybe they are turning to the person next to them and saying "do you play this one" "oh yes, I know that" "I can't remember the 2nd part, how does it go?" "isn't it this?" "no that's the corner house I know that one - oh I know it's this" [launches into set].
Another interpretation is that Will starts a tune and suddenly realises halfway through the B-part that there's a turn in it he can't remember, so he plays something that will do so that the tune hangs together.
Of course this would be unthinkable in your session, Jack, right? How dare he play a wrong note
Eh? Will is disputing with his own description of his session. Did some posts of Will's get wiped or something? Jeez, this is really confusing. Who would have thought a discussion between 3 people could be so confusing. I've had this before but only when I've been talking to someone in like Vietnam or somewhere where my addressee speaks a language I don't understand.
Well, the noodling takes different forms. Yes, as my senior moments start melting together into a constant stream, I sometimes noodle the B part of a tune before actually starting it, to fend of that unpleasantness of soaring into the A part, only to come up blank at the turn.
But sometimes, when my friends are talking, drinking, eating cookies, whatever, I noodle on parts of tunes that come to mind. Mind you, I'm most often chatting, drinking, and gnoshing too. But sometimes a tune I haven't thought of in ages pops into my head, and I'll quietly tickle it a bit to see if I could do it justice at some later point in the evening. Obviously, this isn't a habit I take to my gigs--I don't think an "audience" would appreciate or even understand such behavior. At our session, however, nobody in the room bats an eye.
There are numerous "sessions" in pubs where a group of musicians sit in a corner, or side room, and play music for their own enjoyment, totally oblivious to the other people in the pub. This happens all over the world. It is not my cup of tea, but that is a personal preference.
However the other people in the pub cannot reach this state of "separation" and are likely to see the musical proceedings as a performance. Nothing too difficult about that. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and all that.
I remember playing at a session in Dublin, where the musicians were "removed" from the crowd. The crowd however had travelled from all over Dublin to go to that pub, because "there is a session". However not one of them showed any interest in the proceedings, and talked and drank all night without appearing to listen. Next day however, when questioned, they are likely to say that the music was "mighty". It is simply human nature.
However when half of the world are starving, despite a surplus of food, and the wealthy half are trying to kill each other, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
Don't pity us Will, his is the best thing I've ever read for ages. It reminds me of that painting by Goya of the two giants mired up to their waists, belabouring each other with clubs.
Hahaha I almost wrote a post to correct Bodhran Bliss and explain my point of view, but then I suddenly remembered that I don't need to because there's no point because he's a bodhran player. Hehe, lets me off the hook.
Dose anyone know the names of any sites where i can have a proper discussion and avoid bliss and the rest of the limited clowns who f**ked up this one.
Perhaps the loggers cut down the tree in order to sell the wood to bodhran builders?
Now, does a proper discussion have to have an audience?
If the discussors don't understand each other, is it a true performance?
Bliss wrote: "However the other people in the pub cannot reach this state of 'separation,' and are likely to see the musical proceedings as a performance."
There are several problems with this.
First, Bliss gives no evidence to support his claim that he knows what state the other people in the pub are in, or what they're thinking. As I've mentioned above, I've had punters tell me outright that they enjoyed the music, played for its own sake (and not for theirs), an all too rare occurence in this overcommercialized, ego-ridden world. Some people, at least, do seem to "get it." They understand that it's not a performance for them or anyone else. They understand that they are not an audience, and they don't have to behave like one. They can --and do--talk, read, fall asleep, or get up and leave in the middle of a set--all things which would be fairly taboo in a formal "audience" role.
Second, Sme punters undoubtedly do separate themselves from the session (I've seend people apparently oblivious to the music, watching a telly at the other end of the bar, or reading a paper while listening to their ipod on headphones). That's fine by me.
But I'm more interested in the punters who actually become participants in the session.
That's not 'separation'--just the opposite. And they're not our "audience." They're participants in the session.
And my point here all along is that Jack and a few others seem hell bent on telling me that this cannot happen. I'm juts saying that I've seen it happen, on a regular basis, and I really enjoy it.
Bliss does not live in a cocooned world, and actually talks to0 the other people in the pub, that's how I know what they think, and what their opinions are. It is not a difficult task to achieve this, justs requires an interest in your surroundings. That is the reason why the "cocooned session" is not my cup of tea, as I would find it difficult to imagine that the circle of musicians were the only people present, despite evidence to the contrary.
And Saint, oooohhhh, Huffy-Puffy. Derogatory statements flowing, without an inkling of substance to support them. Tell you what, I will leave my bodhran to you when I pass on. If a John Lennon guitar fetches £100,000, my bodhran should be worth double.
Contrary to popular belief people in Ireland are not stupid, and many of them actually understand sessions, as they are a common thing in Ireland.
They know that the performance is not for them, and they fully understand that. However by dint of being in the same place at the same time, they are aware of the performance taking place, and some of them enjoy it, have an opinion about it, or hate it because they want to listen to "Take That" on the TV. This fully corresponds with your description of your session, Whoosis, and indeed many punters become attached to the musicians.
I would say this could be applied to many countries. Whoosis, however, seems to be embroiled in a pedantic discussion as the meaning of the word performance.
To me a performance is given in a public place, and obviously that has a vast scope. Playing a concert in a venue, having a "private" session in a pub, indeed busking. The average busker thinks he/she is collecting money, but because they are in public, they are seen by passer bys as performers.
I think cookies are an excellent idea! I just might bring some with me the next time I go to a session and ask to record a few sets on my iPod.
The problem with this whole discussion is that none of y'all are punters, so you're only supposing what they might think.
I have yet to play in a session, so I still qualify as a punter. Started going to them 20 years ago in Scotland with some musician friends of mine and their non-musician girlfriends and other friends. We'd go out as a group, there'd be a session, the musicians would join in and play, and the rest of us got to watch, or just hang out and have our drunken conversations. It's great fun! No need to applaud---I think I tried that a couple of times and my friends were just embarrassed, so I learned to be nonchalant about it. But I do tell them afterwards how much I enjoy it.
The sessions I go to now are the same. I bring friends with me sometimes who think they have to pay close attention and applaud after all the tunes, but they realize pretty quickly that it's not necessary.
Live music in a pub made by living, breathing, humans---what a rare, wonderful thing in a world where everyone is used to mechanical music and jukeboxes and television. How many people even know how to play an instrument any more? And how often do you get the opportunity to get physically near someone who plays? I think people are so divorced from acoustic music these days that they just don't know how to react when they see it right in front of them. Which might be why they feel like they need to applaud---that's what you do when you go to a concert, isn't it?
"And my point here all along is that Jack and a few others seem hell bent on telling me that this cannot happen. I'm juts saying that I've seen it happen, on a regular basis, and I really enjoy it."
Will states this about me as fact, but if we asked him to point to where I said it we wouldn't see any confirmation. This is the 3rd time I think he's done that in this thread alone. I have no idea why he insists on doing this. Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway… all I've done here is to suggest that the punter's experience is different than ours as session participants. Why that causes so much controversy and angst is a mystery to me. I’m sure there are plenty of punters out there who’ve had enough experience with sessions to realize there’s something special about it, but I’m sure the vast majority thinks it’s just some sort of informal performance that’s not really a concert. How did I arrive at this conclusion? It's the impression I get based on punter's comments I've heard.
So there it is – the big controversy. Is it worth all the posturing and ad hominem on this and other threads? I don’t think so.
In this thread, Jack wrote: "Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.
I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
Right Jack, so please stop doing exactly what you've wrongly accused me of.
The post above confuses me. Do you really hand out flyers like that? Would it not be easier to just ignore people, as many session participants do, although it is rude.
Happily I do not appear to have any of these problems, probably because I am such a likeable guy.
And I agree that most people could distinquish between a concert and a session, the difficulty here however centred on a performance, which may not necessarily be a concert, as I recently illustrated.
And Kennedy, if you are a Ms, forgive me for being sexist. I do try to write her/him all the time and things like that, although it is still unforgivable.
Mind you this site is full of rampant sexists. Earlier in the thread someone stated that bb was attractive and therefore could not be mistaken for me. Music or instruments, or initials, didn't even come into it.
That's right... if people want the punters in the pub to understand all the subtleties of why their session isn't any kind of performance, informal or whatsoever -- they should hand out flyers or put up posters explaining it. How else will the punters know?
But I fail to see how I'm doing anything I've accused you of here... sorry.
again bliss it there any information about bodhrans you can share (i dont think so). Being aware is the key but you first have stop thinking about yourself.At the end of the day its what publican wants.Why would a publican pay money for entertainment if it was not for the punter.Or Maybe they just come to see your priceless drum.
First you tell me I'm falsly accusing you of something, but you don't point out where or what it is, and now you tell me my behaviour is "rude and offensive and disengenuous," but you wouldn't be able to point that out either. Why are you going down this path, Will? I've already told you I have no interest in exchanging insults with you or anyone else.
By watching what's going on around them. If you're sitting at a table and the music stops and you're the only one applauding, you can't help but notice that it feels kind of weird. Better yet, if you're sitting at a table talking to your friends or people you just met and they pretty much ignore the music and don't applaud, you're going to follow their cues and do the same. We humans are social creatures and most of us can figure out the best way to behave in a given situation.
I must say, though, that this is one of the reasons I can't stand amplification at a session. There's one here where I live that has some of the most talented musicians in town, and the bar mics it and it's so loud that it cuts through any other crowd noise, and I think that just makes it more like a concert and encourages people to treat it that way. And indeed, people do applaud this session more than others I've seen. This same bar has another session the next night without the pyrotechnics and it's a totally different scene. But I guess this is a subject for another thread...
Yes, Kennedy, I mentioned in this thread that experienced punters can catch on eventually, but that still doesn't account for the vast majority out in the world. But even of the ones that have come regularly over the years and seem to have caught on, I've still heard comments from them that lead me to believe they think it's an informal performance... sort of.
I also avoid amplified sessions and I've never advocated that for the same reasons you give. It seems to reinforce exactly what we're trying not to be.
But it strikes me as a bit of a paradoxical relationship we have with punters since we seem to want them to ignore us, yet we want them to be quiet enough so we can hear ourselves. You would think we would hold all of our sessions privately in each other’s homes or private clubs instead of a place the general public has access to. But we’ll do it anyway and expect them to somehow get the gist of how we aren’t what most people would assume us to be.
My Dear Saint, you have lost me. At my regular session we do a performance, because we are paid. For myself they probably think I am a pretentious git because I have been known to miss the odd riot breaking out, because I have my eyes closed when playing. That is one of the tips I can pass on, you need to be concentrating 100% on the tune to play the bodhran, otherwise you end up playing a rhythm which may not fit. Nowadays many learn rhythms, without music, and that way lies disaster at sessions, and hence a bad press for bodhrans.
There is not a lot else I can pass on, because I just play the thing, it's a natural thing. I do not believe in lessons or books or CDs about bodhrans, just play it along with loads of music, at home, until it comes naturally.
You are also right that many punters do indeed come to see me, and tell me that I am the best all round musician they have evert seen. Fortunately I know what I can do, and fortunately when it comes to bodhrans, I also know that Mr Gill, when he is not winding up, is close to the truth.
I can send an autographed photo if you would like one.
Thanks bliss that was nt hard . I mentioned Colm Murphy earlier and thats how he plays it by listening to the tune and the better a bodhran player knows a tune the better he/she can acc.For me all round musican is another way of saying jack of all trades master of none.Sorry i was looking to have a chat with bodhran players .
P.S.
If there is anything you would like to know about the drum let me know and i will do my best to help.
Often I'm playing bodhran on tunes I know on the flute or concertina. It does help, but you can sus out the rhythm of tunes you don't know after they pass through once or twice. But having my eyes opened or closed doesn't really matter unless I want to see when they plan on switching to another tune or ending.
Bodhrans went downhill when the live goat was removed from most of them in the 70s, to make them more saleable to the "Atomkraft? Nein Danke!" and vegetarian brigade. That's why bodhrans were unaccountably rare as an ITM instrument in earlier years. So as not to perturb the musicologists, their owners would stake them out to graze peaceably in the paddock till their visitors had gone, content with a tape of this or that tune cranked out on a crappy old melodeon or something, suspecting nothing of the bodhran's existence out there eating the buttercups. Later, seven shades would be whacked out of it at some clandestine session. Nobody knew; those who knew, wouldn't let on. Breandan Breathnach probably didn't know; Seamus Ennis probably did, but wouldn't talk.
Yes PB Thats when to open eyes and yes its easy to sus the the rhythm after its played once or twice but in my opinion by knowing the tune and knowing whats coming next is very important .Finding the little gaps in a tune and filling them is the difference the good and great players.Little pauses at the right time can sometimes be more effective than a big base beat but this can only be acheived by really knowing a tune.Bliss mentions concentration but don t concentrate too hard because it can lead to hesitancy and hesitancy leads to playing out of time.
Thank you Saint, your tips for a drummer, especially the bit about great and good drummers, merely confirms my own belief.
I probably am the best player ever, for eternity.
Who is Colm Murphy? I do not keep up too much, usually out playing, or signing autographs, or whatever.
And I do not need to see the riots, when you've seen one you've seen 'em all.
Your point about hesitancy is good, it helps if you know the tune. Fortunately I have been listening since 1962, so I recognise a couple of tunes. Not by name anymore, once I started the bodhran I stop thinking about the names, so it is usually a case of "ah, that's those ones that go like this.....".
After that it just flows naturally and effortlessly, until I have to stop to listen to myself because I am that good.
Just as well I am modest. Which leads to the "jack of all trades....." bit. I agree with you, because I am only a master on the bodhran, not the others. You see, knowing one's own shortcomings is useful.
So true... there are tunes that I have worked out stops in that are quite effective and help drive the tune forward. For example: on Exile of Erin there's a good opportunity for this.
I hate to say it - but this seems awfully like the time everyone ganged up on Bruce and Tanya - regardless of who is right ( I lost you guys way up the top of the thread) But I really dont see that Jack has said anything more offensive than anyone else on this thread. It seems to me we all agree on the main thing - NONE of us thinks of a session as a performance.......why are you all arguing - we all believe the same thing!
Honestly, I can't tell if Jack is just being coy or he really can't see how derisive his comments are (since he also seems incapable of reading my posts), but I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged. Paraphrasing Burke here: All that is necessary for incivility to prevail is for good people to do nothing. That's a shame.
Sorry Will - I disagree with you on Punters becoming part of that session. Until a punter picks up an instrument and tortures themselves and neighbours with it for years and years then I dont beleive for a second that they are a part of any session. No matter how much they appreciate it or like it. That would be like me saying that I am a painter because I appreciate art even though I dont paint.
If you're so convinced, Will, why don't you collect your evidence and make your case to Jeremy so he can decide if my behavior is what you claim it to be.
You've done that yourself, Jack, in this entire thread, and in the ridiculous 400-plus thread.
Beebs, does that mean only instrumental musicians with years of experience can be session participants? Seems like you're leaving out newbies, singers, and people who bring a good story or joke. Not at all like the community sessions I've heard tales of and been to. So your sessions are about tunes and only tunes? Someone who greatly adds to the craic is doomed to be an outsider? Not how it works here, so please don't tell me it's not possible.
LOL, you've built a case against yourself by posting snide and sarcastic exaggerations of views contrary to your own, and by belittling anyone who challenges your position.
In a previous post on this thread you suggested that people who think sessions aren't performance should hand out flyers telling punters that there are no musicians in the pub and to ignore any music they hear. Tell me that's not a deliberate, sarcastic, and demeaning misrepresentation of the case I've made.
Will - we are all adults here (sort of) And hopefully we can all work this out ourselves - asking for Jeremey to step in is just another form of killing that old favourite of your land 'Freedom of speech' - If you think it is offensive, thats ok - because sometimes things are said that are offensive in every day life- on the telly, by politicians, by musicians etc etc - we have to learn to deal with it ourselves. You cant have someone come in and stop people talking - then we turn this site into a dictatorship. And that is just stupid.
I suppose it is possible Will - if you say so, obviously our sessions differ greatly though - I would say you would have to be a musician or singer to participate. Why is that offensive to you? Its called a music session for a reason - because thats where we make music - its fine to have a chat and a cookie and tell a good joke - but I'd want to hope that those doing that are musicians/singers.....not just punters taking up seats where musicians should be sitting. At a session a few weeks ago there were not enough seats for the musicians but a punter happily sitting in the thick of the session totally oblivious to the fact that she was offering nothing and there were three musicians without seats. That drives me nuts. I have this thing though - I struggled and still do struggle everyday with my playing -thats every day for 11 years. I feel that as a person who struggles to make it better, who devotes years and years to playing and spends my time if not playing then listening and if not doing that travelling overseas to learn more and more. Sorry if I beleive that being a part of the session is more than turning up and offering a plate of bikkies and saying the odd 'wwwoooohoooo'. But again Will - this is OK - because we have different opinions and that is fine! Because what a dull place the world would be if we all agreed. I didnt mean to make it seem like it wasnt possible - I just meant that in my opinion - I feel that it takes more than that.
That's not a deliberate, sarcastic, or demeaning misrepresentation of the case you've made. I can't think of any other way to edify the general public that happens into a pub where there’s a session to know such subtleties about sessions. I wasn't demeaning any points you made, but rather, I was illustrating my point that most punters haven't a clue about what a session is and that session participants don't consider it any sort of performance informal or otherwise. How would you let them know?
I just learnt a new tune while youse were fighting, and I'm starting on my next one. No, you carry on. Watching people belittling each other is kind of entertaining in a sort of sick "Big Brother" way
Beebs, Jack's the one who suggested calling Jeremy in. I've figured the Benevolent Dictator is keeping his nose out of this intentionally. So be it. As I said above, that's a shame. But that's Jeremy's call.
So I'm speaking out against it myself.
It is possible to disagree without disparaging and ridiculing the other point of view. I've a long stated record here of agreeing that some sessions can be performances, and that's great if that's what the participants want it to be. But everytime this topic comes up, Jack get's it in his bonnet to ridicule anyone who thinks sessions can also NOT be performances.
To me, it's an important distinction, for reasons I've explained above in detail. I'm just tired of hearing that I'min "denial" and that I should hand out flyers telling punters to ignore the music coming from invisible musicians. It's repetitive and insulting and sophomoric.
That's cool, Mark... I've been learning tunes and working on technique the whole time. I just learned a great jig by Sean Ryan called, "Seamus Connelly's," and I'm reworking a few others to include the Phantom Button doudle-bounce single-note triplet in the left hand.
I would never dream of handing punters such flyers -- I just can't imagine any other way to let them know. I couldn't care less what they do or don't know as long as they just show a little respect and contain their boisterousness a bit.
Beebs, your idea of a session isn't offensive to me at all. What is offensive is Jack denigrating my idea of a session by saying I'm in denial, and by making ludicrous suggestions about my approach to sessions. I learned this approach from people who sessioned back in the 1950s, some in Ireland. It's much more about the people than the music--an older communty approach. I like it. I've also enjoyed high-end tune sessions that aren't so inclusive.
Why are we even talking about punters? Who cares about punters? I've just learnt a version of the Coalminer's in D which I got from Dennis Liddy. I shall post it in the tunes section. I need a breather from the discussions. It's getting stuffy in this chatroom has someone been farting? Do carry on. Pay me no heed.
Will writes: "What is offensive is Jack denigrating my idea of a session by saying I'm in denial, and by making ludicrous suggestions about my approach to sessions."
Was I talking about you specifically and your session, Will? You should go read it again -- there's no mention of you or your session. This thread is about sessions all over the world -- not just yours -- and it's not about you.
Jack, I was the only person on this thread advocating for non-performance sessions. You like this ploy of saying it wasn't aimed at me because it lets you disparage other people's ideas without accountability. I suppose that quip about making love to my wife in the 400-plus thread wasn't aimed at me either.
If you can't take responsibility for your own words, perhaps you should think before you post.
Will, I wasn't aiming it at you, my comments were about the topic in general. If you insist on reading yourself into my comments we will never get anywhere.
As for comments on another thread -- they were on another thread that ended ages ago -- they aren't relevant here. However, having said that, I do sincerely hope you and your wife enjoy each other's company.
I'm sure we would get along just fine, Will... even if we talked. I think in here you tend to direct my comments at yourself personally when they aren't intended. In the real world you probably wouldn’t misinterpret me that way.
I'm stunned. I've followed this for a bit, and simply can't understand Whoosis' position, which is self-evidently untenable.
First, my take: I've been to many sessions over a great many years. Now, admittedly I've only been to sessions in four countries and have no experience of them elsewhere, the countries being Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I don't think I've ever been to a session where the punters didn't appreciate the music and believe it was some kind of performance. There are simply two very different views of the same event occurring: the punters' and the sessioners' (who, for the sake of clarity, are just having fun, not thinking of themselves as performing). You don't have to *reason* that this is the case - you just have to listen for a moment to what's going on outside the privileged enclave of the session itself.
That's just to make my position on this clear. However, I don't get why Whoosis is so relentlessly attacking PB. It seems to me he keeps accusing PB of things he himself is actually the instigator of. For instance, to someone who has not participated so far in this discussion, it's failry clear if you read all the posts that PB has been trying to argue calmly, but is constantly accused of sarcasm - that I can't find anywhere in his posts - of being insulting - which, again I can't find; and the last one took the biscuit. Whoosis accused PB of being the one to suggest bringing Jeremy in. Now, I *have* read every post on this thread. If I've missed it, I apologise, but to me the first time it was suggested was in these words: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." - Whoosis. If I've missed an earlier post of PB's suggesting this, then please point it out, and I'll apologise for my error.
If you set your differences aside for a moment though, and think about the whole thing of performances etc, it's an interesting philophical question, and probably one that's beyond our ability to discuss without the necessary training and jargon. It's no wonder really that this topic always comes up in debate and is never resolved. It's clear that these differences in attitude and viewpoint underpin most of our difficulties in a session with regard to people disturbing our tunes in some way or haranguing us for requests. Maybe this topic is one of those things that will never be resolved, sorta like one of those "meaning of life" questions for trad musicians. It's like: "what are we *doing*?? why are we here?"...
benhall, who *cares* what the fecking punters think? I don't care if they think I'm doing a performance. I'm *not*. Okay? If I thought I was going to be performing every time I went to a session I wouldn't go to sessions. Period.
PS benhall, Will has always been open to the possibility that some punters will view a session as a performance, but he's trying to make others see that it's possible that punters could view a session as something else other than a performance, and obviously he's right. What you're saying doesn't make sense. You're implying that all punters view a session as a performance, and therefore, if you're to view a session as something else then you have to be one of the musicians. So where do you draw the line. Do you suddenly see the light the minute you pick up an instrument? Do you have to know a certain number of tunes before you realise? What about newbies? I for one accept that some punters can understand what a session is even if they can't play an instrument. Not to acknowledge this is an insult to the intelligence of non-musos. Unfortunately, here in Sydney, it's quite rare to find a punter who views a session as anything at all. Most of them completely ignore us. And I mean completely. But that's cool by us.
Mark writes: "it's an interesting philophical question, and probably one that's beyond our ability to discuss without the necessary training and jargon."
That's exactly what I said to bb on this thread last night.
"Maybe this is too much of a philosophical discussion that none of us here are qualified for... I know I'm not."
Mark writes: "Will has always been open to the possibility that some punters will view a session as a performance, but he's trying to make others see that it's possible that punters could view a session as something else other than a performance"
Really... is that what the fuss is all about? I never disagreed with that. I even mentioned that some of the punters at our session "get it."
Welcome to the Flame Pit of Misunderstanding, Ben. I appreciate your recognition that I'm not instigating the negative discourse here. Thanks.
Yes, unless I've misunderstood too, I think Will was trying to get you to see that it's theoretically possible to have a session which neither the players nor punters view as a performance. He's saying his session can be like that, and he thinks that you're saying that his session can't possibly be like that. But if you try to imagine Will's session (and I realise this is pure speculation here), I dunno, 7 or 8 musos, a couple of regulars at the bar who've been to the session every week for years, a few more regulars sitting around at tables, buying drinks for the regulars, maybe taking the p*ss a bit from the sidelines, etc. I mean this is rural Montana he's talking about. Our sessions in Sydney aren't really like that. We do get punters like that but I can only think of one or two, or sometimes Mary's friends from Mayo come in and they know what's going on, but usually you find out later that they were All-Ireland Champions at the banjo or something and they just didn't have their instrument with them.
Mark, I never had a problem with that concept, and I said so more than once on this thread. But I didn't think we were only talking about Will's session. Did you?
Lol, I go play some more tunes, come back, and you're still at it.
Benhall, Jack's the one who suggested I give my "evidence" to Jeremy. I didn't call on Jeremy, only said that I was disappointed he hadn't weighed in yet.
And I'm not just talking about my session here, but many sessions I've been to with a similar bent. And the way the old codgers thought about playing the music.
The bit where Jack says I'm refuting the dictionary to support my argument, calling it "Brilliant!" is where I see Jack resorting to his rhetoric of degradation. He either deliberately ignored the substance of my post there, or didn't bother trying to understand it. And then he dredges up his old tactics of saying that people who think sessions aren't performances are in denial, and then we get the surreal bit about the flyers to punters.
Jack's not discussing the ideas here on their merits, he's belittling people for disagreeing with him, and then playing innocent and even victimized.
As Ben pointed out, the first mention of Jeremy was from yourself when you said: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." I only suggested (after you said that) to take your case to Jeremy if you felt so strongly. I didn't bring up Jeremy... you did.
As for the rest of your case against my behavior that you just stated -- I'm not convinced, and I don't see any indication that others are convinced with it either.
Sessions, in a pub or public place, are performances, that's it. You may not think you are performing, but you are.
Now performing does not mean showing off, playing to the crowd, or for the crowd. Performing is playing in a public place. Can't say it any easier.
Now I do not like "closeted"" sessions, where the musicians completel;y ignore the punters, because that is like going into someones house to play, and just ignoring them. In many cases the punters are the regulars, and the musicians are invading their local. So I personally would interact with punters, especially if they are humans. That's what people do.
Now you don't have to have them up singing, dancing or making cakes.
And finally, Will, read all of this. You may notice a bit of the pot calling the kettle black on your behalf. To begin a thread saying "Jack is insulting" and immediately adding "and he can't read" could be considered insulting.
As in most harassment cases, it is the perception of the harassed that it is usually important.
Saint possibly thought I was insulting him/her until he/she caught on that I was just a stirrer.
But to paraphrase Shakespeare "Methinks the man doth protest too much".
I have just returned from a session where the musicians didn't realise they were performing, but they were, because I was listening to them. That's why it is a performance.
I've played in sessions in Ireland where the customers in the pub are quite definitely there to be entertained by the music - and they can safely be assumed to be very knowledgeable. The musicians know this and respond accordingly.
In my neck of the woods it's not quite on that level, although there is often appreciative applause, which reminds us that people are listening and enjoying our music.
I've always taken it for granted, when playing in public (whether in Irish sessions or other types of music) that there people out there listening who may very well know as much about the music, or more, than those playing it. The converse is - would any musician really enjoy playing to rows of cabbages?
Yes, BB, that is indeed an unfortunate possibility (hopefully of very low probability), which makes one wonder about the "musician(s)" concerned. But here is a question,
Would a session in a pub prefer the pub to be empty, or that there are some customers present?
If the answer is "some customers present" then the session is "performing", whether or not it is aware of the fact, because there is an unspoken interaction between the session and the other people present.
Bliss is right Its a performance , musicans still try to play thier best because they are aware people are listening and there is probally a sign outside the door to let people know that there is a session inside so people will come in and watch the musicans perform.
Certainly the publican wants people inside, usually they are interested in the till roll rather than the music. And I have said all along it is a performance, willingly, wittingly or not.
Thank you Saint for your support. Do you actually play (have to be careful incase Michael is about) a, (whisper) BODHRAN?
Will, do a "find" for this page, (command "F" on my computer,) put in "Jeremy" and you'll see that your post comes up first. (I can't believe I'm having to say this.)
Jack, when you type things like "I can't belive I'm having to say this," I have to assume you're either grossly underestimating my reading comprehension abilities, or overestimating yours. Does the latter ever occur to you?
(And before benhall or Bliss chides me for being insulting again, I'd like to point out that I've merely adopted Jack's own conversational approach.)
You're saying that I brought up Jeremy first, It was pointed out by Ben that it was actually you, but you still insist it was me. I'm having trouble believing that you're actually disputing that when the evidence is so clear.
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
Hello? bonk, bonk? Lights are on, nobody home?
Jack, take a breath. You can argue with yourself if you want, but please stop making up counter-arguments on my part. It's kinda creeping me out....
I don't see sessions as performances. I see them as an evening where people in the community get together and some of the people play music and some sit around and drink and some maybe dance and some pick up the dirty glasses, etc, etc. And there's usually lots of smiles and laughter. And cookies. It's one of the most pleasant human activities.
Performances, by contrast, are far more serious things. Some performer gets up on a stage in front of some other people who paid to get in and performs something. And some guy from the Philadelphia Inquirer publishes a review about it the next day. And Green Linnet releases a "live" cd from the recordings of the performance.
Oh yes, and then there is a stramash, which is kind of a session happening on a stage. I need Ptarmigan now to help me know if my knowledge of Scots is on target or not...
Kennedy, I don't know how much of this thread you read, but we all pretty much agree that from the sessioner's point of view it is as you say. The crux is what the punter thinks is happening when they encounter us having our sessions and how that's in contrast to what we think we're doing. The average punter thinks it's an informal performance of some sort and responds to it as such. This is where the discussion goes from practical to philosophical and the question becomes: does that make a session held in a public place a performance? Some people would argue it does since the punter's presence is just as valid as those in the session, and others will dismiss the punters as irrelevant and insist it does not. But I'm certain that if punters were represented on this message board they might take issue with being considered "irrelevant." Does that clear it up for you?.
Oo I'm scared of the punters taking issue with us. Do they have guns? Maybe we should make them feel better and humour them by telling them that what we're doing *is* a performance, instead of telling it as it actually is. You know when I was little I asked my dad if a tree grows inside you when you eat an apple pip, and he said yes. I believed him, and he probably found it entertaining. So perhaps there *is* a point to all of this.
Just caught up with this again - a small point: Noxious, I didn't mean to imply that ALL punters view it as a session; just that at all sessions that I have ever attended, there are some that do. There are clearly two different viewpoints: the sessioners' and the punters'. (I've re-read my post, and it's not you, Nox, it's me - I didn't say it very clearly. What I should have said was that *some* punters experience a session as a performance - what I actually said was that "the punters believe it was some kind of performance".)
This reminds me a bit of one of my favourite UK politician characters (as a character, that is, irrespective of what you think of her politics) - Edwina Currie. Some years ago, she said, correctly, that 90% of all UK egg production was affected by salmonella. She was *reported* as saying that 90% of all UK eggs were infected by salmonella, which was not correct at all.
And, I'm sorry Will, but I think you're being disingenuous. If you didn't intend to provoke Jack by bringing Jeremy into the discussion, then I don't know why you did it. In the circumstances, I thought Jack's response was reasonable. He didn't call on Jeremy's assistance - you did, at the very least by implication.
Still, who cares what I think? I'm not an arbiter, and I don't believe anyone else should be either. We ALL agree on the sessioners' standpoint on this (I think) - it's just that Jack, myself, Trevor and others are acknowledging that there is a wider world out there beyond the closed circle of the musicians themselves. And we've got to acknowledge also that we do get a small kick out of there being some reaction from the punters, even though we're not performing. Otherwise, as others have said, why on Earth do we go out there into the wider world, to pubs, rather than to, say, rooms in village halls etc? (Before I get the obvious response of cost, I could get 3 or 4 free rooms in such places with much less effort and time than I could find a session-friendly pub - it just requires a little thought, and I can't believe the rest of the world is that much different in this respect.)
'The crux is what the punter thinks is happening when they encounter us having our sessions and how that's in contrast to what we think we're doing. The average punter thinks it's an informal performance of some sort and responds to it as such. This is where the discussion goes from practical to philosophical and the question becomes: does that make a session held in a public place a performance? Some people would argue it does since the punter's presence is just as valid as those in the session, and others will dismiss the punters as irrelevant and insist it does not. But I'm certain that if punters were represented on this message board they might take issue with being considered "irrelevant."
Okay, let's take this one point at a time. First of all, much as I'm trying like the dickens to become an actual musician, I AM a punter. Been hanging out with other punters for 20 years (well, 24, but who's counting).
As a punter, I can tell you your assumption is flawed. The average punter can easily see that a session is not a performance. Said punter probably has experienced many actual performances and knows the difference between the setup of a concert hall with a stage and a crowded pub with tables and chairs placed any which way. If our punter has never ever seen a real live session before, he might be confused at first and think it's some kind of newfangled kind of a performance, and he might think he has to clap after every bit of music, and shush everyone around him because the "performers" are "performing". But he very soon learns that this is not necessary. He'll look up at the bar and see the bartender carrying on with pouring drinks and taking money and talking with the customers. He'll look around him and see everyone else engrossed in their own conversations and not really paying attention to the musicians. He'll see that the musicians don't necessarily respond to his applause. He'll realize, *fairly quickly*, that he's in a different kind of environment and he can relax and have a beer and not spend the evening behaving like a well-mannered audience member.
So. Are punters irrelevant? You mean to the music? I don't think so. They're part of the reason the musicians want to play the music in the first place (oooh, that's a firecracker, what I just said!). Here's why I think this---I see music as an expression of a community, as an expression of being human. Think of when some of the first sessions started in London back in the 50's---entire communities of Irish people were forced to emigrate for lack of work, they settled in enclaves in London and their music came with them, it helped them celebrate who they were and reminded them of home. Ever listened to the Paddy in the Smoke cd? You think the punters in that pub weren't part of the experience? There's one tune where Martin Byrnes is building up some excitement and some punter shouts out his name to encourage him on---these people loved their musicians, and the musicians know it and respond to it. Any musician who doesn't care at all what other people think is missing out on one of the greatest benefits of having such a wonderful skill---the ability to have a valued place in the community.
Well, I'd better stop before I become even more philosophical and start waxing on about the meaning of music to the human experience---it's such a spiritual thing for me, I get quite reflective about it. I hear my fiddle calling...
I'm also interested in this assertion, which has come up before on this board, that "sessions started in London back in the 50's". I don't know, because I wasn't there, but I guess this may be when sessions started to be routinely played in modern style pubs ... except I'm sure I remember Chief O'Neill writing something about gatherings of musicians and someone bringing out old tunes and the others greeting each one as a long lost friend.
And you'll find descriptions of sessions (Scottish admittedly) in Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped. Too lazy to look it up right now to check, but wasn't that set in about the middle of the 18th century?
Good point, benhall. I've been wondering about that myself. My grandmother told me about how my (Russian Jewish) great-grandfather used to love Irish music---apparently he used to stop for a beer after work on the Lower East Side of NYC back in the 1920's, and there were bars then that had live music. It blows my mind to think that he was listening to exactly the same kind of music that I'm learning to play!
Think of sex. Even in the privacy of your own bedroom, without an audience, you and your chosen partner are performing.
Having said that I am currently baking a gigantic bodhran shaped cookie to bring to the session/performance tonight. That should keep everybody happy.
And lastly, all you have to do is think of an informal performance, for example a session, and a formal performance, such as a concert. They are SEEN as performances by the public, if not the musicians.
Well, I for one never said the punters were irrelevant, though the notion that the session is a concert for their entertainment might be an irrelevant notion, as far as the musicians are concerned. We went over this above: that notion only becomes relevant if said punters start demanding Fields of Athenry or asking us not to turn our backs to them.
In fact, anyone who bothered to read my comments would know that I welcome non-musicians as active and essentially equal participants in our session. The opposite, in fact, of irrelevant.
The problem with insisting that *all* sessions be performances (as Bliss, among others, has said) is that no one here has been to *all* sessions, and so can't accurately assess what some sessions are really all about.
Also, the performance mindset drives sessions toward commercialism ("the publican's only in it for the till," paid session leaders, catering to the tourists, etc.). If some people want their sessions to be like that, all power to them. But I'll keep working to foster a session that's uncommercial, unselfconscious, and communal because I enjoy it that way, and I understand how those very qualities are at the deepest roots of this musical tradition.
And Nox is right, there's little use in talking with people who repeatedly show that they aren't listening.
I am listening. The number of sessions one has been to is not relevant. The style, make-up, rules, layout, basis, and content of the session are not relevant. It does not matter what any particular session is like. The discussion is not about types of sessions, yours or anybody elses. We all agree that all sessions are different.
The point being debated is simply this. We contend that playing music in a public place is a performance. That's it.
Will writes: “Well, I for one never said the punters were irrelevant, though the notion that the session is a concert for their entertainment might be an irrelevant notion, as far as the musicians are concerned.”
Irrelevant: MG said it first: “that's interesting then. So do we agree? Do we agree that your statement, "the punters love 'em", while undoubtedly true, is, to the session playing musician, irrelevant?”
And Will kicked in his 2 cents within a post or two: “PB, I think "irrelevant" is the operative word here. The point against which you argued at length--"to the session playing musician" any notion of performance is irrelevant.”
Sounds to me like the punter’s perspective is “irrelevant.” You might not have said, “The punter is irrelevant” but if I told you that your opinion is “irrelevant” I think you’d feel I thought of you as irrelevant. Later you pointed out how the punters in your pub were converted over time and some even became part of your session, and I’m not doubting that, but since the discussion was about sessions around the world and not just about yours, all we can conclude is that most punters are considered “irrelevant.” This notion was picked up on and carried throughout the thread.
Kennedy writes: “As a punter, I can tell you your assumption is flawed. The average punter can easily see that a session is not a performance. Said punter probably has experienced many actual performances and knows the difference between the setup of a concert hall with a stage and a crowded pub with tables and chairs placed any which way.”
You’re talking about the difference between a formal performance, or “concert,” and an informal performance that would happen in the same environment where public sessions happen – pubs. When a band sets up on stage with mics and such and gives their performance… punters continue chatting and know they don’t have to pay attention or clap after every number unless they’re compelled to. Sound familiar?
I'm kinda surprised somebody from Montana would take that position anyway. Some pubs if you're playing an instrument, you are performing, you'll take requests or end up in the hospital. Either the state has changed a lot in the last fifteen years, or Whoosis is living in one of the more sissified place...full of actors and trendy coffee shops
I think it's all closely linked with arrogance, which is in turn linked with self esteem. What was it Ropy Harper sang?
"You can feel bona-fide if you ride with the tide,
You can feel magnified if you hide in your pride"
Kennedy writes, "Any musician who doesn't care at all what other people think is missing out on one of the greatest benefits of having such a wonderful skill---the ability to have a valued place in the community." This seems noble enough, but my stomach really turned when Bodhran Bliss told us of his sexual performances. The poor guy is just unable to switch it off, even in the privacy of the bedroom.
And the problem with not having the ability to think outside the concept of everybody judging you, every second of every day is that it is impossible to get in touch with your own self expression.
Hmmm... my act of playing in a public space... well, for me personally, not really. But I'm not the only person in the pub. Besides those of us playing music there are the employees and anyone else who happened to come in while the session was going on.
To determine what happened in the pub that night you'd have to investigate by asking a cross section of people that would include the punters. I think the punter’s answer might be different than mine, but no less valid in determining the facts. I would tell you I went to the pub to share tunes, drinks and laughs with some friends. The punter would probably say he (or she) went in for a pint (or whatever) and to chat with friends etc., and he might ad the bit about some people playing music. If he was a punter who paid attention to the music and was enjoying it he might say the music was “mighty.” If the punter was paying that close attention they might then be considered an "audience" and would have been enjoying watching musicians in the act of playing tunes on their instruments. All of this adds up to a "performance" according to rudimentary definitions.
If you were to ask the punter what he thought of the performance, he probably wouldn’t hesitate in saying it was favorable if he enjoyed it, or that it was “pure sh*te” if he didn’t like it. But there would be few punters that would respond to that question by correcting your use of the word “performance” and begin lecturing you about how it really isn’t a “performance” and fill you in on all the subtle differences. (Notice I didn’t rule out the possibility all together here or anywhere else on this thread.)
So after investigating the case of ‘what happened at the pub the night of the session’, you can only conclude that people drank, visited, laughed, etc., and there was music being played by some folks and enjoyed by other people listening and/or watching them. Sounds like a session to you and I, but it also sounds like an informal performance of some sort to the punters. Who’s irrelevant? Neither.
Conclusion: a session in a public place (like a pub) becomes a performance for most of the unsuspecting punters who also happen to be in the pub.
Once again, Jack's "logic" doesn't hold up. Just because a punter's sense of a session as a performance is irrelevant to me does not mean I think the punter is irrelevant.
Try this on: If a punter sees Jack playing his flute, and the punter thinks to himself, "Wow, he can really play that recorder!" is the punter's misidentification of Jack's flute relevant to Jack's playing?
And I can't help it that other people on this thread picked up the "irrelevant" idea and misunderstood and misreperesented it for something it was not. Lots of that going on here.
Heh, Taocat, you just hung out in the wrong bars. Or didn't carry a big enough stick.
And now Jack says that by definition, anyone listening to music is an "audience," which in turn means that the music being played must be a "performance," because there's an "audience."
Come off it, that's the whole point of this. Rudimentary definitions is just not good enough.
Take a bunch of people stood around the local park's duck pond. "Lovely ducks eh?" says a lady throwing in some bread. "Actually, those two over their are grebes and there's geese over there." say some smart arse. Does the lady care? They're just ducks to her.
But here, on theSESSION.org, lets get more into it than rudimentary definitions.
And Will is right, the use of the word "irrelevant" was by no means meant to be disparaging. It's use is to point out the subjectivity of non-performance music.
It's blindingly straight forward:
The musician is not performing.
The punter thinks he is.
To the musician, it's irrelevant.
And some session clearly *are* designed to entertain. That's fine. But that fact alone shouldn't preclude that other sessions are NOT intended to entertain, and that everyone in the pub understands that.
Folks, I'm not making these words up, I'm looking them up in a dictionary. This is basically the same dictionary that most people in the English speaking world refer to. Most people aren't looking up their words and finding out their meaning in a special dictionary of ITM session terms.
Perform v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (or tunes) or a play to an audience
Audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or "other" live performance
Performance
1. a presentation of an artistic work to an audience for example, a play or piece of music (tunes)
I wonder if some places are just so full of arrogant punters scrounging around for people to entertain them, that some session players have never had the joy of playing for their own pleasure amongst people who either don't care, or who listen without creating the ambient expectation that the music is for them?
Will, I'm not doubting that everyone in the pub where you hold your sessions understands the concept as you present it, but we're talking about sessions all around the world here -- not just yours.
Whenever Jack gets cornered, he runs back to the dictionary.
He ignores the reality that dictionaries don't create meaning, usage by people and context creates meaning.
He also misses the tautology in his logic based on definitions of performance and audience. "A performance has an audience. An audience is people listening to a performance. Therefore any time an audience listens to a performance, it must be a performance."
And he conveniently ignores the INTENT behind the gig or concert sense of performance--that the musicians INTENDS to play FOR the audience. When you take INTENT into account, it is clearly possible to play a tune in a public place with no intent of entertaining anyone but yourself.
Jack also like to remind me that we're not just talking about my session. Even though I've never said we were. I think we're also talking about Michael's session, and likely the session experience of many wise musicians around the world who grasp the pleasure of playing for playing's sake, regardless of whether other people are listening.
I'm not so sure that a poorly informed opinion is "just as valid" as an informed one. If a punter thinks Jack is playing a recorder, when in fact Jack is playing a fully keyed Grinter flute (and Jack knows the difference, which I assume he does), I have a hard time seeing the punter's opinion as equally valid.
There's nothing wrong with helping people better understand what they're experiencing. Many people often feel enriched by learning about something they didn't previously understand. It helps them more fully appreciate the experience.
Jack also likes to belittle other people's points, not by saying they're stupid, but by using quaint metaphors that compare those people to ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.
This is also a flawed piece of logic. It amounts to saying: "You're wrong because you're in denial."
No Jack, I'm just pointing out the lack of rational cohesion in your points. In a discussion such as this, pointing out lapses in logic is the only way to constructively move forward.
Will writes: "But they take you only so far, especially if you ignore the performer's INTENT to entertain an audience. "
I've never seen "intent" contingent on the meaning of the word. If you have substantiation for this I'd like to see it. I would agree however that the performance could be unintentional, but a performance none-the-less.
Also, I would like to add that I wasn't belittling David's point, I was simply offering allegory to make my point. Any belittling is purely speculative.
I think the reason y'all can't convince each other is that you're both right. The session experience is so removed from the cultural standard that there really is no good means of defining it. It is a conversation between musicians, a provider of background entertainment for the punters (with some musicians being cognizant of punters and others not) and more.
What I don't understand is why it is so important to make your perspective dominant. It is just a matter of perspective after all. Just as everybody's experience of the session will be different, and that is not a bad thing at all.
I like that thought experiment. It gives a way of explaining the non-performance music concept as a kind of psychological one way mirror. They can see you, but you can't see them.
Jack's dictionary definitions for perform and perfomance both mention "presenting" something "to" an audience. "Presenting to an audience" sounds very intentional and purposeful, as opposed to, say, "playing music within earshot of other people." In the first, the musician's INTENT is to present a tune to a listener for the listener's appreciation. In the second, the musician may be unaware and unconcerned whether anyone actually IS within earshot, let alone whether anyone within earshot actually wants to hear the tune.
David, I've been to a session in a snug at Hughzes in Dublin when I was there once for a couple of months. There were nights when only musicians were in that snug, so only their perspective mattered. But on other nights music loving punters would squeeze in and enjoy the music complete with applause and all the other hallmarks of a "performance." It would be difficult to explain those nights as much else than an informal performance to anyone other then the musicians. So was it a session, or an informal performance? Depends on who you ask I suppose. Who would be wrong? Neither.
Taocat, that's precisely why I've stuck it out on this one--Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience."
Why is that view the only acceptable one to these people?
And all I'm saying is that it is possible for a group of people, musicians and non-musicians alike, to enjoy an evening of music, drink, and craic, without necessarily being a "performance," formal or informal or otherwise.
It's shocking to me that this offends Jack and Bliss so. Especially since the aural tradition of this music makes it clear that this is how the music has been played and understood for generations.
Intentional, unintentional, it doesn't matter. You're presenting "an artistic work such as a piece of music (or tunes)" in a public space where punters are also present, and will be likely to think of themselves as an "audience." Thse are just the facts -- intent is irrelevant.
Nothing offends me about the discussion, Will, except when you accuse me of being, "condescending and sarcastic" and start telling me I "take it [the discusision] down to the level of a junior high playgorund argument" and so on.
Firstly, as for my performing in the bedroom, the goat demands it.
And poor Will has seized on the word INTENT, as if this was a murder trial.
And I don't care if you go into the pub, erect a screen between you and everyone else, and then play. It is still a performance, completely without intent, although when Perry Mason hears that you erected a screen, he will wisely ask if this does not show intent.
Going into the pub with instruments would also show intent.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was telling you how your rhetorical tactics made me feel. I said those things because I'm tired of seeing the level of discourse on this board lowered by the use of mean-spirited sarcasm, condescension, and apparently deliberate use of tautologies and other logical fallacies.
Funny that these threads on the session/performance issue are the record setters, and that many other members here laugh at us for carrying on this way. No other topic generates this much heat. We must be on to something.
Blissters writes: "And poor Will has seized on the word INTENT, as if this was a murder trial."
Hey, this could be good allegory. If the actions of one man causes another man to die, whether it's determined to be murder or involuntary manslaughter -- someone's going to be doing some time.
Will writes: "No Jack, I'm just pointing out the lack of rational cohesion in your points. In a discussion such as this, pointing out lapses in logic is the only way to constructively move forward."
Well, Will, I really think it would be best for everyone concerned if you limited your analysis of the commentary on this board to your own. To be instructing others about the "rational cohesion" in their points" and their "lapses in logic" comes across not only as needlessly pedantic, but arrogant as well.
David writes: "I must admit I'm uncomfortable with the notion that because the punter thinks something is something, then it is."
How do you keep missing the point that both the musician AND the punter's perception is correct? This isn't about which one is right, but more about niether being wrong.
Will writes: "No other topic generates this much heat. We must be on to something."
I think it might be for a couple of reasons: 1) because it's a philosophical argument that few, if any of us are really qualified for, and 2) it cuts to the heart of why we have sessions.
Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience." So says Will.
I never once said anything of the sort. I always play for my own enjoyment, while other people go about their own business. They however think I am performing.
And as I am something of incredibly fantastic on the bodhran, they are drawn like flies to s##t and soon become an audience.
As I have my eyes shut, I do not notice them
And when they ask if I had intended to play, thereby showing intent, I just tell them that I always carry a load of instruments about with me. That usually fools them, and Will.
Jack writes: "Welll, Will, I really think it would be best for everyone concerned if you limited your analysis of the commentary on this board to your own. To be instructing others about the "rational cohesion" in their points" and their "lapses in logic" comes across not only as needlessly pedantic, but arrogant as well."
Actually, it's very much in everyone's best interests, whether it's me doing the pointing or Michael, or David, or someone else, to reveal the lapses in your logic. It's called shedding light on the subject. Better that than cloaked in the shadows of unreasonable beliefs.
And if you really think that both the punter's and musician's perceptions are correct--equally valid--then (as David alluded to above) a rapist who says it was consensual and his victiim have no beef with each other. They're both right.
And if "perception is reality" (which seems to be what you're saying), then it shouldn't be any bother to you when a punter decides to sing a 30 verse ballad off key at your session because he perceives that it's an open floor for anyone with a perceived talent for music.
Unless "perception is reality" stops when one person's fist meets another person's nose. Once these perceptions actually interfere with another person's life, then what?
Relativism has never stood on solid ground, except when you're talking about the effect of large gravitational fields on the speed of light....
(Pedantic enough for you?)
Bliss, your first two sentences after quoting me (where you say you've never said anything of the sort) say exactly what my quote says. I appreciate your generosity--providing yet another briliant example of self-contradiction.
Right. Looks like you lads can continue the debate on your own from here, seeing as how Bliss disagrees with himself, and Jack doesn't need anyone's help reasoning through it. Onward and upward.
Yes, many people perform at sessions and there are many reasons. To prove something, like the guy earlier who played his first set on his own. To wreck someone else's music, like the guy Bliss mentioned above. To altruistically share your genius with the world, like Bliss himself (or was that "feed some sh*t to some flies"). You simply can't help it, like Jack, because he thinks listening to logic is pedantic, which disqualifies him from a philosophical argument.
Yes, people often perform at sessions. But I've never once yet seen anybody do it for a good reason.
Wil writes: "Actually, it's very much in everyone's best interests, whether it's me doing the pointing or Michael, or David, or someone else, to reveal the lapses in your logic. It's called shedding light on the subject. Better that than cloaked in the shadows of unreasonable beliefs."
This is very disappointing, Will. After failing to convince us that you're right and we're wrong you now are resorting to ad hominem. Since you couldn't win the argument on it's own merits, and have ignored all requests for substantiation, you have chosen to attack me personally instead. What you don't realize, obviously, is that this tactic represents an admission of defeat. It's probably best that you bow out now since all you have left is to invent ways to insult and demean myself and others in this forum.
Will want's us to accept that the punter's perspective is irrelevant since the people in the session didn't consider what they were doing was any kind of performance whatsoever. But the punter's perception had all the hallmarks of a performance, and unless someone explains it to him -- he'll go away believing he saw a performance of some sort.
So who's perception determines what actually happened in the pub... the punter or the session musician? My position is that both are relevant, Will wants us to dismiss the punter's perception and consider the session musician’s view as the single correct perspective. He hasn't convinced me and a few others of this, so now he's resorting to insulting our intelligence instead. So whatever winning an argument might be – Will isn’t doing it.
Logic is the basis of philosophy, to dismiss it as pedantic is akin to dismissing colour in painting, or tonality in music (oops, there I go again, bodhran bashing)
And lets say it again shall we. I've all the time in the world.
The Punter's perception is not irrelevant, to the punter. It's irrelevant to the musician. What defines performance is when the punter's perception becomes relevant to the musician.
So what's actually happening in the pub? You are quite right, two things, that are both relevant. One is not right and the other wrong. It's just that one thing is relevant to one lot, and the other relevant to the others.
Your problem is that you have difficulty dismissing what is relevant to the punter and until you can, you are doomed to for ever be a performer.
I'll say it again, since certain voices in this thread have been continually saying the opposite---punters do not necessarily see a session as a performance. It's a major error to assume otherwise.
And we're getting into some pretty fine semantics by describing a session as an "informal performance". Wouldn't that make ALL sessions "informal performances"? How do you know when a session is NOT an "informal performance"? When every single person in the room is a musician? If so, wouldn't that make EVERY session *by definition* an "informal performance"? And if that's true, why call them "sessions" anyway?
Hmmm, let's try it out...I went to an informal performance last night...
"punters do not necessarily see a session as a performance. It's a major error to assume otherwise."
I've just been skimming this thread as the "bodhran" aspect put me off a little so forgive me if this next point has been mentioned before.
Kennedy, what you say is true especially in a regular established session pub with regular punters who have "been trained" to a certain extent and do not expect a performance. In many cases, it's just background music and often "tolerated" rather than appreciated.
In other circumstances, the punters sometimes think that the musicians are just "practising" and accept this too, although some might expect a little more..you know "Come on on, give us a proper song", "Play up" and so on.
It really depends on the pub.
Michael says Jack is doomed to be a performer. "Doomed" has obvious negative connotations. But what disturbs me is that this won't bother Jack because he is already aware that he is a "performer" and he seems to be cool with it. Michael, I'd be interested to see you take this further and tell us what you think "people who are doomed to be performers" miss out on, because that's the crux of why this thing is so important and why we've argued about it for so long.
Strange argument, isn't it? I mean this whole discussion. I think what "certain voices" are trying to say is simply a recognition that there is more than one view of the same session on the same night, from different standpoints.
I did a gig last night in a pub - nobody took the slightest notice of us, most of the time - just carried on chatting and drinking and laughing. We were background music. Doesn't mean to say they didn't enjoy it or appreciate us being there and the music. In fact we had lots of nice comments afterwards. Even though we were background music, we were still performing. Thing is, there will, in my experience, always be some punters - not all - just some, who will have the same sort of feeling during a session, even though the musicians' view is, in the case of a session, different from those involved in the sort of background music 'gig' described above. Their view (the punters', that is) is valid - might not be mine, might not be the same as other sessioners', might be a minority view, but still valid.
We're just arguing for inclusion and tolerance of other peoples' point of view aren't we?
Plus, there's a nagging doubt in my mind - like many, I suppose, I've played in the sort of 'back room' session where it's just the musicians present, shut away from the rest of the pub. There's a strange uncomfortable feeling in such sessions, and, paradoxically, you'd have thought, people are actually shyer and MORE conscious of their playing (and hence of their performance?) than when playing in the main body of the pub. In other words, we'd rather play in public? And isn't that performing, in at least a litle way? (I've also got a nagging feeling that I'm missing something blindingly obvious here, so feel free to point it out )
Rats! I posted, and, while I was writing, Michael posted this: "If, for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform" and the b***er's started to win me round ... rats! again ...
Okay, let's work with that. Say I go into a bar *intending* to have an honest-to-goodness session and play the music I want the way I want and not care about what the punters think (this is all hypothetical, of course, as I haven't actually done this yet). I'm sitting there playing my fiddle and some punter comes up to me and says how much he like the music (can't quite imagine this happening, but I suppose it will some day). I say thank you, as you do, and I feel happy that he's happy. And it feels good to keep playing knowing that other people are enjoying it. I'm still playing the same music, the way I want to play it. Does my awareness of someone listening to me mean I'm performing now?
And let's say he comes up to me again and asks me to play Out on the Ocean (this is a knowledgable punter here). I tell him sure and give it a go. He's happy, I'm happy he's happy, he buys everyone a drink (this is also a very nice punter). My session mates and I go back to doing our thing. Are we performing then?
I'll answer my own question---I don't see it as a performance. I see it as sharing music. And *as a punter myself*, I know that that punter who bought me a drink doesn't necessarily think I was performing. He thinks I'm playing music. He knows he doesn't have to clap for me, but he can appreciate what I do.
I don't know, I'm just having trouble with this "performance" description. The word has all sorts of connotations that don't match up with the music as I've experienced it.
benhall, you are indeed missing the blindingly obvious. People get the same awkwardness in quiet rooms in pubs in scenarios which have nothing to do with playing music, because many people don't like silence. People are more comfortable with ambient noise, period. In conversation, you get a certain amount of tension or shyness when someone breaks silence with a remark that is only made to fulfil the function of breaking the silence, like "so, how have you been then". In the same way as nobody wants to be that person to make the awkward comment, it's natural to shy away from starting a tune up in a situation like that. I've had many a great session in back rooms with no punters present, but it's a lot easier if you know the other musos as good friends.
Yeah, I'm sorry for the "doomed" phrase. But, Mr blanket, your question is very pertinent and may help to answer why this thread is so long, while moving it forward.
It's about the personal gain you can get from non-performance music. It's about a deep inner freedom from vanity. Just you and your mates and the music. I used to perform a lot, still do occasionally, and still enjoy it. But no amount of performance can come even close to the feeling you can get when you deliberately shut out any perception of how you are perceived.
Leads me on to ... so we have sessions in pubs so *we* can enjoy (or at least be comforted by) the noise of the punters. Are *they* performing, do you think?
benhall, to me, your suggestion that the punters might be performing is just as silly as the suggestion that session musos are necessarily performing just because they're in a public place.
Much more interesting is what Michael's saying. I think that I've been interested in reading this thread because I'm intrigued in the feeling of disappointment I get when I think that many musicians out there cannot get past the performance thing. I kind of assumed that that wasn't the case.
So this is about people who are unable to shut out thoughts of how they are being perceived... I find myself wondering whether this has any effect on their actual playing. It must do, surely, because it's psychological, and the playing of music is affected by psychological aspects as well as those of motor skills, etc.
Kennedy, I'm sorry if I was a bit snippy then, I read my post to you and it certainly looks that way.
But let's look at your scenario. Punter asks for a tune and you happily oblige. But if while playing that tune, your thoughts wander to wondering if he likes it or not, then you are performing to him. Bloody hard not to in those circumstances, and that's why we don't like requests, no matter how well intentioned.
That's okay, Michael, you are my elder here, after all, and I agree with what you say anyway.
That's a shame what you say about requests. I don't make them very often, but sometimes if I'm around someone who plays something I love to pieces, it's bloody hard not to (to use your phrase).
"To prove something, like the guy earlier who played his first set on his own. "
What about when someone "starts off" or plays a set on his/her own? Is he performing to his/her peers?
There are many instances, i.e going to a new or different sessions and even in your own sessions where one might be asked to "start something of their own".
Of course, in these situations, I wouldn't think of it as a performance or such and certainly not wish to show off. However, I wouldn't want to make a mess of it either and would certainly be conscious of the fact that the others were listening..albeit even for a very short time until they recognised(if they do) the tunes and joined in.
This is totally irrelevant to the conversation, but I'd just like to point out that this thread has the dubious distinction of being the longest in the history of thesession.org currently at 444 posts. The last "performance" thread that came anywhere close was 415.
Hey I found an even longer one at 450 http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/3705. Funny how they're all about the same subject, with the same people arguing. Kinda like countries going to war...
I found myself at a session with definite 'performance-aspects' last night. It wasn't an Irish session, but a blues/Jazz/old-timey affair. Although it was a session in the sense that the punters (who were very much there for the music) were healthily ignored when they requested tunes or songs, it had the performance thing of everyone being expected to contribute solos, which were applauded by the audience (particularly mine, as they resembled nothing they'd ever heard before, so they assumed I must be really good!). I must say that after an evening of that, although it was great fun in its own way, I'm even more inclined to go with Michael's negative assesment of 'performing'. I think that the people with his give-no-quarter outlook are useful in holding back the tendency of musicians to use sessions to display their abilities and perform to the audience or other musicians. The odd song and well-played solo or party-piece sit well within an evening's session, I feel, but need to be reined in quite firmly or Irish music could easily end up being like bluegrass, with musicians taking turns to demonstrate their 'chops' (Is that the right word?). The beauty of session music is in the feeling (maybe sometimes erroneous) that you are adding to the sound of the whole, and not simply a demonstration of your ability - unless you have something very special to contribute (I certainly didn't last night!)
Mark
It's harder not to perform if you are playing on your own, especially if you don't know the company, but it can be done. Though whether you'd want to in this circumstance is another point. It may be that a hint of a performance, a hint of acknowledging the presence of some people listening would be more polite here.
Thank you, Noxious: "There has to be some grey areas". That was EXACTLY what I have been trying to say whenever I've dipped my toes back into this.
There are two things that continue to bother me in this: one is Scotsman's point, in that you are trying to make a good sound, presumably, and there are frequent moments in sessions when at least the other musicians are listening to and enjoying an individual's playing.
And the other is that I don't think it's right to "shut out thoughts" of how you are perceived. Since it *is* a community thing, as has been repeatedly pointed out, then you've got to at least be aware of the community you're in ie the pub. If you're not acutely aware of your environment as a musician then, it seems to me, you're missing out on some of the sensitivity which might make the music that extra bit magical - for the sessioners, that is, not the punters.
I think that being aware of the community thing is important between sets when people are chatting, but when you start playing, you're gonna make the best music if you absorb yourself in the music and listen carefully to what the other musos are doing. Otherwise you're conscious of how you're being perceived, and you start performing, and unless you can somehow succeed in blocking these thoughts, the music's going to be different. Like Michael says, you can spot it a mile off. There's no question that some people play like this in sessions.
However, that doesn't mean you can say that "all sessions are performances", just because you're playing in public.
Thing is, I do know what you mean, Noxious, and it really irritates me too when someone is "performing" in that sense. I'd also like to own up that I have been guilty myself - I think this has been rare, and whenever it has happened it's always because I'm p*ssed off at someone or something, and I *still* feel like sh*t afterwards ...
Benhall, mere words are not enough to convey how refreshing it is to see someone actually think through the posts here and earnestly try to understand what other people are saying. But words are all we have here, so--Thank you for participating in good faith, and with intelligence and honesty.
Yes, playing the music with no hint of self-consciousness, no concern for other's perceptions, is absolutely wonderful. And it can be a very difficult mindset to acheive, especially for those of us reared in the ego-ridden world of celebity worship and commercialization.
That's why it's SO important--if playing this way is your goal--to create a non-performaning space for it to happen. For some of us, that's what a good session is all about.
Yes, the grey areas are interesting. However, if you are trying to make a good sound, you are performing. Though if you stop performing and stop trying to make a good sound, it more often the case that you'll end up making a better sound.
Look at it from the other side. The worst performers on stage are the ones who have the crafts of communication and delivery absolutely nailed, but fail to put themselves across. The best performers are the ones who are able to let their eye off the ball for a moment and lose themselves in the music.
What we try to do is far simpler, it's just to lose yourself in the music by throwing out all the baggage of crafts of communication and delivery.
The next question is about performance situations on stage, for example a concert pianist or a member of a chamber orchestra where the musicians arrive with the intent of giving a performance. Is it possible for them to absorb themselves so completely in the music that they are able to view their audience simply as "people within earshot" of their playing, and ignore their expectations and perceptions? Of course the audience are going to view it as a "performance", but I wonder if musicians ever come off stage feeling as though they have not performed, because they have been able to shut out thoughts of other people's perceptions of what they are doing. If this stuff really does affect the music being produced, then surely people like concert pianists are going to have grappled with this issue, but come at it from a different perspective than we session musos would.
Cross-posting, but Michael mentioned the same thing. Michael you say that "the best performers are the ones who are able to let their eye off the ball for a moment and lose themselves in the music". Presumably you mean that the best performers are those who don't perform, and therefore aren't performers. I wonder if these performers who aren't performers view themselves as performers or not
No, if you stand on a stage and completely lose yourself in the music, you won't be performing and it will be tedius to the audience. I've seen it, people trying to perform with their eyes closed etc. You have to comunicate with your audience. It's really hard to do, to lose yourself whilst maintaining a communication, but the best are really good at it.
Jack, I'm sorry you think that I've resorted to ad hominem. In fact, I've focused on your rhetorical tactics and your use of logic, particularly where that logic was flawed. That's not ad hominem--but, as Michael points out, it is how a rational discussion moves forward instead of staying forever stuck on unfounded or poorly supported opinions.
Michael and Nox, we also have to be careful to remember that some people are apparently wired to be at their best--and derive the most pleasure from--while consciously performing to an audience. At least that's what I assume from the numerous comments (here and elsewhere) that the flutters of performance anxiety can drive some people to play better than they could otherwise. I'm not wired that way, at least not musically, but I don't have reason to doubt that other people are. To them, a non-performance session might be dull and uninspiring, I don't know.
Maybe the session thing is a completely unique 'other way'. Maybe there is an attitude to playing, which, at its best, is almost to do with respect for the music for it's own sake. If performance has developed from that strand of music used for ceremony, maybe session music is a sort of phatic extension of the functional music from which it grows (dance music). If I play at a dance, the musicians are not the focus of attention. If any applause comes it comes at the end of the evening, when the caller or leader introduces the band, or it might come spontaneously at the end of a dance, in which case the applause is more for 'the tune' than for 'the band'.
However, session music doesn't come ENTIRELY from dance music, it also comes from music with other functions (ceremonial, or classical/performance music like Carolan pieces, and of course, songs), which introduce elements of performance into the proceedings. That side of it has more in common with the sort of music that requires an audience reaction, and other people in the pub, or kitchen, or wherever the session is, are likely to react as an audience. I can't see that someone singing a song, unless it is to lead a communal song, which doesn't seem to happen much at sessions, (except those of a dire folkiness), can be anything other than performance. I speaks directly to and creates 'an audience'. But I can't see that as bad thing, as it draws people into the session. If you just want to be ignored totally, it might be a bad thing, but then why not go and play in that back room. Personally, if I'm playing in a session, I usually completely forget that there is anyone outside the circle listening or not listening, or whatever they are doing, but their being there still somehow gives the session a legitimacy and a sense of purpose....
I've probable contradicted myself a dozen times there.
Good points, Ottery. This is "roots" music after all. I like a session that harkens back to those music-as-community (the old crossroads or kitchen dances) ideals.
And you're right, I think, that this doesn't preclude a performance interlude now and then--a song, a recitation. That's what the old party pieces were all about, closer, I imagine, to Jack's sense of an 'informal performance' snuggled into a larger evening of non-performance music.
Part of the difficulty these days of trying to have a non-performance session is that even the old dance tunes have become "listening music." So the context for playing them has shifted toward a more audience-centric approach.
But I think we're at risk of losing an important connection to each other as people if we play music only across the performer/audience divide. In short, my hunch is that music didn't originate as a way to impress others, but as a way to communicate (from the Latin, communicare, "to share") amongst our family members and immediate neighbors. At it's core, music is a communal experience--the best performers tap into that. But we can also return to that experience whole cloth, by intentionally NOT performing.
The "sharing" thing is important too. Not all sessions are necessarily "ensembles", in any case. In Cape Breton, for instance, they take turns and (I suppose) perform for the other musicians and singers in the company.
Even in your average session, there's occasions when you will(for various reasons) play a tune on your own.
However, the emphasis shouldn't be on the performer but rather the tune(or set)s and songs. That's why we don't usually say "That was brilliant. You played really well"(I feel very uncomfortable if anyone says that to me and don't necessarily believe it). Instead, you'll hear something like "That was a nice tune" or "What did you call the last one?" or something similar.
I've just had a thought. I was at a session a couple of weeks back, when a very well respected box player started a tune. He looked around as he started, but no-one took the bait, and he was on his own. He played it beautifully, and totally alone, but somehow it didn't come across as a performance, it was more like an exploration. The musicians were captivated and fascinated, but it felt more like a small gift dropped into the proceedings than a peformance for the 'audience'. The audience at the bar hardly seemed to notice how good it was - possibly because he was so lost in the tune and not 'putting out'.
Maybe that is something of the essence of this thing that we all want to hold onto and protect so much.
Kevin Burke once told me, with a twinkle in his eye, that most people think the tunes exist because people created them. In fact, he mused, it's the other way around--we exist so that the tunes have someone to play them.
Fanciful? Yes, but it nicely sums up how some of us approach the tunes, whether anyone is listening or not.
If someone else IS listening, they also can choose to listen to the tune, not the player. Instead of hanging on the musician's skill or artistry, they can hone in on the tune itself. I think this may be what Scotsman is getting at in his post above. And I find it's a very common mindset at Irish sessions.
Will, that's exactly how I've always listened to music!
Except now that I'm learning to play, I don't listen the same way any more---I'm laser-focused on every single thing any fiddler does, the fingers, the bow, the shoulders, where the rolls and the triplets are---I feel like if I don't pay that close kind of attention I'll miss something. I wonder if it will always be that way or I'll be able to listen casually again after I've gone a bit farther up the learning curve...
Fantastic thread this! AND I've learnt two new words/phrases (phatic and ad hominem). Can't help thinking I shouldn't have to use the dictionary *quite* so much when talking about ITM, but perhaps it's just my ignorance.
customers/punters might think I am showing off, but musicians such as Michael and Noxious should know better, ePerformance does not mean "showing off", just to inform Michael and Noxious. No dictionary will define tr perform as showing off.
So although I am totally impervious to the punters, by the mere dint of playing a tune in a pub, with customers in it, I am performing. I am certainly performing in their eyes, and indeed many of the punters may think "look at that eejit, showing off". In reality I am playing Roisin Dubh or Limerick's Lament, or any slow air, because I get great enjoyment from doing so. Now thespecially as they are arguing that we play for our own enjoyment.
A formal performance at a session could be classified when the musicians, or some of them, are being paid. In short the pub has hired them as entertainment, so they are required to perform their tunes with an eye on entertainment. They may do this in an informal way, but they are still performing formally, as that is the reason they are in the pub.
To perform a tune you play the notes. End of story. You don't need to be showing off, or totally ignoring everyone, you just play the notes, to perform a tune. You could do this in your own bedroom, alone, locked away from the world, totally for your own enjoyment. You perform the tune.
Do the same thing in public, it is a public performance, whatever your motive.
Now, wasn't that easy, if you do not have hang ups about show offs and punters, and customers, or anything else.
My goat, the bedroom one, is not computer literate but has asked me to post the following on its behalf:
"If I die and I am made into a bodhran, and then played in a pub, I will be giving a public performance, or at least my spirit, or skin, will be".
LOL, Ben, vocabulary is like your repertoire of tunes--you'll never know all the bits everyone else knows. Get enough people together and some is bound to use a word/play a tune you aren't yet familiar with. No worries--learning is an endless journey. (I too had to look up 'phatic' the first time Ottery used it, moons ago.)
Part of my thread above was lost. Performance does not mean showing off, no dictionary will define it as such, and people should not confuse the two. It went something like that before the rest kicks in.
In my own experience - can't speak for others - it just gets worse and worse. Over the years I've just got more and more insatiable in terms of wanting to listen and learn how to do absolutely everything that can be done on a fiddle, or what listening to a good box player, or flute or whistle player can teach me about a tune I like and about the music and my own playing - I don't do it all - can't, and probably shouldn't - but it doesn't stop me wanting to know and learn.
What I have found, though, is that you start to develop the ability to do that while still participating in and enjoying the craic - like there's a part of your mind you syphon off for listening to the subtleties other people are putting in. Also, fortunately, I've found you can use the same bit of your brain for filtering out the bits you *don't* want to hear!
It also stated that Michael and Noxious, unlike customers, would realise that I am not showing off, I am playing The Cuilin because I like it, and don't care what anyone else thinks. To be blunt, I love slow airs and ballads, Tom Waits, Damien Rice, Leonard Cohen and the immortal Nick Drake would be favourites. Hardly designed to curry favour with the average punter.
And Michael, buiy tickets to see Liam Og O'Flynn. Absolutely wonderful player, absolutely dreadful at connecting to an audience, as he totally ignores them, unlike Van Morrison whomtreats the audience with outright contempt, but still performing, on a stage, for an audience.
In fact Morrison may be relevant here. He gets enmeshed in his own work, and once in Manchester when someone shouted a request, Van stopped in his tracks and memorably said "Can you f### up, I'm trying to work here".
So Van was singing for his own pleasure, oblivious to the audience, at a concert.
BBliss says: Ottery, Michael and Noxious would call your box player a show off.
I don't think you're right. Any more than they would call you a 'show off' if they were actually there on the night. Good session music is what good session players play in sessions, whether solo or as part of the ensemble. It's only here on the yellow board that absolute truths have to be established and hairs split in their pursuit.
Sorry, Will, if I overuse the word Phatic - it seems apposite to the nature what we do ....
MG writes: “So what's actually happening in the pub? You are quite right, two things, that are both relevant. One is not right and the other wrong. It's just that one thing is relevant to one lot, and the other relevant to the others.
Your problem is that you have difficulty dismissing what is relevant to the punter and until you can, you are doomed to for ever be a performer.”
No… I don’t need to dismiss anything to enjoy a session. The punter’s perception of what happened in the pub doesn’t affect me in the slightest; all I’m doing is acknowledging that they see it different than we do. Our perception of events is no more valid than theirs. We both go home afterwards with our separate understandings of what took place.
At last night’s session here I was surrounded with friends and hardly anyone was in the pub at the start. As the night progressed some of the regular punters began to arrive, and then people I’ve never seen before as well. By the mid point there were a good number of people in the pub, most chatting, and some obviously listening and enjoying the music. There was applause here and there, but it had no apparent affect on us as far as I could tell. We were having a session.
Michael continues: “If for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform.”
Maybe for you, but I am not subservient to the punter’s point of view. You’re assigning far too much power to the punter. It seems you need to shut out any awareness of their possible misinterpretation of what you’re doing. If you don’t – you’re condemned to performing. It’s not the same for me. I can acknowledge them, even with their misconceptions, and still enjoy all of the aspects associated with participating in a session that have been described in this thread.
Will writes: “Jack, I'm sorry you think that I've resorted to ad hominem. In fact, I've focused on your rhetorical tactics and your use of logic, particularly where that logic was flawed. That's not ad hominem--but, as Michael points out, it is how a rational discussion moves forward instead of staying forever stuck on unfounded or poorly supported opinions.”
Sorry, Will, but your approach is indeed ad hominem. If you want to address the issue of flawed logic, your approach to discussing these issues has a couple of well-known logical fallacies. I’ve already pointed out the one known as ‘Argumentum ad hominem’ or “Argument against the person” – a logical fallacy which consists of countering an point by attacking the person presenting the case rather than the actual point. Very early on in this thread when you realize you weren’t convincing me that your position is correct – you resorted to attacking me personally instead by insulting my intelligence. This does little to move the discussion forward.
The other is ‘Straw man’ – a logical fallacy in which one intentionally misrepresents an opponent’s position. To set up a “Straw man” argument is to create a position that is easy to refute, then assign that position to an opponent. Though this technique can be convincing, it is misleading as it does not address the opponent’s actual position. As was pointed out more than once by myself and others, you have continually misinterpreted and misrepresented my point of view to create a faux argument that you can easily knock down. I would appreciate it if you allow me to define my own positions.
I see the discussion as trying to understand each other’s point of view. I’m trying to understand yours without resorting to either of these logical fallacies. I would appreciate it if you could do the same.
Yep, looks like a good summation of Jack's approach here to the T.
Been there, watched you do that. I'm not biting.
Clearly the discussion has moved on.
We've established that Bliss and Jack can call what they do a performance if they want to, or they can perform and call it a session. No problems there.
And we've established in very clear terms that some of us can play music in a public session and NOT at all be performing, in the "presenting-music-to-an-audience" sense of the word. Which is all some of us have been saying for yonks.
You're really reaching here, David. Michael had already expressed that you miss out on the joy of a session when you perform. The implication being that unless I dismiss the punter's point of view I will be condemned to performing, i.e. missing out on enjoying what a session is.
If you doubt me, here's one of Michael's quotes: "It's about the personal gain you can get from non-performance music. It's about a deep inner freedom from vanity. Just you and your mates and the music. I used to perform a lot, still do occasionally, and still enjoy it. But no amount of performance can come even close to the feeling you can get when you deliberately shut out any perception of how you are perceived."
Jack, please consider for just a moment reading and comprehending your quote of Michael's.
Instead of trying to make your point, listen to his. Give it some serious thought and consideration. Suss out what Michael means. He (me too) isn't just trying to score a point, win an argument, or prove he's "right" and you're "wrong." He's providing a genuine reason and explanation for what he believes.
I understand that you feel you're doing the same, but it doesn't come across that way.
Michael's point was clear from that and other posts; if you don't dismiss the punter's point of view you will be condemned to performing. Many others, including Michael, have gone on in great length about how this interferes with the musician's enjoyment of what a session is.
Here's a real 'Straw Man' argument for comparison:
Will writes: "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a ‘performance to an audience.’"
As you can see my position is clearly misrepresented here and is easy to knock down. But it’s wrong. My position is simply that while we're having our sessions there are people in the room (if our session is in a public place) who will not understand what we're doing and will think it must be a public performance of some sort. They aren't concerned with what we think we're doing -- all they know is what they see. But they're correct in that music is being played and the punters are an “audience” according to basic definitions. In other words, these are the hallmarks of what a performance is to the general public, and for them, in their world -- it's valid and they respond to it as such -- even if it's not what we're doing in the session.
I have no problem realizing this, and it has no affect on my session experience. I'm not "performing" even though it appears to them that I am. I don’t need to dismiss them to experience all of the great things about sessions expressed in this thread.
Will says "some of us can play music in a public session and NOT at all be performing, in the "presenting-music-to-an-audience" sense of the word. Which is all some of us have been saying for yonks" Will is Whoosis by the way.
For an awful second I thought we were in Charlie Chaplin land, and Whoosis had a silent session. But finally he is beginning to see the light, after three days.
He says not performing in a "presenting music to an audience" sense of the word. EUREKA.
I have been saying for three days that you can be cocooned, closetted, or whatever, no showing off, indeed totally oblivious to all.
So you are not performing in a " presenting music to an audience" type of way but you are PERFORMING.
So, Whoosis is now in agreement with me, what about the rest of ye?
Jack, I wasn't setting up a straw man. I included you in that paraphrase of the "session are performances" position based on your post:
Above, Jack wrote:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it."
Clearly you're agreeing with Blissters there. You even went on to pose a straw man of your own:
"I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
LOL, Bliss, we settled that old point about the mundane "execute a function" sense of "perform" eons ago. It's not relevant to the distinction we've made, and that's quite clear in this thread.
What I said was that performces interfere with my enjoyment of what a session is. For those who do perform in sessions, it seems that it's the other way round. And that's fine. Have your session and perform in it. I won't in mine.
Will writes: "Above, Jack wrote:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.""
That supports my stated position: To us it's a session, and to the punter it's a performance -- no matter how hard we might try to hide it... or deny it. Compare that to you're actual "Straw Man' argument.
Will writes: "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a ‘performance to an audience.’"
I never said anything about not being able to play for your personal enjoyment.
Then will goes on in an attempt to find a 'Straw Man' argument to pin on me with this quote of mine: "I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
This isn't a 'Straw Man' argument because I'm not representing anyone else's position. What I AM doing is giving an example of the only way I can think to inform unsuspecting punters about what a session is or isn't and how to respond to it.
Here's a hint about how to correctly identify a "Straw Man' argument: They often start with something like, "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that..."
I've just realised why alcohol was invented.
If this was a drunken argument, someone would have either knocked someone else out or slid under the table in a stupor by now.
As it is it goes on forever....
Go on Jack, keep it up. You're only trying to convice yourself now. I've heard it before, and I've got better things to do. And you're not doing anyone any favors, including yourself, with poorly aimed condescension.
MG writes: "What I said was that performces interfere with my enjoyment of what a session is."
So that confirms what I said and further proves there was no 'Straw Man' argument in my interpretation of what Michael said. But Michael goes on to misrepresent my position.
MG continues: "For those who do perform in sessions, it seems that it's the other way round. And that's fine. Have your session and perform in it. I won't in mine."
I just said a few posts back, (as well as many other times on this thread,) that I don't perform at sessions even if the punters think that I am. And that realization about their perception isn't having any affect on my session experience. Is that quite clear now... Michael?
See, Will? Instead of even trying to understand me you have to defame me instead and say I'm "condescending." I just can’t imagine us getting anywhere if you insist on this sort of thing. How is this supposed to move the discussion forward?
If your playing in a session and out of the cornerof your eye you spot a good looking tourist looking at you and no one else, you then put on a look of extra concintration and play a with a little spring in your step.
I'm sincerely believe that Jack and Will are probably two of the nicest people you'd care to meet outside a discussion about this topic. But this all reminds me of inter-sect bloodshed in the Mid East.
Remember that brilliant scene in One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest when Jack Nicholson is dealing the poker hands and Danny Devito keeps saying, "hit me, hit me, hit me"?
There's nothing wrong with a good old ding-dong on this site. The mudslinging did get a bit tedious though, from some persons you'd expect more from - but hey, who am I to talk?
Michael - tell you what it reminded me of - Chapter 2 in the Hobbit when Bilbo and all the dwarves are caught by the trolls. The trolls were arguing the best way to kill and eat them all. They finally settled on some method, when a voice (Gandalf's - unbeknown to the trolls though) started up all the arguments again and the trolls got turned to stone at dawn.
But the one thing that worries me is that some rather articulate people made points with conviction which when read by relative novices to this subculture, will think that those particular points (depending on by whom they were persuaded) IS "The Party Line" for all sessions, regardless of where and when. This notion, or even, *Ideology*, of whether a session is or isn't a performance may shape a young, possibly impressionable, player's attitude to future session playing, having read the views hammered out here. And that should not be the case, and I hope not.
Mark I think got closest to it. Every session is different and some may be near enough performances, whilst others are much more informal.
That's all.
But to witness 2 heavyweights slugging it out over 15 rounds and yet still avoid coming to that conclusion was pitiful to behold.
Danny, I came to that conclusion before I posted that infamous thread a year or so ago that stated all of this. My position has consistantly been that each session is different and is defined by the people who are in it. It's my acknowledgement that the average punter is likely to see it as a performance (instead of what the sessioners see it as) that gets everyone's ire up.
Bodhran Bliss, if what you have been trying to do is convince everyone that you're performing in the sense of executing a tune on an instrument, you've been wasting your time. As Will says, we've been through that before. Maybe you should keep yourself busy reading these two discussions and then get back to us when you're clear exactly what it is we're arguing about, and can therefore make a reasonable contribution to the discussion:
When I say "read", I mean actually understand the meaning of the posts, as opposed to skimming your eyes over them and picking out words and phrases with your copy and paste facility so you can quote people out of context as you and Jack have been doing so far in this thread.
Mark writes: "skimming your eyes over them and picking out words and phrases with your copy and paste facility so you can quote people out of context as you and Jack have been doing so far in this thread."
I can only speak for myself, and it's simply not true. Substantiation please.
Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them.For most musicans sessions will be thier only chance to perform and others find it hard to except this might be thier highlight.
The musicians don't have to or need to accept it as a performance. All I'm saying is that the average punter will think it is, and they won't be wrong according to their own frame of reference. Unless punters somehow find out different they're always going to think it's a performance. But that shouldn't change the sessioner's feelings about what they're doing. it's two seperate perspectives; neither one is right or wrong -- they just are.
I think the problem might be that sessioners don't want to acknowledge the punter's perspective because perhaps they're worried about what effect it might have on their own experience. I can only speak for myself, but when I see a punter at our session who obviously thinks it's some sort of performance -- it doesn't bother me in the slightest, change the way I feel about it or how I play.
The so-called "fourth tenor", Roberto Alagna, was yesterday facing the biggest crisis of his glittering career after storming off the stage of La Scala in mid-performance - one fist lifted towards a booing, whistling audience.
What followed during Sunday's performance of Franco Zeffirelli's production of Aida is thought to be without precedent in the tempestuous history of the celebrated Milan opera house.
As the Hungarian mezzo-soprano Ildiko Komlosi gamely launched into what was intended to be a duet - singing the line "Such unwonted joy in your glance!" to a conspicuously absent Alagna - the stage manager grabbed the tenor's understudy and propelled him on to the boards dressed in jeans.
"I thought to myself, 'OK, now you sing,'" said Antonello Polombi afterwards. And, ignoring cries of "shame" and "this is La Scala!", sing he did - so beautifully that he won the loudest applause as the public clapped and cheered for nine minutes after the curtain fell.
As the artistic director of La Scala, Stephane Lissner, inveighed yesterday against a "blatant lack of respect for the audience and the theatre", it was announced that the 43-year-old Alagna would not be returning to sing Ramades today. The Italian news agency Ansa said the theatre was considering whether to demand compensation from the French-born singer.
His performance on the opening night last week of Zeffirelli's spectacular staging drew the only catcalls from an otherwise delighted audience. The Italian critics too questioned his suitability for the role.
At the weekend, the tenor hit back, insisting he had been "bravissimo" and adding: "Too bad for those who didn't understand." He said he would do the remaining performances of Aida and then "I shall not be coming back to La Scala again. It's not a theatre. It's an arena."
Many a performer has no doubt thought the same. La Scala's notoriously demanding loggionisti (the opera aficionados who occupy La Scala's cheaper seats) have, over the years, whistled and booed the likes of Pavarotti and Katia Ricciarelli.
But few performers have had the courage - perhaps recklessness - to make their views known before the end of a run.
"I heard a boo as soon as I went on stage - even before I began to sing", Alagna told the newspaper La Repubblica. His rendering of the aria "Celeste Aida" only made things worse. What La Stampa's critic termed a "rather laboured" B flat elicited howls of protest from the aggrieved loggionisti and Alagna was off. By pure chance, his understudy was within grabbing distance.
"In general, I stay in a room where I can follow the opera on closed-circuit TV," Palombi said. "But yesterday I went behind the scenes to savour the work better."
Dressed head to foot in black, in the midst of one of the most lavish sets prepared for a modern opera, Palombi said he felt "as if I were naked". As for Komlosi, the beleaguered Amneris, she said she felt her "blood pressure shoot up to 200".
The so-called "fourth tenor-banjo", Phantomo Buttono, was yesterday facing the biggest crisis of his glittering career after storming off the stage of Brogans in mid-performance - one fist lifted towards a booing, whistling audience.
What followed during Sunday's performance is thought to be without precedent in the tempestuous history of the celebrated Ennis Grog-House.
As the Australian Box-twangler Dow 'Nox' Blanketboy gamely launched into what was intended to be a duet - Playing a hithero unthought of harmony part to the Kesh Jig to a conspicuously absent Buttono - the stage manager grabbed the tenor-banjoist's understudy and propelled him on to the boards dressed in jeans.
"I thought to myself, 'OK, now you play!,'" said Michello Gillato afterwards. And, ignoring cries of "shame" and "this is supposed to be a bloody session!", play he did - so beautifully that he won the loudest applause as the public clapped and cheered for nine minutes after the curtain fell on his head.
As the artistic director of Brogans, Shameless O'Toole, inveighed yesterday against a "blatant lack of respect for the audience and the music", it was announced that the 43-year-old Buttono would not be returning to plink the banjo today. The Irish news agency said the Gargle-Emporium was considering whether to demand compensation from the SanFrancisco based plucker.
At the weekend, the tenor-banjo-man hit back, insisting he had been "bravissimo" and adding: "Too bad for those who didn't understand." He said he would do the remaining performances of The Moving Cloud in all keys and then "I shall not be coming back to Brogans again. It's not a pub. It's an arena."
"Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them."
Can someone please explain to me what this means? Ta.
"Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them."
That was Saint. I think what was being implied was that there are some players who would only play in sessions with others of their standard, i.e. in a closed session, by invitation only.
I've heard through the grapevine that there may be one such in my area, but I don't know where or when it is, or even with any certainty who goes to it.
Oh I see. Saint is talking about snobs who wouldn't like people to think that they are in some sort of band with musicians who they see as crap, so they go to a session on condition that it only means displaying a loose association with these musicians. Yes, I'm sure there are people like that.
blimey, there are some eedjits in this world, but is it possible to be such a t wat that you wouldn't mind playing with someone, on the condition that it's not perceived that you are performing with them. Bloody hell.
Totally turns it on it's head. Where actually what defines performance is when the punter's perception becomes relevant to the musician, you get some t wat so paranoid about his perception that he needs the "cover" of his own perceived non-performance before he can play. I really can't believe such a sicko can exist
Michael, it's not really that much of a stretch of the imagination. It seems there are plenty people (like e.g. Bodhran Bliss) who always perform in sessions. So all it takes is for a "performer" like that to be a bit of a snob and not want to play with someone, and by definition they will not want to be performing with them. It's weird to us, yes, but I'm sure there are plenty out there. Just look at the spectrum of types we've seen even within the few people who have contributed to this thread. We have true showoffs, performers in denial, non-performing communist sharers and clueless idiots who don't know what they're talking about. Judging by this post I fit into the last category. Altho' I have an excuse because I've just come back from a session and it's 2.30am, and I played through 50 reels back to back with Bridie this afternoon
Here's a twist (I can't resist this)---what if you have a certain bodhran player who is performing at a session but none of the punters perceives the session as a performance? Like a session is supposed to be? He's not then performing, is he?
No problem. In my view "players" are persons who make notes with their preferred yoke, ie they play it. You don't play a bodhran, you hit it rhythmically, to provide a beat for players, whether or not they are performing.
(Unless you include these new fangled tuneable bodhrans, invented to bolster the egos of bodhranistas who previously weren't able to get notes out of them.)
BTW, I play, or hit, the goatskin myself, and am not too bad when in practice, so don't feel you have to get defensive over this.
I hold my hands up, lads, (all 15 of them). You've saddled us with the dilemma that if you want this thread to go on furlong you'll have to be first past this post.
Dear Noxious,
Your post is the only one I have read today. I do not need to read other threads to know what is under discussion. It is constantly above me as I type;
"Does anyone like bodhrans?"
I have just read your next post. When someone resorts to ridicule and attempted insult, I realise that I have obviously made a salient point. I say attempted insult because I have debated with experts, your efforts are a complete giveaway.
Think about it. You are asking me to read to other threads to find out if playing a tune is different from performing a tune. I already know the answer, as do 99.9% of the world's population.
It is just my misfortune that the other 0.1% posts on this site.
"And coming around the final turn it's Kennedy in the lead by a length, with Key Maniac Lad, Whoosis, and Bodhran Bliss close behind. Noxious Blanket is making a move on the outside, but is it in time?"
"Oh, we've had a terrible accident in the backfield as Saint veers into another horse and the riders are down. But that won't affect the finish as the leaders thunder into the home stretch...."
Is this overdose yet? Hasn't the victim died? Good, now where's my skinner's knife, I want to make a bodhran or two from the carcass, a belly drum and a butt drum ~ & thebones for tippers and bones to rattle...
I've just come back from a session and it's 2.30am, and I played through 50 reels back to back with Bridie this afternoon
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Noxious Blanket
It seems there are plenty people (like e.g. Bodhran Bliss) who always perform in sessions. Also posted by Noxious.
Thought I would try this old cut and paste lark. Now totally confused.
Noxious says in the first one he performed 50 reels at a session.
He then says there are always SOME people who perform at sessions, and gives me as an example.
To be honest, at many sessions if you were not playing at a session they would ask you to sit somewhere else. I admit I always play at sessions I am at as a player, what the hell else would you do. Eat cookies all night?
Unless Noxious, after 5 days, still can't see that the words playing/performing mean the same thing, at a session.
"Ladies and gentlemen, that was the closest finish I can remember. Key Maniac Lad took it by a nose whisker at the tape, and the stands have emptied to swarm the sweating stallion as the winner's wreath is place over his neck...."
"But it's not a pretty sight back on the final turn, as rescuers try to sort horses and jockeys. Looks like some body parts aregetting mixed up on the ambulance cart. And that poor lame horse is still kicking. Oh the humanity!"
Whoosis has pulled up, who could blame him, Noxious is unable to answer Jack, some fifty posts ago, and it all appears to be settled. As in most discussions, no winners or losers, because that is not what discussion is about. As long as the facts are established and the truth emerges. Any one out performing tonight, enjoy yourself. Play well.
Oh No!
It seems that Phantomo Buttono never made it out of the starting cage, having tangled up with a straw man and tripped over a strategically placed Ad Hominem. A fugitive from the Dental-Floss fields of Montana has been arrested by the session police, and it looks like the entire race will have to be re-run ....
Oh dear, I don't think you realise Key how much you actually upset Saint earlier. Saint is obviously an Irish speaker, English would be his second language, just like the Italians, French, Germans and Americans who post here. And you pointed out his spelling mistake, or his mis-type. I doubt if you fully understood his reply.
I did. He is not happy.
Now Key, you and me, no problems, you are a genuine Sarf Londoner I believe, interested in Irish music, and good for a laugh. And 99 times out of a 100 your post about the spelling would hgave been taken as a joke. But to an Irish speaker, who believes the entire country should and would have been speaking Irish but for historical events, well it is a serious matter.
And Saint, anybody can make a harmless enough mistake. Look at you and me. And Rossa was born in Rosscarberry, just of the main Square.
Glasgow, Key, living in Sarf London. Sorry, but at least being from Glasgow you might realise what I am trying to say, think of the Old Firm mentality.
And don't be having anymore "Blissful" sessions. Have "Blissless" ones instead.
If that's the case, full apologies are in order. Sorry from me to saint. There ye go.
But a wee bit in the bio does help iron out these misunderstandings, just as you saw when you looked at mine BB.
Sorry i missed out a few hours and thank you bliss . I had to do a few things in the real world.PB i checked out the Tipsy House site and sessions are advertised as gigs . Can you explain?
No hard feelings KM lad I will do my best to forget the last 800 years of tourture.
P.S.
Bliss sorry for even thinking that you could make a mistake .I m still learning.
It beHOOVES you to read my posts more closely, Blisster. Do you really think playing 50 reels with someone in their kitchen with only the 2 of you present consitutes a session? (I dunno, maybe it does for a bodhran player).
At least we Americans know the proper spelling of "droll". Do you Glaswegians even know the etymology? It's actually an abbreviation for an ornament played on a bodhran. The full term is......
Geez... I haven't updated that page since I broke my finger.
Anyway, we do a few different kind of gigs. We do weddings, set dances. ceili dances, contra dances, concerts, partys, pubs, floating Paddy's Day luncheons, corporate extraviganza events, street fairs, festivals and... sessions.
I go to sessions just about every Sunday and Tuesday at our local. Once a month my pals and I are the "hosts." What that means is that it's our turn to show up at the start, arrange the chairs and tables, and play till it ends. It's also our turn to take the steering wheel. Here in SF we all take turns doing this and it allows for a lot of variety because each "host" has their own favorite tunes and session style.
So to answer your question: the sessions we host and the ones I go to regularly are not gigs I consider to be "performances," but the other gigs are.
Hey Saint - you don't have a monopoly on the "torture". Leaving aside my Irish forebears, most of my people come from the far north Highlands of Scotland - Sutherlandshire, real Mackay country. Those people were victims of the Highland Clearances.
I could go on saying Scotland has been repeatedly shagged by England through successive generations, and even suggest even I have ended up in London due to forced economic migration.
England through her vassals played a big part in the Slave Trade - 2 of those vassals being Ireland and Scotland, hence the numerous Irish surnames on the island of Monserrat...or that the English 19th century capitalists didn't act too kindly to their own English working class, sending children down mines and up chimneys, etc, but I don't wear that stuff as a label. I just get on with my life and try and help folk or lighten things up where I can.
We're halfway from 600 to 700 posts fellas. This could be a Guinness book record setting thread. Or perhaps an excuse to drink a Guinness... or not... it's early yet... maybe when we reach 700.
Bliss: "Playing a tune is no different from performing a tune. 99.9% of the world's population agree. It is just my misfortune that the other 0.1% posts on this site."
OK, I have no qualms about being one in a thousand. But just to check. Lets have a poll.
Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists? Just straight answers. Yes or no. There's enough prevarication already
1. Drôle de guerre, La
Name given to the waiting period between the declaration of war between France and Germany on 3 September 1939 and the German offensive of May 1940 (cf. the English term ‘Phoney War’).
(From The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French in Literature)
2. drôle adjectif
( bizarre ) funny, odd; c'est un ~ de type he's odd; c'est ~ de faire/que it's odd to do/that; ce qui est or ce qu'il y a de ~ c'est que the funny thing is that; faire (tout) ~ à quelqu'un to give somebody a funny feeling; faire une ~ de tête to make ...
(From The Concise Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (French-English) in Bilingual Dictionaries)
Michael, you asked a different , slanted, as you know, question.
In your one person toilet, the only person on the moon, stranded alone on a Desert Island, if you play a tune, you perform it. The simple, as you keep telling us anyway, act of playing a reel, is to perform a reel.
Now to perform has other meanings and contexts. Sean Keane sitting playing the fiddle with the Chieftains is not "performing" such as Nollaig Casey "jigging around" playing. They are performing the tune, but only one is performing an act or "presentation".
And Noxious, do not display your ignorance. Look at the thread on "History of Sessions".
Of course two people playing music in the kitchen is a session. It is a real, true, traditional session. They only moved to pubs in London because they all lived in bedsitters.
Michael writes: "Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists?"
That hasn't been the question as far as my comment that started this behemoth debate goes. From where you’re sitting in the session, even if it’s in a public place, you don’t feel that what you’re doing is a performance, i.e. presentation of a piece of music (tunes) with only the audience’s consumption and enjoyment as your purpose for doing so. I never argued against that. But from the audience perspective, they wouldn’t understand that unless you either pointed it out to them, or they somehow eventually come to that conclusion on their own. Until they become educated about sessions and how sessions are likely to be something different than what they appear to be, they will continue to reference the mainstream definition for what you’re doing.
Now last night, for example, we had a roaring session at the pub. I can’t tell you how many punters were there because I never looked. There were at least 10 of us I think, all friends, and all just enjoying the gathering that included conversation, drink and tunes. It felt more like a party than what any punters would have assumed. But I do recall outbreaks of clapping from the punters. Sometimes it would overwhelm us for a moment and we’d look around at each other with surprise, and maybe someone would smile at the punters who were clapping, not because we were thanking them, but more because we were acknowledging the positive feedback. But it had no affect on the party and didn’t change in the slightest anything about the way we played, drank or carried on. We would just continue on as if no one else was in the room. Eventually practically no one else WAS in the room… and we still played on.
Bliss finally got it!!!
(Or at least it looks like he got it, if I'm not losing the meaning in his jumbled syntax.)
He writes: "Now to perform has other meanings and contexts. Sean Keane sitting playing the fiddle with the Chieftains is not "performing" such as Nollaig Casey "jigging around" playing. They are performing the tune, but only one is performing an act or "presentation"."
Jack, we had a roaring session here last night, too. And we all had a good chuckle over the notion that our handful of neighbors hunkered over their shot glasses at the bar (one staring at his grey reflection in the mirror, two deep in conversation, and a few more at the far end watching sports on a muted telly) could possibly be mistaken--even in their own minds--for an audience.
The idea struck everyone present (including at least three people with three decades or more each of experience playing this music stateside and in Ireland) as hilarious.
The setting and experience was vastly different in every regard (including the punters' apparent mindsets, judging from their behavior and body language) from the gig I played earlier in the evening. *No one* mistook our session for a "performance" of any sort.
If that's possible here, it's possible elsewhere, and perhaps even more common than you realize.
Despite the funny pokes people take at this debate, I've found that this thread has helped clarify my understanding of how totally unlike a performance a session can be. Thanks for that.
LOL. "Denial." Both Bliss and Jack keep accusing me of being in denial. And that's not ad hominem?
Okay, okay. Guilty as charged. The fact that I posted again makes it all too clear that I've been in denial about how blind you are to reason, and to the lapses of reason and understanding in your own posts. I now see the light--you will never understand.
Nope, hasn't gotten it yet. Still equates "perform" with "play" (the fluter *played* a tune = the fluter *performed* a tune). What differentiates them is whether either one is also associated with "presentation".
And as for the desert island scenario, a set of uillean pipes (drones removed) would make a nifty flotation device...
As Jack knows, I'm with him, to an extent, on this...probably nearer the Nox hypothesis in that it depends on what pub or what setting you're playing. But what you are doing is performing, or some bliddy name for it, I don't care about all this pseudo-semantics, and I don't think it matters ---- all that bit, definitions and so on, is made-up stuff, just words in a Germanic language to describe a real phenomenon.
Right, hoping that bit's out the way....let me ask the detractors - what about a miked up session? I've done enough of those. They are sessions where either each main player plays straight into a mike, or there's a mike somewhere overhead, grabbing the sound of everyone playing. It doesn't matter which. The function is obviously to amplify the music so that non-playing patrons (politically correct term for punters) can hear it. But the format of the event is most definitely that of a session, ie no predetermined tune list as you would have in a gig (although someone may have a tune list to look at), breaks in between tunes where conversation and drinking occurs, one or two people may start a set and others join in as they recognise the tune....and so on. What's that if not a session?
Anyway, there has been a lot of hair splitting been going on. And to answer the original question, yes I do like tasteful bodhran playing, but not too loud and a max of 2 per session.
Our session doesn't resemble a concert in any way, but there were punters there last night that gave every indication they believed they were witnessing a public performance of some sort. But I'm sure they knew it wasn't a "concert" -- I think they understood at least that much.
Kennedy writes: "Nope, hasn't gotten it yet. Still equates "perform" with "play" (the fluter *played* a tune = the fluter *performed* a tune). What differentiates them is whether either one is also associated with "presentation"."
You're talking about the sessioner's perspective -- that's not in dispuute (at least by me.) Unsuspecting punters won't understand this when they come into the pub and hear the music. They'll assume you are "performing" i.e. playing a piece of music (tune) in the presence of people who might enjoy listening (audience.)
Phantom (Jack?), what can I say to you to persuade you that the average "unsuspecting punter" does *not* necessarity assume you are "performing"? Why do you make that assumption, anyway? Because they clap for you? What if they know perfectly well that you're just there playing with the other musicians and they clap because they're polite? Some people feel like they're being rude if they're right next to someone who creates a bit of music and they don't express a bit of appreciation somehow. It doesn't mean they're ignorant of the nature of the situation.
Well I don't know what sessions are like in SF Montana or NYC but in N. London there are or were pubs you'd go to very specifically to play or hear sessions. The Fiddler's Elbow in Kentish Town did most definitely fall into this category (don't know what it's like now). So there wouldn't be many "unsuspecting punters" there. In fact, many other musicians would come along to listen to good players playing IN SESSION.
Will writes: "Both Bliss and Jack keep accusing me of being in denial."
Maybe Bliss did, but I certainly did not. Please show me where I said YOU were in denial? (And remember: you said I "keep accusing you" so you'll have to find more than one to substantiate your claim. But you won't even find one.)
Good questions Danny, but I think Nox, Gill, what!? and I answered them up above. The problem with using mikes is that it makes it that much more likely that the musicians will play "to" the crowd, and that the crowd will respond like an audience.
That's great if that's how someone wants their session to work.
But some of us prefer (at least in our sessions, and not necessarily every single night) to reduce or eliminate the performer/audience divide for the following reasons:
1. "Audiences" tend to clap, which can interfere with the spontaneous flow of tunes.
2. "Audiences" sometimes make tune and song requests, including stuff that isn't remotely typical session fare. This tends to snowball if you do the requests, or conversely can p*ss people off if you ignore them. (We'd end up playing Country Western or Classic 50s Rock all night here if we honored requests).
3. Less experienced musicians can be intimidated when they're expected to entertain listeners. We prefer to nurture the younger generation and newcomers to the music.
4. More experienced musicians can sometimes fall into "performing" for the "audience," rather than just enjoying a sociable evening of tunes and craic. This can lead to ego clashes, spotlight hogs, and clinging to timeworn sets. All of which sours the spontaneity and social grace of a session.
In short, some of us prefer sessions that don't split the people in the room into performers and audience. We see othe group as a single community, much as I've heard the old kitchen sessions described by past generations. This doesn't preclude the occasional party piece, nor does it mean every night works out this way. But I can't understand why some people here are so threatened by the notion of a non-performance session, especially when that mindset is so deeply rooted in this particular musical tradition.
Kennedy writes: "what can I say to you to persuade you that the average "unsuspecting punter" does *not* necessarity assume you are "performing"?"
So that's your position -- the average punter understands how sessions aren't necessarily informal performances? Im sorry, but the evidence doesn't support that based on what I've witnessed and the conversations I've had with punters over the last 20 years of playing in sessions. My guess that the punters who understand something like that are an extreme minority. That said, I don't think it's impossible to find a pub here and there that might have well informed and experienced punters in abundance -- but that would still be rare.
I agree with your *preference*, and your right to have one, ie smaller intimate sessions with just a few sympathetic players and next to no audience/punters/nonplayers.
But that's different from the reality in some pubs where sessions are miked up and they are quasi-performances - or whatever, with people coming in purely to listen.
Sigh. Okay. We don't have to agree, it's fine. Tell you what I'll do though---I go to sessions on a regular basis and I'm still a punter (not for long, though!), so for the next few weeks I'll ask an unscientific sample (meaning >2000 people) of the punters I meet how they view the proceedings, and I'll get back to you with the results. I'm sure this thread will still be going strong by then. Fair enough?
Will writes: "But I can't understand why some people here are so threatened by the notion of a non-performance session, especially when that mindset is so deeply rooted in this particular musical tradition."
Kennedy, here's a suggestion for your survey: ask the punters if they enjoyed the performance tonight. If they say "What performance?" then you'll know you’ve found your edified punter. Then travel to sessions all around the world asking this question. Come back when you've tallied your findings and report to us.
Nope, can't do it that way, it's a loaded question. I don't want to mention the word performance at all, at least not in the opening question. It's a dilemma, though---what's the best way to bring up the subject? Maybe "how would you describe the music here? It's free, and the musicians don't get paid, so what would you call it?" Something like that. What do you think?
And we all had a good chuckle over the notion that our handful of neighbors hunkered over their shot glasses at the bar (one staring at his grey reflection in the mirror, two deep in conversation, and a few more at the far end watching sports on a muted telly) could possibly be mistaken--even in their own minds--for an audience. Posts Whoosis.
Listen to their discussion. Probably goes along the lines of;
"Every bloody week, those tossers are in here giving their performance, and we have to sit and watch muted mud wrestling on TV. I wish they would perform at home".
Now you may not agree with this Whoosis. So ask yourself this;
"Why was the TV MUTED?"
Answer. Because you and your mates were PERFORMING.
Or are you going to tell me the TV is always MUTED?
Bliss, no matter how highly you think of yourself, your limited imagination does not set the horizons for my world.
Actually, in this pub, the tv IS always muted. It's on ESPN (sports), so there's no need for audio. If we're not sessioning there, they play canned music over the p.a. system.
And when we play in other pubs, we like the telly muted so we can hear ourselves, not so the punters can hear us.
Kennedy, the problem here isn't finding out what punters think. It's that Jack already knows what punters think.
Danny's track here raises an interesting historical note. Sessions have become a largely urban phenomenon. But the music has predominantly rural roots. I suspect the urban milieu has a lot to do with the occurrence of sessions that are more perfomance-oriented, and some non-musicians perceiving them that way.
In small villages and farming communities, everybody knows each other. Back in the days before radio and phonographs, the music was something for a community to gather around, neighbor with neighbor, rather than one group of people entertaining another group of (mostly) strangers.
Urban life changes all that.
But there are still hundreds of sessions in small communities in Ireland and around the world where *everybody* (musicians and punters alike) knows each other, not just by name, but by job, family tree, and other personal details. This creates a far more intimate, communal atmostphere at the local session.
In short, the point of a non-performance session is to bring the ethos and mindset of a small, cozy house session to a public place so other family and friends can also participate.
As Barry Foy writes in his Field Guide to the Irish Music Session:
"What is as session?"
"A session is a gathering of Irish traditional musicians for the purpose of celebrating their common interest in the music by playing together in a relaxed informal setting...as an elaborate excuse for getting out of the house and spending an evening with friends over a few pints of beer"
"More like a concert or recital, then...."
"Wrong again. Although a few solo performances make for a well-rounded evening ,the general aim of a session is to get the maximum number of musicans playing together on the maximum number of tunes. In the same way a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig.... Those kinds of things fall into the category of *show biz,*fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions, which run on different principles altogether. The session is where the music lives and breathes, where it does its homework, where it flexes its muscles and idly picks its nose. If a musician has a mind to package Irish music for maximum marketability, or polish it to a dazzling sheen, or encase it in amber like some kind of prehistoric gnat, as session is neither the time nor the place to do it."
The only place here I would disagree with Mr. Foy is that some session do in fact operate along some of the concepts he deplores. I say, if that's how the members of those sessions want it, leave them be.
Incidentally, I like how Foy differentiates between a few "solo performances," which certainly can provide a nice interlude in an otherwise non-performance session. No problems with that. And he's very clear on how his notion of a session differs from entertaining an audience.
Kennedy, I disagree -- I don't think it's a "loaded question." I don't think there's any better way to cut to the chase. If a punter understands the subtleties of a session the way you claim he does, then he will recognize the flaw in that question right away.
Besides that, unless you just wanted to find out about the punters in your session's pub you'd have to travel all around the globe with this survey to answer the query on this thread. This discussion isn't only about your session the same way it isn't only about Will's session.
Perhaps my difficulty is that I have never been to what Whoosis calls "a performance related session", and didn't think such a thing existed. I just perform the tunes and songs and mind my own business, being the quiet unassuming chap that I am.
Will writes: "Kennedy, the problem here isn't finding out what punters think. It's that Jack already knows what punters think."
I never claimed to know what they think, I have said I'm basing what I believe is true on my experiences. I think you're basically doing the same thing, Will. The difference between yourself and I is that I'm not trying to find any possible way to deride you. I don't understand why you continue to do this sort of thing. I would prefer to be friendly with you, but you're not making it very easy with this and other similar snide remarks.
Jack continues to wrongly suggest that Kennedy and myself think this is only about our local session. None of us have ever even implied that.
I have to wonder why Jack fabricates meanings that aren't in our posts while ignoring the subtantive meanings that *are* there. I hope he doesn't think that's how people resolve their disagreements....
Come on, Jack, you did too. You've been very consistent in saying that you think they think sessions are "informal performances". You want me to go back through this gigantic thread and search for your exact words?
Foy's description of a session isn't being disputed here; I think we all agree with it for the most part. The perception from the average punter ‘s perception however isn't going to necessarily benefit from that description unless it's printed and handed out at pubs all around the world. They would have to have Punter Support meetings and discuss the intricate details regarding what is or isn't a performance as it relates to sessions. TV documentaries on the Discovery Channel and Special Reports on all the major news outlets might help. Perhaps they could run it on the tickertape that scrolls across the bottom of the screen when the news is on. Then we might begin to see a world where the average punter will walk into a pub where a session is in progress and he can say to himself, “This isn’t any kind of performance whatsoever.”
The only differences between my snide remarks and Jack's snide remarks that I can see is that I say what I mean rather than saying it in thin innuendo, and Jack's rarely have any basis in reality.
"loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase..."
This is why "Did you enjoy the performance tonight" is a loaded question. It implies that the music was a performance because it phrases it that way. Anyone who either did not understand or didn't really care about the question would tend to accept my phrasing and treat it as the yes-or-no question it appears to be and tell me "yes" or "no". To get them to dispute the question requires a lot of work on their part. It's just not good survey practice.
I spent too many years working in politics, I think...
Just for the record, the tunes I had in my friend's kitchen the other day - that was *not* a session. We were practising. That is, we were playing tunes together and sometimes stopping halfway through and repeating bits until we got them right. Bliss, I run a session of my own every week so don't tell me I'm ignorant about what a session is.
Strikes me as presumptious for anyone to assume they know what punters are really thinking, let alone asserting that the actual thoughts would be "lookit here, a bunch of performers presenting music to an audience" (that being Jack's treasured dictionary definition).
Yes, no doubt some people do need to be direclty informed about the differences between a session and a performance (plenty of evidence for that even here, on a web site devoted to sessions). But to presume that the vast majority of people cannot suss out what a session is by observing, listening, and reflecting on the differences says a lot about the IQ of punters in San Francisco. Or maybe Jack's premise doesn't accurate reflect what punter's think.
Will writes: "Hmmm...Jack's comments still give me that impression too."
What, that "not all sessions are performances"? I've been saying that ever since the original thread. My position is based on what the punter is likely to be thinking.
Regardless of what the SF punters think, the point is that Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions, which means that he is also denying the existence of punters who are able to understand what a session is as the musicians do. Therefore he is drawing a clear line between "musicians who understand" and "punters who do not". This implies strongly that he believes himself to be above the punters. Rather like bodhran bliss who thinks he's above everybody. So then logically you'd think that there's no point in arguing with someone with an attitude like that, because they're never going to listen to you or make an effort to understand your position. I gave up on the performance argument long ago. In fact I'm bored sh*tless about it. Isn't it time to lay this one to rest?
Hahaha... yep... sounds familiar all right. But the point is, as Kennedy pointed out, I'm epressing what I "think" -- something everyone else does as well. Why Kennedy singles me out for "thinking" something and trying to build a case against my position based on that is something I don't think I understand.
Whoosis, I will be at your session in January. I am moving to Montana to become rich.
I am opening an ear muff factory. People in Montana do not appear to listen to anything, not TV, music, nothing. Sounds as though I have a ready market.
And when I have sold everyone ear muffs what then, I hear you ask?
Thought of that. I will go down the mobile phone line. Ear muffs that have a camera, ear muffs which can download silence, ear muffs you can get the internet on, muted of course.
See yoou soon, Will.
And Noxious. What you were doing in the kitchen sounds exactly like Whoosis's session.
Jack, there's nothing wrong with you for thinking what you think. I just think your understanding of what punters think is mistaken. I've been trying to tell you why I think so, and maybe get you to concede that maybe I might be right. And you've been trying to get me to concede that maybe you might be right. It's a discussion. A civilized debate. You have more experience as a musician than I will ever have and I respect you for that.
I really wish I had gone to some of the sessions when I lived in California, I bet they're different out there than here on the East Coast. I remember going to a festival in Sebastopol and there were long-haired long-bearded men in kilts and tie-dyed t-shirts doing hippie-type dances and smoking pot around the music tents. It really was a hoot!
No bliss. I'm sure Will doesn't play 50 reels back to back, once or twice through each, stopping sometimes to repeat a single bar over and over again. Seriously, have you ever actually been to a session before because I'm starting to wonder.
Will, in the quote of mine you posted notice the use of the word "THEY." Notice it doesn't say "WILL." I'm not talking about you, the topic isn't about you or your session. I'm talking about people in general all around the world who refuse to accept that the average punter is likely to think sessions are some sort of informal performance. I never said anywhere that people can't have non-performance sessions. I'm talking about the average piunter's perspective... not yours, not Michael's, not even my own. I'm talking about the P-U-N-T-E-R. I also never said there are no punters that understand this aspect of what a sessions is or isn't. Is that clear yet?
Kennedy, regardless of how much respect you have for Jack as a musician, he will not respect you as a punter because he thinks you can't possibly understand what a session is (even though you've shown on this thread that you do - go figure!).
Kennedy writes: "and maybe get you to concede that maybe I might be right"
I'm not going to "concede" anything unless you can present evidence to convince me. I admit that my position is speculative, but I do happen to have a lot of evidence that supports it.
Regarding the kilted, fluffy-hat pewter cup on belt crowd at the Sebastopal fesival -- I never quite got all that. I actually try to see those bands when they play locally away from the festival while they're in town for it. I avoid the festival except on the occasion that Josephine Marsh enlists me as her body guard.
And I've said here quite clearly, several times, that I'm one of those people who gives punters more credit for their observational powers and intelligence than you do, Jack. I think the average punter does know the difference between a session and a performance. So "they" does include me. When you deride "them," you're deriding me.
And if you can't see that, then you're also deluding yourself.
So get off your misplaced air of superiority and consider just for a millisecond that someone else here might have an ounce of validity in a perspective that differs from yours.
Now, I'm not trying to disagree with Will just for the sake of it, honest. But but you made an assumption back up a few posts which is wrong to my knowledge. The comparison of urban to rural sessions is fallacious, I can't mind whether you were referencing Barry Foy or what. In my experience rural sessions in Ireland, and also one I've attended at The Eels Foot in Suffolk, the rural part of England I frequent, are VERY performance oriented, particularly when it is the turn of the next octogenarian to sing some almost-forgotten song, or a couple of players to do their own thaing as a duet, maybe a concertina and a fiddle playing some English tunes. I may have said before it may not be exactly my cup of tea but it is very touching to see genuine rural people enjoying themselves through their playing. But as each, or many of these, contributions are given as a display of local talent, if you like, these are very much performances, warmly given and warmly accepted. So that urban/rural division does not exist (in my experience - check out what I wrote on here about the Eel's Foot Years before this discussion.)
Well then we finally arrived, haven't we. The essence of our disagreement is NOT whether it's possible to have a "non-performance" session -- we agree on this point, nor is it that it's not possible for punters to understand or concept, which we also agree. And we agree about what a session is to us. The real disagreemant is about what we believe the average punter's perspective is when they come into a pub where a session is in progress.
I hope nobody gets the wrong impression about the Sebastopol festival---I LOVE that festival! You go for a long weekend, get there on a Thursday, take a day to drive around the Russian River wine country and go wine tasting, then have a whole weekend of fabulous music, with dinners at the great restaurants in town with all the local wine and desserts made from the local Pink Lady apples---there are very few ways I'd rather spend my time!
Some punters are going to think it's a performance and some are not. Why is it so hard for you to admit that some might not? Is it because you'd rather they *did* view it as a performance? How would you feel if all the punters at your session ignored your playing? Is *that* where the problem is?
Obnoxious Blanket writes: "Some punters are going to think it's a performance and some are not. Why is it so hard for you to admit that some might not?"
Now you're doing it too. My position has never been that there are no punters who understand that a session might not be a performance, and I've said it directly and clearly many times on this thread. If you can find anywhere on this thread where I said what you claim, (keeping my comments in contex please) then I will eat my beret.
PB: "The essence of our disagreement is NOT whether it's possible to have a "non-performance" session -- we agree on this point, nor is it that it's not possible for punters to understand or concept, which we also agree. And we agree about what a session is to us. The real disagreemant is about what we believe the average punter's perspective is when they come into a pub where a session is in progress."
Spot on, Phantom Cretin, we've finally reached an agreement. I'm sure Will will be happy that you've finally come round to our point of view and realised that the above is what we've been trying to persuade you of all along, i.e. that sessions exist that are very different to the one you have in SF, and that these sessions (like Will's) are NOT performances in the minds of both the musicians and punters, given that the musicians and punters present all understand what is going on.
I'm not particularly interested in the question of an "average punter's perspective". That's something you can't measure without a proper study with good data from a number of sources. I don't think Will would claim to be able to say what an "average punter" would be thinking either. So sorry, you'll have to find someone else to argue with you on that one.
How many times do we need to cut & paste that before you finally realise that you've been expressing your point of view in a way that communicates the opposite to what you actually believe? I'm quite happy to cut & paste it again if need be.
Danny, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all rural sessions are one one ilk, and all urban another, or that rural people don't also enjoy performances. In fact, the things you describe sound very much like the party pieces common at many sessions. But my understanding is that these are interludes, not how the session runs all evening.
So I was just wondering out loud about the historical differences in rural and urban cultures, particularly in Ireland (partly thinking here of the scenes in John Keane's novel The Bodhran Maker), and the possible influences that may have had on sessions. I didn't mean to sound like it was a rock solid theory.
Mark, what I was saying there, if you put it in context, is that no matter what you think you're doing in a session the average unsuspecting punter is likely to think it's some sort of informal performance. I've already explained this more than once. Are you even following the thread?
Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what an average punter is, let alone what he or she is thinking.
What I was saying there is that I disagree with your assertion that most punter's don't know the difference.
Go ahead and call me on it. I don't have a clue what most punters think. Nor does it matter to the substance of what Nox, Gill, David, Kennedy, Benhall, and myself have said here.
How 'bout this: the fact that us Irish trad musicians DON'T call our gatherings "performances" and we DO call them "sessions" argues that there might just be a reason for that. Why use a different word, with different connotations, if "performance" was a perfect fit?
My hunch is that for many of us, "performance" isn't a perfect fit, not is "informal performance." We mean something different when we say "session."
If Jack objects to our choice of words, and our sense of the term, I can't really understand why he spends so much time at a site called thesession.org trying to persuade its members that they're not at sessions (in our sense of the word) at all, but "performances."
Okay Jack, so you think the average punter is likely to think a session is some sort of informal performance. Will thinks the average punter is likely to know the difference between a session and a performance.
I didn't say you did. I acknowledge, Jack, that you said that you "think" your average punter blah blah blah. But you pulled me up because I said that I didn't think Will would claim to be able to say what the average punter thinks. Well, Will can say what he "thinks", but he doesn't claim to know for sure, so that's why there's no point in arguing about it without some sort of study with good data and proper evidence, and it's why you'll have to find someone else with whom to argue that particular point.
Anyway, thanks for finally coming round to our point of view, Jack. I know you want to argue some more, but there's nothing to argue about anymore. I hope this thread gets left as a reference, so if this subject comes up again, we can prove that we all agree. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
I'd like to see my point here addressed, so I'm repeating it:
How 'bout this: the fact that us Irish trad musicians DON'T call our gatherings "performances" and we DO call them "sessions" argues that there might just be a reason for that. Why use a different word, with different connotations, if "performance" was a perfect fit?
My hunch is that for many of us, "performance" isn't a perfect fit, not is "informal performance." We mean something different when we say "session."
Mind you, I'm no saying that other people who think of what they do as performing can't use the "session" word. I don't care.
I just want to be able to call what I like to do a "session," and not be ridiculed or told me and those of like mind are in "denial" every time I want to talk here about the differences between the sorts of sessions I enjoy and "performances."
Will writes: "If Jack objects to our choice of words, and our sense of the term, I can't really understand why he spends so much time at a site called thesession.org trying to persuade its members that they're not at sessions (in our sense of the word) at all, but "performances.""
Where do you get off telling me what I'm here to do? Saying that I'm here to "persuade" session.org members that "they're not at sessions." I have done no such thing. I have wasted most of my time on this thread fighting off your Straw Man arguments. The audacity to presume what my purpose is for joining this site is ludicrous. The irony here is that this is coming from a man who admonished me for presuming what his session was like -- even though I never did.
My position on this thread has been consistant. The average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is. How many times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in?
We acknowledge (again!) that YOU THINK THAT the average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is.
"...it is very touching to see genuine rural people enjoying themselves through their playing."
Danny, tell me someone else got hold of your keyboard! Sounds like an Oxford don reporting on the charming habits of the great unwashed, not the social activist we've come to know and love.
This has been my point as well. The majority of this thread has been having my position misrepresented by you and others so you can argue against it, (Straw Man) and me trying to present and defend my actual position during all the confusion. What you and other have been doing is using a logical fallacy to attack me. Why? That's anyone's guess, but I have no idea. Had it not been for your use of the Straw Man argument we would have arrived at the crux of our actual disagreement about 680 posts ago. If there's anything to be gained from this thread its how derisive and useless Straw Man arguments are. I hope we can continue on this website without ever resorting to that, (or the ad hominem as well,) on future threads. Is that possible?
We have shown that we are actually in total actual agreement, and that it was actually your way of expressing your opinion that made it seem to us as though you held the exact opposite view. But you know, it's kinda not our fault that you weren't able to express your views effectively and show clearly that you were in actual agreement with us. It looked to me for a long time that you were actually disagreeing.
Hmmm. First I was going to say that I never implied this was the only reason you come to this site. Obviously, you've engaged in other conversations, posted tunes, etc. So yet another straw man from the scarecrow himself.
But then I got to thinking. Let's see, you've "wasted most of [our] time" on three threads totalling over 1,500 posts because you're so intent on being "right" that you continue to say, over and over and over again, "The average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is."
(Sorry, am I quoting you correctly here? I don't want to have to come back to this and 'substantiate' any 'accusations' I may make of your behavior. Though it seems you've added a number of equivocations to your original concept. Now they're "unsuspecting" punters, and they're only "likely" to think that it's "some sort" of informal performance. Seems we're not so sure of ourselves as we once were.)
And yet you've never direclty answered any of the clear, rational counter-arguments I've offered, nor those from Michael, Nox, and David. In fact, you've either attacked our points with irrational red herrings (the bit about the loggers on LSD who denied cutting down the tree they felled, or that bit about the flyer explaining the invisible musicians--if that really was, as you yourself said, the "only" way you could think of educating punters, then you're worse off than I thought), taken our words out of context and twisted them, and repeatedly ignored well-reasoned, salient points that challenge your ideas.
So maybe that is why you're here. And maybe that's why you didn't get along so well over at IRTRAD either. And why you recently got chewed out over in the tunes section for disparaging a respected member here for how he submits tunes. And why, even after he explained precisely why your words offended him, you offered no apology, just a lame excuse. Well, not even a lame excuse. You simply denied comparing his dinxters to dirty words, even though that's exactly what your earlier post did.
Right then, enough of what we think punters think. What do we think? Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists? Just straight answers. Yes or no. There's enough prevarication already.
I'll have to do your voting for you. You change it if you disagree, or add if I've missed you out.:
Sorry, Will, I didn't make a Straw Man argument, I have been consistent about my position, I have tried my best to defend it, and I have avoided getting into an exchange of insults with you. I also get along just fine at IRTRAD, so I have no idea what you're on about with something that has nothing to do with this site, and dragging whatever you can from other threads or tune submissions that you believe will support you defamation of me will ultimately say more about you than it will about me.
As for me, I'm satisfied now that to any subjective observers my position is clear and I have successful defeated your attempts at misrepresenting my positions. This has been made clear now in several private emails as well. I'm happy to end my involvement here with this thread; you can carry on if you wish.
If you want to discuss any other issues that come up on this site without the derogatory innuendo, and you're willing to accept my positions as I state them, then I look forward to any future discussions.
I've just spent an hour reading this and I tell you what. If you take out the repatitions, the whole thread is actually only about 150 posts. And there are instances of contradictions, but, heck, the vast majority of these I could atribute to the refining of opinions. And there are instances of both button and whoosis using withering scarcasm, so there are no saints.
With respect to the Button, he never did say that ALL punters thought sessions were performances, only the average punter. And he has always maintained that what they thought didn't effect his music.
Though with respect to Will, I did find it very difficult to discover that reality, as Button's tone really is inflametry.
I'm tempted to suggest that the next person who decides to argue the question of whether or not sessions are, or are perceived to be, performances, be given a first hand acquaintance with a wicker man.
All sessions are performances. Unlike newcomers like Noxious I have played at sessions since the 1960's, I even helped to revive "The Favourite" in London. All sessions are performances, you perform the tunes.
Now I have played in places that not one solitary person was interested, but it was still a performance. I mentioned a place in Dublin 5 days ago, I think it was called the Fisherman, people travelled for miles to go to the session in it, and not one of them listened to the performance. But there excuse for being there was because there were musicians performing.
The musicians, myself included, never paid a blind bit of notice to anyone but ourselves, and played for our own enjoyment for hours. A real session, people playing half a tune asking others if they knew it, then maybe a couple of them playing the same half, a bit like Noxious's kitchen, great crack, a load of banter and tunes.
Still a performance, as far as those uninterested people who had travelled miles to be there were concerned.
And we did perform the tunes.
Obviously Noxious you are too inexperienced to have experienced kitchen sessions. And yet you have, but don't see it.
Over the last twenty years the best "sessions" I have had were three of us, every Wednesday in a kitchen, two guitar singer songwriters, and me with mandolin and blues harp, occasional whistle, singing songs, practising songs, smoking blow, those two drinking, more blow, more songs, lets write a few songs, half songs, try this ending again. Absolutely brilliant. But still performing.
And Noxious, you are practising in the kitchen, because when you go to a session to perform, you don't want to look bad in front of the uninterested punters.
Right, Bliss, here you go. Climb on in, it's much more comfy than it looks. Would you mind holding my golden sickle for a minute while I strike a light?
Whoosis, I drink pints of blackcurrant juice. I remember starting a digging match nearly in the Fisherman in Dublin because the barman tried to charge me a pound for it. The punters didn't even notice that.
Thank you Noxious, never try to defend the indefensible, first rule of discussions.
Whoosis mentioned somewhere "An air of Superiority", implying a "I must be right all the time" attitude. Only a person with an "Air of superiority" would even think of using that expression.
And your chief supporter seems to exude the same condition.
We call this the session.org because a session is where we go to perform.
The question I have after all this is: Has this been more of an argument or a debate, do you think?
I understand the two words are somewhat synonymous, at least in everyday usage. But they also have a subtle difference, and once I ask the question “which is it?,” any intelligent person should assume automatically I’m talking about the subtle differences -- not the similarities -- between the terms.
So is this debate or argument?
I submit it’s argument. Here’s my reasoning: Debate, as differentiated from argument, implies a more-or-less public forum the purpose of which is not to have the participants sway each other’s opinions so much as to put their opinions before a neutral body – a group of legislators, judges, audience, etc. – and perhaps sway the opinion of that neutral body. An argument, on the other hand, implies a battle of words in which the participants’ main purpose is to persuade, convince, cajole the opposition. There can be witnesses to an argument, but their involvement as witnesses is irrelevant (providing the police don’t get involved!), and the only way they become relevant is by becoming a participant.
Does that seem like a fair distinction?
This thread is clearly in a public place. Anybody can wander in here, listen or not listen as he or she chooses. It doesn’t seem to matter to the participants.
I’d call this an argument.
Now I’ve been knocking around this site for a few years, so I guess I know what the purpose of the site is. But let’s assume I just stumbled in here, say like poor ol’ Starting Over did a little while ago, with no real knowledge of what you guys and this site are all about.
I would submit that, as an uninformed bystander, I might, for a moment, read this thread and assume the participants were trying, by way of debate, to teach me something. But I don’t think it would take me a very long time to realize that my presence, the presence of anybody but the participants, is entirely irrelevant to the participants. I could chime in, if not with an argument, perhaps with an “attaboy, Bliss!” or a “go get ‘im, llig.” While that may or may not have a positive effect on the efforts of the participants, it still doesn’t change their intent, which is to persuade the opposition, and I think I and everybody who really have read this thread can instantly recognize that fact.
It’s clearly an argument, not a debate. That argument holds up, I think, against all arguments except the one that insists the words “debate” and “argument” are perfectly synonymous. And if someone refuses to accept that there may be subtle but necessary reasons why we have those two words instead of just one word, I admit that I’m powerless to argue, debate or really even communicate with a person like that.
And can I add: anyone that insists the words “play” and “perform” are perfectly synonymous are merely arguing. And if someone refuses to accept that there may be subtle but necessary reasons why we have those two words instead of just one word, I admit that I’m powerless to argue, debate or really even communicate with a person like that.
I never argue, hear me, never, so don't say I do. Hear me? Never.
I discuss and debate. And I have obviously made loads of new friends during this thread. Some others are arguing.
And after 5 days of trying to decline/decipher the word "perform" you now want us to argue about "discussion and argue".
Are you looking for an argument?
Jack kind off agrees with me, as do a number of others, and discuss this. Many others, especially Kennedy who I have not encountered before disagrees with me, but has entered some great posts as a discussion, and has won my attention, and strikes me as someone you could have a great nights talking with. (without having to perform
Noxious and Will also agree with me, but because they are arguing, and arguments mean winners and losers, they are not going to admit it.
The term Christmas is offensive to non Christians, and is a prime example of the decadent western world trying to dominate and brow beat all opposition.
A bit like this discussion. Close to 800 posts.
What a performance, a marathon session.
Do I get a prize for having just ploughed through this whole thread on my lunch break? Nox, you should get that snore seen to, it's so loud. The way it stopped suddenly suggests a bit of Obstructive sleep apnoea
Harsh Blister - but dont get snarky and call Dow a newcomer - he cant help it that he is waaayyyy younger than you. Dont worry - in another 40 or 50 years time he will get there!
The core problem is not whether this is an argument or a debate, nor whether you perform at sessions or not, nor whether non-playing patrons think you do or not, nor EVEN whether you like bodhrans or not.
It's this.
Some of you are spending far too much time on line.
Go for a run/walk/cycle ride.
Watch dumb telly for a while.
Read a book - I'm currently devouring JG Ballard's The Empire of the Sun and The Kindness of Women.
To be honest I have hardly played a note because of a virus. But I *have* learned a fair bit of computer stuff as I'm doing the ECDL. So in between spreadsheets and MS Access details I ve been coming on here to watch the fireworks.
“The thing about performance, even if it's only an illusion, is that it is a celebration of the fact that we do contain within ourselves infinite possibilities.”
Sydney Smith
Correct bb, every year people get older. However in forty or fifty tears Noxious will still not get there, as I will be forty or fifty years older.
I notice Noxious says he "runs his own session". What does that mean? How can you run an impromptu non-performance for nobody? It should just happen, unless you are running some sort of performance.
And in forty or fifty years he may know what a session is, there is always that to look forward to.
I am now off to perform my ablutions. Not showing off or anything, just having a crap. But still performing.
At work we have a Performance Management Framework scheme, to measure an employees performance. Now these are office workers, and they are not measuring showning off, back flips, or anything like that, they are simply measuring the work you do, your performance. Fill in a spreadsheet, that is your performance.
This isn't going to make the thousand post mark, is it? I can feel it fizzling out. We should have tried it with a thread with a correctly spelled title.....
God your so thick. At work you perform for your pay. Too right your employee should be able to measure the work you do.
Like a judge in a music competition, measuring your performance.
The whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself. I know I'm talking to a brick wall, but someone else may be listening. My views are, after all, in the majority
Don't know if the spelling correction will help Ottery, but to help you push this on towards the 1,000 mark, here's my twopence worth:
"What style of bodhran playing do you like, and why?
On stage, many of the above mentioned stars of the Bodhran world have their place for sure, but that sort of playing for me, doesn't belong in a session, but I'm sure, at least I would hope, that they all have the sense & wit to tone down their playing when playing in the small, cozy environment of a session.
It may well be that some of their admirers don't have the sense to know when to 'turn it on' & when to 'turn it off', hence some of the 'bad press' that ye olde Bod-u-ran gets!
In any case Saint, the finest Bodhran player I've ever played with in a session, is one Mickey McIlwaine (sp?) who lives in Cookstown (sorry Paul & Bliss ).
No pyrotechnics, back flips or somersaults, just 'in tune' & lovely 'steady as a rock' playing, using a seemingly but no doubt deceptively very simple style which just seems to flow quietly along with the music ...very, very tasteful!
I believe he used to play a lot with Jim McKillop.
AHA!
Michael, you said:
"The whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself."
But apparently it's alright to measure others?
I was looking for something else and came across this comment you made on another thread:
"Actually, I try to work it the other way round. Where every one is welcome. Until they prove themselves beyond redemption. Then they get either frozen out or told to shut up"
That should be good for another half dozen posts ....
Quite agree Ottery. If it was not a performance would it matter if there were 36 bodhran players at a session? Would Michael object, would Noxious say "this is great fun in an informal setting".
Somehow I think not. I do not ask Whoosis, he wouldn't hear them.
Quantum Physics as in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle might apply. "The very act of observing a phenomenon (by punters) inevitably alters that phenomenon in some way."
Of course, apparently Heisenberg was an incompetent Nazi:
Sherlock Holmes (The Copper Beeches) on "punters", or in this case the public.
"What do the public, the great unobservant public, who could hardly tell a weaver by his tooth or a compositor by his left thumb, care about the finer shades of analysis and deduction".
A bit dismissive to say the least. But Sherlock was noted for his egotism, selfishness and his conceit, although he himself denied all three. he had "an air of superiority about him.
Are any of you posting here really Sherlock Holmes? Not pointing the finger at anyone.
What?!!? is saying that all sessions are performances.
He's also saying that it's impossible for musicians to play in public without performing.
And that you can't perform unless you eat the night before.
He insists that all musicians force each other to perform at sessions.
~~~
Don't ask me to substantiate any of this because I've learned well from certain members here that you can make up outrageous statements about what other people say and not expect to be held accountable or prove any of it.
I would like to add that David is being very sarcastic and condescending. He has also lowered the discussion to a schoolyard argument. Don't ask me to explain because it's not based in facts, but as I've learned from certain posters here -- that's ok too.
So if you call me on this of course I'll just keep repeating the fabricated statements over and over until I actually start believing them myself, but don't worry... as many times as you ask me to stop saying it, or ask me to point to the quote that would support my accusation -- I can just ignore you. Ha!
I hope you all find this sort of thing as liberating as I have. Now we are free to misquote and insult each other's intelligence without any recourse. Isn't it great?
So are we going to have an armistice on this for Christmas or is that also too politically incorrect. Then in the New Year we can start off with "Dose anyone like Concertinas". Whereupon the discussion can become a performance for the waring parties.
Okay guys, this really has gone too far. Jack clearly doesn't realize that it's his own behavior he's describing. And he's obviously very upset over this and is taking it very personally.
That's a shame because we're all here for the love of the music. It's not about winning an argument, or singling out one person's pattern of ugly rhetoric (after all, that's Jeremy's call). It IS about sharing our passion for this music and the whole social tradition that goes with it. If someone doesn't like Jack's behavior, and Jeremy lets it stand, then they can ignore it and not respond to it any more, or they can spend their time elsewhere.
If I've learned anything from this thread, It's that the debate certainly isn't worth stooping to his level over.
David you are like sooo pathetic. You blatantly use ad hominem tactics and insult Jack outright, and then deny it in your next post as if nothing ever happened, even though your words are right there above, in black and a very pale dull yellow colour. God I wish you'd all just stop being insulting to Jack. Just because aliens don't shed tears doesn't mean they can't feel pain or sorrow.
Yes,
I did say the whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself.
Thank you for pointing out my inconsistency. I should not have said, "the whole point is not to be measured" because, and this goes to the root of it, you have no control over who wants to or is measuring you. The trick is to not let it effect you. I should have simply said that you should not measure yourself.
I was wrong, I said something illogical and contradictory, someone pointed it out, and I recant.
Nox writes; "You've always misquoted and insulted people's intelligence"
Time to play your hand, Mark. I know you won't find anything to back this up because it isn't here. I already asked you for your evidence and you have ignored me. On the other hand, I've already extracted from this thread where you have done this to me. I will be glad to show you either here or in private... the choice is yours.
Ah...sorry lads, I thought this was the room for an argument.
I have watched this thread grow (out of proportion) for quite some time now. Perhaps online communities function like hippie socialistic communes. Everyone starts with a patch of grass (pardon the pun) but everything is shared - knowledge, wealth and experience.And everyone works towards an agreed upon goal. Then after a couple of years the rot sets in, and it becomes about how it was you who smoked the last of my stash of banana leaf, and ignore that bastard only stirs everyone else up and three years ago you were cool...but you've changed man, you've changed!!! and then the real violence starts. Shouldn't you all be running about banging bodhrans and singing about the age of old hairyarse?
Or maybe we should take the approach of lynch the guy who started it all...What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by saint
Only kidding saint, but If I wanted to judge how healthy an online community is I would just have to trawl through this bog to get a good idea.
(No offense to the word from on high It's just that this is giving me the
Michael,
I take my hat off to you - you are a rare thing on this board, someone for whom the truth is more important than showing that you are right(!)
Will writes: "Okay guys, this really has gone too far. Jack clearly doesn't realize that it's his own behavior he's describing."
Time to play your hand too, Will. Both bb and Ben said they read this thread and couldn't find anything to support your claim that I was "sarcastic" and "condescending."
bb writes: “But I really dont see that Jack has said anything more offensive than anyone else on this thread.”
bb continues: “Will - we are all adults here (sort of) And hopefully we can all work this out ourselves - asking for Jeremey to step in is just another form of killing that old favourite of your land 'Freedom of speech' - If you think it is offensive, thats ok - because sometimes things are said that are offensive in every day life- on the telly, by politicians, by musicians etc etc - we have to learn to deal with it ourselves. You cant have someone come in and stop people talking - then we turn this site into a dictatorship. And that is just stupid.”
~~~
Ben Hall writes: “However, I don't get why Whoosis is so relentlessly attacking PB. It seems to me he keeps accusing PB of things he himself is actually the instigator of. For instance, to someone who has not participated so far in this discussion, it's failry clear if you read all the posts that PB has been trying to argue calmly, but is constantly accused of sarcasm - that I can't find anywhere in his posts - of being insulting - which, again I can't find; and the last one took the biscuit. Whoosis accused PB of being the one to suggest bringing Jeremy in. Now, I *have* read every post on this thread. If I've missed it, I apologise, but to me the first time it was suggested was in these words: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." - Whoosis. If I've missed an earlier post of PB's suggesting this, then please point it out, and I'll apologise for my error.”
~~~
Then Will, you respond without any actual quotes to support your claims, and instead offer your spin and add a few more fabrications
Will writes: “Benhall, Jack's the one who suggested I give my "evidence" to Jeremy. I didn't call on Jeremy, only said that I was disappointed he hadn't weighed in yet.
And I'm not just talking about my session here, but many sessions I've been to with a similar bent. And the way the old codgers thought about playing the music.
The bit where Jack says I'm refuting the dictionary to support my argument, calling it "Brilliant!" is where I see Jack resorting to his rhetoric of degradation. He either deliberately ignored the substance of my post there, or didn't bother trying to understand it. And then he dredges up his old tactics of saying that people who think sessions aren't performances are in denial, and then we get the surreal bit about the flyers to punters.
Jack's not discussing the ideas here on their merits, he's belittling people for disagreeing with him, and then playing innocent and even victimized.”
~~~
But Ben Hall isn’t buying it and replies: “And, I'm sorry Will, but I think you're being disingenuous. If you didn't intend to provoke Jack by bringing Jeremy into the discussion, then I don't know why you did it. In the circumstances, I thought Jack's response was reasonable. He didn't call on Jeremy's assistance - you did, at the very least by implication.”
~~~
I have also asked you repeatedly to show me where I said the things you claimed I said. All were ignored. The only thing you came up with was a lame attempt to convince us that when I say "they" that I'm referring to you specifically.
So it’s go-time now Will, show us your hand. Here's a few quotes of yours to help jog your memory and get you started:
"Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions"
“Jack, I'm tempted to let you off the hook, but I can't. Your reasoning is flawed, and whenever someone reveals that flawed reasoning, instead of re-examining your position or posting a reasoned explanation of it to move the conversation forward, you resort to cheap sarcasm, ridicule, and patronizing language. I'm calling it as I see it.”
“It's not what Jack wants a session to be that I've argued against here, but his insistence that my session and others can't be anything but a performance.”
“And I really don't care whether Jack gets this or not. But it does strike me as rude and insensitive that he persists in telling people here that their sessions must be performances”
“And Jack if you don't get it, I can't be any more clear. You're behavior here is rude and offensive and disengenuous.”
“Jack get's it in his bonnet to ridicule anyone who thinks sessions can also NOT be performances.”
"Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions"
“Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience."”
~~~
Remember, Will, actual quotes... no spin. Make sure I'm directing what I say directly at you personally, as you claimed.
As for me, I'm of to bed after playing for a lovely set dance. It was definately a performance for us, unlike our sessions. But I suspect the punters are not likely to have fully grasped that concept.
I agree with you Jack. I think Will should be punished in some way. I mean, what he's done is horrifying. He's irreversibly blackened your name across the whole wide world, and now if you try and go to a session in Ireland, the UK, Europe, Canada Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and even other parts of the US, people will whisper about you behind your back, and they'll say "you must be watchful for he is the dark one", and nobody - even your own band mates - will ever want to play tunes with you again, for fear that they may be seen as performing.
We should talk about how to punish Will for what he's done. I think he should be locked in a soundproof room for a week and subjected to out-of-tune morris tunes played at high db levels on a piano accordion.
What we want to keep this thread going until the end of time - or until Jeremy's server falls over (whichever comes first) - is a parliamentary debater who is skilled in waffling on for hours on any subject under the sun until a parliamentary bill is "talked out".
Come to think of it, we have at least three gentleman on this discussion who already appear to be so qualified.
They have something like that in the US Senate called the fillibuster. Any Senator can get up and take an unlimited amount of time to delay the start of a vote. Some of them have raised it to an art form, reading long passages of books, meandering on extemporaneously, you name it. I forget the record, but I know that a few have gone on for longer than 8 hours.
The mind of the musician: nature or nurture?
The mind of the musician is capable of synthesizing internal music that is heard almost exactly as performed music is heard. It is capable of responding emotionally to musical experience in a manner shared by other musicians. All musicians agree that major keys are bright and minor keys sombre. All respond emotionally in much the same way to pentatonic modes (music using only the black keys on a keyboard). Many keyboard musicians share subtle emotional responses in common to different keys, although equal temperament tuning is supposed to make the intervals between all semitones the same. The latter capacity also seems to have survived several changes in the frequency of the standard pitchfor music (see also The chromatic mind). Many musicians have 'perfect pitch' the ability to name with complete accuracy any note played. Musical physiologists believe that this capacity is possible because such people have an internal standard of pitch a reliable memory of a single note, such as A (440 hertz) to which other notes are related.
Musicians can not only perform known music internally, creating ideal performances that they might not be able to match on the concert platform, they can also perform new imagined music, both as an almost unwilled improvization and in a controlled and carefully structured manner. The ability to convert printed music to internally heard sound is remarkable. A musician will pick up a score of a string quartet and will at once 'hear' the music. In the same way, the creative musician can translate what he or she hears in the mind into a complex score. Many composers do not compose on an instrument, but in their head, writing their composition down without having to play it first.
Musical memory is another extraordinary feature of the mind of the musician. It is a commonplace of musical biography to read of pianists learning a new piece from the music while travelling in a train and giving a creditable public performance without the music, on arrival. The German conductor von Bulow even memorized the whole score of a symphony by Stanford in the course of a train journey and was then able to conduct the work without score. Menuhin reports a remarkable instance of musical memory by the Romanian violinist and composer Georges Enesco (18811955). Enesco and Ravel were trying out a new violin sonata that Ravel had just written. After going through it once, Enesco suggested that they play it again just to be sure that everything was right. To Ravel's amazement, Enesco dosed the violin part and played the whole work entirely from memory. LisA's favourite pupil, Karl Tausig (184171) is said, by the age of 29, to have memorized every important work in the whole pianoforte and harpsichord literature as it then existed.
The question of musical taste is a difficult one. In general, taste is related to the overall standard of musicality and grows with musical education and experience. It is, of course, variable. Some executive musicians of extraordinary skills are capable of displaying lapses of taste that horrify the discriminating. On the other hand, taste which includes originality and unpredictability is generally deemed to be the most important element in determining artistic quality both in performance and in composition. Today, a very high standard of technical performance is expected of all professional musicians and, to a large extent, the factors that distinguish the great from the merely competent are those indefinable elements we mean when we talk of taste.
The kind of music for which a musician is best known does not necessarily correspond to his or her ideal of taste. Economic factors may detemdne the direction of a musical career. There are even cases on record in which a high level of taste can be inhibitory. Musicality, as we shall see, runs in families. When one highly musical family was studied it was found that there was one member who, in the opinion of the others, was quite devoid of musical talent. On investigation, however, this man was found to have all the elements of musical ability present to an unparalleled degree significantly greater than those of his very famous brother. It turned out that he was intensely musical but that the level of his taste was so high that nearly all the music he heard sounded banal and boring to him and he could not bear either to perform or to hear it.
Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason. It does not seem to be necessary to be particularly intelligent in order to he a capable musician; indeed, some mentally retarded people show high musical sensitivity and even talent. For these reasons it has occasionally been suggested that musicians are commonly short on intelligence. This is a typical case of arguing from the particular to the general and it is as wrong as such arguments usually are. There is no evidence that musicians, as a class, are any less bright or more bright, for that matter than a comparable group of nonmusidans. The distribution of intelligence seems to be the same in musical populations as in general populations. It has to be said, however, that musicians in the highest class are commonly supremely intelligent people. Professional distinction in music demand the same high levels of intelligence as distinction in any other profession.
It seems possible that obsessivecompulsive neurosis (or perhaps just plain superstition) is commoner in performing musicians than in the generality of mankind. There are numerous tales of the eccentric antics of instrumental players, singers and conductors arising from this particular idiosyncrasy. The pianist V1adimir Pachmann could never get his piano stool at the right height. It is on record that he asked whether anyone in the audience had a train ticket he could borrow. Other pianists will sit staring at the audience until the silence is absolute and no one dare breathe. Shura Cherkassky must always step on to the stage with his right foot first, and his ~ice time is measured exactly to the second. Ludano Pavarotti has to find a bent nail in the floorboards before beginning a concert. The conductor
Artur Rodzinski always had a loaded gun in his pocket when at work on the rostrum.
Professional musical performers differ from ordinary mortals in more ways than the purely psychological. If they are to be successful they require certain innate physical abilities some of which are rare outside the world of music. Carl Seashore, the doyen of musical psychology and physiology, once put together a battery of tests called the 'Seashore Measures of Musical Talent'. These include such things as the ability accurately to discriminate pitch and interval, to maintain strict tempo, to analyse rhythmical patterns, to appreciate subtle differences in loudness, to distinguish differences in timbre (such as the difference between the same note played on a clarinet and on an oboe), and to understand phrasing in a succession of notes. What may surprise many people is that one of the important standard measurements of musical capacity is the ability to move the fingers very quickly. People with a naturally slow tapping rate less than about seven taps per second, averaged over a 5 second period can improve to some extent with practice, but will never become virtuoso performers. Seashore says that the tapping rate, in association with steadiness, precision and endurance, deserves to be rated highly in the selection of young musicians for training. Few people can achieve more than 12 taps per second.
One aspect of the musical mind that seems incomprehensible to nonmusicians is the ability to dissociate musical activity from everyday thought and to engage in both simultaneously. A competent sightreader can give an adequate performance while thinking about something quite different. This is not to suggest that a brilliant performance is possible if the leader of a string quartet is having fantasies about the beautiful girl in the front row. But that it should be possible to do this at all is remarkable and tells us something about the nature of musical execution and how it differs from other mental activity. Edvard Grieg showed the manuscript of his piano concerto to Franz Liszt for the first time. Many guests were present and Liszt asked Crieg to play it. Grieg demurred, though, saying he had never
practised it. Liszt went to the piano and read off the work at sight, giving a remarkable performance. Astonishingly, in the course of this, at a time when his interpretation was at its finest, he started to talk to the guests about the work, indicating to one or to the other which parts he especially liked.
So how does the mind of the musician come about? There have been great arguments about whether musical capacity is inherited or the result of environmental influences, and these arguments still go on. Unfortunately, the same evidence can be used by both sides. There are numerous historical examples of musical families in which the talent appears in generation after generation. But a musical family necessarily provides an intensely musical environment to which new children are exposed. So the process could operate in. either way or both.
There is, however, a good deal of evidence to show that genetics is important in determining musicality. Take, for instance, the case of Mozart, who is regarded by many as the greatest musician of all time. Mozart certainly came from a musical family, but his talents were apparent at such an early age that they could hardly have been wholly the result of this environment. It must be remembered that the full expression of musical ability cannot occur before the neurological development of the individual allows it or before considerable musical education has occurred, so the very early years may show little of the potential. We have unique information in this context in the case of Mozart because, when he was eight years old, his musical powers were formally studied in London by the lawyer, antiquary and amateur scientist the Honourable Daines Barrington (17271800). This careful man sent a report to the Royal Society entitled 'An account of a very remarkable musician'. By the time Barrington studied Mozart the musician was already performing regularly in public, and it was in the course of one of the overseas tours in which his talents were being exploited by his father, Leopold Mozart, that Barrington met him. Barrington's report contains documentary evidence of Mozart's age, and records the boy's prowess at playing at sight from a previously unseen fivepart score. It seems that the boy was a better sightreader than his experienced father. The report also records Mozart's skills at improvization in various styles. There is a remarkable insight into the mind of the true musician, in that on being asked to improvise an angry piece, Mozart became so emotionally involved that, in the course of the performance, he was worked up to a frenzy, rose to his feet and beat the harpsichord like a mad person. Although his little fingers could only stretch to a fifth, he played with amazing skill and musical understanding, especially in his own compositions. In particular, he was able to modulate freely from one key to another an indication of remarkable musical maturity in one so young. From other evidence we know that Mozart was playing and composing at the age of four and that his musical memory was phenomenal. After hearing Allegri's Miserere in the Sistine Chapel, Mozart went home and wrote out the entire score from memory. This was a major work in nine parts scored for two choirs.
It is inconceivable that Mozart's musical abilities could have arisen and at such an early age from purely environmental influences. Most of the qualities that enabled him to become a musician of such stature and to develop into such a great composer must have been innate and hence of genetic origin. It is apparent, however~ that musical capacity is a complex entity: there can be no question of a single gene for musicality. This is an example of what geneticists call multifactorial inheritance, involving a number of different genes.
In Mozart's case, and in that of many other great musicians, we are dealing with an exceptionally rare combination of genetic factors that laid down the potential for high musicality. It is possible that, in the absence of a musical environment, explicit musical capacity might not have developed. But it seems likely that it does not require a highly musical environment to stimulate the musical interests and ambitions of people genetically endowed to this degree. If the underlying set of abilities is present, almost any exposure to music would prompt in the person concerned a powerful desire to hear and to make music. The greatest value of a musical environment is in its educational effect.
Much music will be heard, taste will be formed, and familiarity with the current stage of musical evolution quickly achieved. At this point, the way will be open for new and original creativity. This process can readily be followed in the careers of the great composers
KML, tell me you didn't just write all that but cut and pasted it from something you had "prepared earlier" like a cookery show! Still impressive though not sure what the relevance was. After this I really have to go to bed. THis thread is doing my head in and all I've done is read it and post once or twice.
Thanks for the article, Danny. I liked this bit: "Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason". Definitely relevant to this thread.
KML, what are those numbers in the parentheses after the musicians' names? Are those their mobile phone numbers? Can we call them during a performance to find out what ringtones they use?
Hi Guys - I originally submitted this article (*Not* written by me, no no no!) as the subject of a discussion a few years back, but got but one reply and that from an old mate of mine feeling sorry for me (boo-hoooo...). I quite liked the article when I read it, and as Marc O' Downox says it is relevant to this thread, so yes, i did copy and paste it - as a matter of fact I have been busy in the lab today (or rather sorting out other people's microscope and drosophila problems, my little role in the scheme of things) Trev, hence could only cut and paste stuff rather than write anything half-worthwhile. Here's the original thread:
Oh, I see. So this time you thought, Oh this looks like an interesting post, I'll read that...then when you got to the end and saw my name beside it you automatically thought, what a load of old bollox from Danny again, I might have known........
....as you quoted, "Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason"
LOL, Jack, contrary to your humble image of our relationship, I am not your puppet.
Several of us have wasted plenty of time already pulling out your specific quotes and demonstrating the lapses in your logic and your use of disparaging innuendo and sarcasm. No need to dig through all that again--it's clearly of no use because you've never responded reasonably to us when we've provided specific quotes. (At the end of my comment here, I will pull out one quote about sessions, not in hopes that Jack will get it this time, but for the sake of anyone else earnestly trying to understand all this.)
Besides, being well-reasoned isn't a popularity contest. Citing bb and benhall proves nothing--except perhaps that at one point in time they too missed the disparaging innuendo in your comments, and perhaps did not follow the logic in my comments. Nothing against beebs and ben--they have every right to their opinions. But that doesn't mean that their opinions are well founded.
I could pull out quotes from Nox, David, and Michael, supporting my assessment of your behavior, and you could say the same thing--that thei'e opinions are just opinions, not fact, and that you think they're unsupported by the evidence.
It proves nothing either way.
And quoting beebs and benhall is yet another example, Jack, of how you present yourself as being logical and reasoned, and perhaps even well-intentioned--as in, "trying to move the conversation forward." But all it really amounts to is another unreasoned attempt to come out on top by disparaging some of us for our views.
So here's Jack's post where he later says he can't say it any clearer than this:
[BEGIN JACK'S POST]
"Now I understand that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners, but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code. Let's look again at the meaning as it appears in the dictionary.
per·form v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience (punters)
Now I realize we aren't playing to the audience, but they're there, and some of them are listening, and that makes an audience.
audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or other live performance (other meaning session)
Since the dictionary has already defined that to perform is the playing of tunes on an instrument, then the punters in the pub who are listening become the audience that makes the event a "performance.” These are just the facts according to anyone who doesn't know or understand the ITM sessioner's secret code. Sessioners avoid the term "performance" because they don't like the connotation, and I understand that, but the rest of the world still goes by the English language according to the dictionary when they try to perceive what's happening at the pub during a session."
[END OF JACK'S POST]
Let's be clear about this.
Jack says that he understands "that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners,
but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code."
The problem with this is that other than Jack and Bliss, it seems very few if any session musicians talk about "performing" at their sessions. The vast majority of us (if the thousands of posts on this site alone are any indication) speak of "playing" tunes, "playing" or "sitting in" at a session. We "play" Irish music, we "play" our chosen instruments. I for one have never said, nor ever heard any Irish trad musician say, "I perform fiddle," or "I'm going to the pub tonight to perform some tunes with my mates."
So what's "perform" got to do with it?
This matters because it turns out that punters use the same language as us musos. Five year old girls run up to us and ask us to "play" a slip jig so they can dance. A friend at the bar asks us to "play" his favorite reel. Even When I meet people at a business conference and we get around to talking about what we do for fun, people ask me what type of music I "play."
"Perform" in this context *never* comes up, except at this yella board, when Jack and Bliss are around.
And there's the rub. Even though Jack says he understands that most session musicians typically don't think of themselves "performing," and even though he says he understands the distinctions we make between a session and a performance, he persists in interrupting conversations here to remind us all that sessions are "public performances." Jack has at times based this on the banal dictionary sense of executing a skill in a public setting, and several of us have pointed out that such usage, though perhaps technically correct, does not fit the real-world context and so actually hinders genuine communication rather than helping it.
Jack's other basis for calling a session a "public performance" is that at least some of the punters see it as a "performance" and themselves as an "audience" being entertained.
It is undoubtedly true that some punters, at some sessions, do see things this way. Jack says their opinion is as equally valid as the musicians' opinion. David, Michael, and I pointed out that this is relativism, and it doesn't hold water. If one opinion is a misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation of reality, it CANNOT be as valid as an opinion accuratley based on reality. The (rather dramatic) analogy we gave was rape. If the woman says no and resists, but the man miscosntrues it as consensual, it really is rape, not consensual sex. As David said, "no means no, boys." This applies to sessions as well. If the musican's intent is to "play" music to celebrate the tunes, NOT to present the music to an audience, then the session does not become a performance just because a few punters misconstrue the situation.
Incidentally, Jack never responded substantively to this line of reasoning. He simply goes on repeating his same position, as though if he says it over and over, it will become credible.
We've also agreed that some sessions ARE performances, because the musicians want it that way. We've said repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with this if that's what the session players want. We all know of paid gigs that are advertised as sessions, and sessions where the musicians enjoy performing to the crowd. Which is great, if that's what you want to do. But if you don't like it that way, find another session more to your liking.
But we've also talked at length about how some sessions are NOT public performances, and explained in detail how they differ from any semblance of a "performance." In these cases, the musicians and punters alike share an understanding that they are all participants in a musical, social gathering. Some punters figure this out on their own by simply observing how musicians and non-musicians interact at a session and noticing that it's different than the interaction at even an "informal performance." Some punters ask questions and learn the distinctions that way. And some punters are diplomatically pulled aside and told, "You don't have to clap--the musicians aren't expecting it."
In short, there's a reason--well founded on generations of people getting together to celebrate this music and their sense of community--that what we do isn't widely called a "performance." The word "session" means something different, or we wouldn't use the word.
All of which makes Jack's point--that some sessions are public performances, at the very least in the eyes of some punters who don't understand the intent of the session musicians--moot. All the more so on a web site devoted to Irish sessions for people who enjoy sharing and celebrating the tunes.
And agreeing with Bliss that sessions are performances, period, no matter how much we try to hide or deny it, is disparaging.
And saying that my local session is not how I described it (that I was just trying to "make a point") despite never having been to my session is arrogant and condescending.
And suggesting that we hand out flyers telling punters to ignore the music coming from the invisibile musicians is either an attempt at sarcasm to belittle my views or the looniest attempt at rational public education I've ever seen.
Actually, I was never entirely comfortable with the "whoosis" disguise. I took that screen name because I hoped it would allow certain people to think about my posts rather than who was posting it. Also, I was tired of seeing my real name abused and ridiculed on here. Having innuendo and sarcasm flung at "whoosis" helped deflect it a little.
I respect people's concerns for their privacy and their right to protect that privacy by using an alias for a screen name. Certain members here have very good cause for that.
But I also believe that aliases make it too easy for us to forget that real, feeling people are on the receiving ends of our posts. It dehumanizes the conversation, maybe just a wee bit, but given the digitized, lexical, long-distance nature of a web board like this, every wee bit takes us that much farther from the reality of flesh and bones people trying to understand each other.
Also, when fame or infamy doesn't preclude it, I find that using my real name helps create a sense of genuine, good-faith, reasoned communication (at least with people who are willing to do the same).
Reading some of this pointless stuff just makes me thankful I spend quite a lot of my time doing something I consider worthwhile....ie being a key facilitator in a Neurodegenerative disease (eg Alzheimer's) research centre.
My time to be smug.
Tell you why. It's not so much that repeating the same slagging match over and over and over again is boring to read...no no, honestly it's really interesting (snigger).
It's just that I marvel at the energy and time expended on these marathon posts, all to do what? Slag off another musician, or defend yourself from such slagging.
It really does beg the question - have youse nothing better to do?
No doubt I'll either get slagged off, or totally blatantly contemptuously ignored for this post, or, most likely, patronised, but I can assure you, I just don't care.
Will writes: "Several of us have wasted plenty of time already pulling out your specific quotes and demonstrating the lapses in your logic and your use of disparaging innuendo and sarcasm."
No one has found any specific quotes of mine that support your allegations, and the post where I got this quote only provided more spin. If you are serious about your allegations you have to provide the proof. I never said any of the things you claimed I did. I provided them for you in my last post; let’s see your proof. Otherwise your accusations are baseless and should be withdrawn.
All we've heard again in this post is more of your spin and errant lectures about "flawed logic." But I can tell you something about flawed logic: if you can't provide any specific quotes to support your claims -- your logic is definitely flawed.
As for my positions on sessions as performances: I have consistently pointed out that it's the PUNTERS who are likely to assume this... NOT YOU. I have always held the position that a session is whatever the people who started it want it to be. My comments about performances have been addressing the perspective of the average PUNTER that knows as much about sessions as you apparently know about logic. Punters by and large haven't given sessions much thought beyond that it's something musicians do in certain pubs they visit. They see people playing music in public -- it appears to them (not you, but to them -- the PUNTERS) to be some sort of performance. I never said all punters see it that way, I’ve never said they aren’t capable of seeing it, as you claimed I did without any proof, but I have said that I suspect most do. Got it?
~~~
Some of you might wonder why I bother to push this, but all I'm after is a little more honesty in our discussions. It's just that I don't think it contributes anything positive to a discussion board like this to misquote and misrepresent people's positions and then attack them personally for things they never said.
Wait a bit, KLM, what are you saying? That you're proud of yourself for solving the world's alzheimer's problems instead of wasting time posting messages here that are designed solely to bolster your online image?
Much as I agree with you that there's been maybe an excess of energy disposed of at this site, I think a lot of it has been because of matters of personal pride, for which there is no accounting. It's all good -- yours, theirs, mine...
At the risk of throwing gasoline on a smouldering mass of combustibles, here are my two cents.
I myself like sessions because the artifical barrier between "musicians" and "audience" often breaks down and even disappears. A person at the bar will pull out a pennywhistle and join in, a child will get up and step dance, an impromptu musical lesson will occur between tune sets, a musician will put down an instrument and say hello to an old friend, someone will start an old song and the entire pub will burst into song during the chorus. It is a fellowship built around music, but a fellowship without borders. To me, these are the magical moments that make a session special. Much of the above arguments draw lines between musicians and "punters" as if they were two different species, which to me misses the point. To me, the best sessions may have some structure, but are more notable for their inclusiveness than any other quality.
Al... contrary to how my position has been misrepresented on this thread, I never drew a hard line between the punters and the musicians. I think there are punters who understand what's going on and are compelled and welcomed to get involved if they like. Those punters are unique to the average punter and are likely to have had a lot more experience with sessions. But in that same pub there might also be punters who haven't been exposed as much, (or don't really care,) who might still think it's some sort of audience participation performance. It's no big deal to the musicians or those punters joining in, but you have to realize that there will likely be people in the room who see what's happening as a "performance." Does that mean you're "performing"? I don't think so. But for those punters a performance happened at the pub. Both the musician and the punter are correct based on each party’s own frame of references.
Jack, thanks for clarifying your position once again.
So you're saying:
"Some punters think it's a performance, so for them a performance happened in a pub, even though that doesn't mean you were performing."
And based on this "logic," you're saying *I'm* the one dragging this conversation down the tubes?
Jack, I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
And I'm sorry you don't understand the points myself, David, and Michael, and now Al, have made.
And I'm sorry that you think you DO understand those points, so you keep trying to convince us so, repeating the same tautology as though you're being logical.
On the off chance you're including me in your characterization, bear in mind you're not the only one here with a socially contributory job who's able to be productive at work and still participate here.
I wish I had a meaningful job. All I do is write boring technical manuals. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Reading the discussions here is a great distraction. It's even educational sometimes!
Coming home to my fiddle at night wakes up my spirit and lets me do something creative and fun. I gotta hurry up and go home...
Will, you need to ease up. I am certainly quilty of sarcasm, innuendo and satire, it's what I do.
But you are over the top. Example. You say that I talk about "performing at sessions" in my speech to friends or whatever. I have never ever talked about performing at a session in my life. Now you do not know me, much as PB has never been at your session, but I do not find your comment arrogant and condescending, I just think you are mistaken.
Now Noxious and I really insult each other, because we are the type of people with strong opinions, a sense of humour, and like to call a spade a spade. But when the discussion is over, well there is no animosity, just a good old argument/row/discussion. I am guessing that Noxious would agree with this, he knows I am winding him about inexperience and all that crap, and I know he is winding me. Some of the points cut to the bone, and we angrily reply, but Noxious and I are trying to provoke an angry reply from each other, to see who can make the other one "lose it". But two minutes later you realise it is a yellow web page, a bit of escapism. Now Noxious might really hate me, I hope not, but even if he does he is still amusing and likes a bit of crack.
You Will seem intent on winning an unwinnable argument, because we are all deliberately talking about the different meaning of the word perform.
For what it is worth, very little, this is my position.
To the average punter/regular, for every Kennedy there are 20 average punters, they see a group of musicians playing, those musicians are performing, a public performance, playing music in public.
Now the musicians know they are not "performing" in the sense of playing for the crowd, showing off, or anything else, but to perform can mean to play. I only introduced that earlier to prolong the discussion, because in one sense it is true.
But this whole nonsense is about "performing" to the punters, or playing for ourselves, and we usually do the latter. However the average person in the bar still thinks it is a performance, because they do not understand.
In N.Ireland I have met loads of people who object to sessions musicians "just playing for themselves". So they KNOW that the musicians are playing for their own gratification and enjoyment, but these moaners are average, not understanding punters, and still expect a performance, because they think that if you are playing in a pub you should, otherwise not play somewhere else. It is really that simple.
Michael, myself, Jack, Noxious, and most others know that what I have just said contains large elements of reality. They may not agree with all of it, they may deny agreeing with any of it, but they know what I am saying. You however Will, seem to believe that you have created a Utopian session or something. Maybe you have, which simply proves there is an exception to every rule.
Now when I came on here tonight after seriously arguing and twisting and spinning all day over the potential loss of 1,800 jobs where I work, I could not believe that we were now getting 10,000 word posts.
I was going to make serious fun out of that, but I have now written 10,000 words, just to say one thing.
Lighten up Will. And I mean that in a friendly manner. I am not for once being sarcastic.
And Noxious, I honestly believe that you would attempt to strangle me if we met, but the sad news, for you, is that you would end up liking me. We both like arguing for the sake of it, and we both like informed discussion, and we both have a low threshold for listening to crap.
LOL, Bliss are we not your friends here at the online yellow session? And do I really have to go back and fetch quotes of the innumberable times you've said something along the lines of:
"The mandolin bit was true, cut down on whistle and blues harp, but find myself increasingly given to playing the guitar and singing.
To put it bluntly, performing, at a session."
That's what I was refering to.
And my local isn't quite a Utopian session, but it's more like the old boys playing tunes in their kitchens than the scene you describe above. And many sessions I've been to are unlike performances to musicians and punters alike.
Besides, I realized many threads (not just posts--there's a long backhistory here) ago that it's impossible to win any argument with Jack. All I've been doing here is standing up for my experiences and values, which many other people tell me they share, when it comes to sessions having nothing to do with performing.
I'm not the one who's insisting another person's preferred session cannot happen, or they're in denial.
Will, this is difficult. That bit if you read carefully referred to our regular Sunday night in Barneys Bar. It is advertised in the paper as a Traditional session, but it is not.
We play tunes and that, some stuff sounds great at times, but we are being PAID as entertainers, so we sing well known Irish stuff, maybe a bit of blues/jazz/James taylor etc etc etc, and we even sing obscure lovely Irish stuff. In reality it is a paid gig, disguised as a session. So half is for us, half for the punters. I even admitted to performing the self penned blues number "All the women love me" which entails singing, blues harp, acting, dancing and innuendo. Some performance, and the punters love it. And that's just my bit on that number.
I told you all this 750 posts ago, and the object of the posting about the mandolin, blues harp, whistle, guitar and such was to wind up Michael. I was portraying myself as a multi-instrumental musician, not merely a goat whacker as Michael would say. But Michael is smart enough to know two things.
Firstly I am winding him up, and secondly, bar the blues harp, I am not very good on the others, although I am not bad at slow airs on the mandolin, couldn't play a jig or reel to save my life.
As I said, stop trying to win a wind up argument, lighten up. I am getting worried about your health. That may well sound condescending, but it is a genuine worry.
And old boys playing in the kitchen were performing for themselves and the neighbours. Think carefully of the 5 or 6 meanings to performing.
No worries about my health. You are either winding me up with a smile on your face, or you're very much misinterpreting my state of mind. Either way, you're wondering if I take this all too personally.
And that's the problem with wind ups, as with the one I cited above: no one can tell if you're winding up or making a serious point (or some of both).
So, you're last sentence above strikes me as another wind up, since we've been over why the sense of "perform" as "execute a skill" isn't germain to the discussion here.
As I said, no worries Bliss, your posts always make me smile.
Will writes: "And I'm sorry you don't understand the points myself, David, and Michael, and now Al, have made. And I'm sorry that you think you DO understand those points, so you keep trying to convince us so, repeating the same tautology as though you're being logical."
Not exactly... I never contested your points, but I have contested your baseless accusations against me and the misquotes and misrepresentations. My position on the whole session/performance issue has never changed.
My participation in these threads has basically consisted of myself trying to fend off the misrepresentations of my position, asking for substantiation of baseless claims about what I supposedly said, and defending myself from yours and other's personal attacks against me. I have never denied or doubted anything you claimed about your session, and I haven't denied or contested your understanding of what you consider a session to be or not be to you. The trouble started when I attempted to express my impression of what punters might be thinking when they come across a session, and then you began to put words in my mouth and interpret those words as my point. When I tried to point out that you had misquoted me etc., suddenly I was sarcastic, condescending and had flawed logic.
It's hard enough to discuss philosophical concepts like this without having to defend myself from being misrepresented and then argued against for things I didn't even say. All the while trying to express my actual points in all the confusion. Please think about this the next time we enter into any discussions or else we're doomed to just keep repeating the senseless discourse on this thread over and over.
Why is it nor Germain to here? It is critical. The punters think you are exercising a skill, as they do not possess the skill. That's why they think it is a performance.
And the last two posts were not wind ups. They were the serious ones.
Oh... and Will, I just re read Al's last post and the one I followed with. You said that I “don't understand the points myself (Will), David, and Michael, and now Al, have made”. When I read my post that follows his I'm failing to see where I'm “not understanding” his points, as you claim. Could you please elucidate?
Will, Button wrote:
"There will likely be people in the room who see what's happening as a performance. Does that mean you're performing? I don't think so.
I don't care whether he implied or said otherwise earlier.
Right, Michael. It doesn't mean you're performing, but the punter might go away thinking he saw a performance regardless. The question becomes: was there a performance at the pub that night? Well... it depends on who you ask.
My apologies if this has been covered (it probably has, sorry... and around and round we go).
Perception does not reality make.
What/s colder – the steel frame of your desk or the wooden desk top? The truth is of course that both steel frame and wooden desktop are at room temperature. The steel merely conducts heat from your hand more efficiently, and so feels colder.
Just because a punter thinks a performance took place doesn’t mean one did. He could be mistaken.
What I don’t understand, though, is how you could hold back from performing just a little bit. This music is infectious, most of it was designed to be danced to, and it’s supposed to hit the listener in some reptilian part of the brain that, if the player is doing it right, makes the pulse quicken and the foot tap. Like farting in an elevator—you might do it for yourself, but you’ve got to be aware that it will affect other people.
That's okay, fidkid. At leat you're reading the posts and comprehending them.
Yes, the music affects other people, but that doesn't make it a performance, any more than farting in an elevator is a "performance" (unless you can play the Star Spangled Banner that way).
"Right, Michael. It doesn't mean you're performing, but the punter might go away thinking he saw a performance regardless. The question becomes: was there a performance at the pub that night? Well... it depends on who you ask."
So PLEASE ANSWER THIS JACK, instead of ignoring the reasoned point that's already been made several times here (and not just by me):
If a woman says no and resists, but the man goes ahead and has sex with her imagining in his mind that it's consenual, is it rape or not?
I'm not sure the rapist analogy works, because the rapist, by definition, effects the raped. Where as what we've been saying is that the audience does not effect the musician.
However, the esoteric question stands as, was there a preformance? The scenario boils down to: some punters think they heard a performance, but the musicians didn't give one. I think it's straight forward to say the punters were mistaken. The fact remains, however, that the punters left thinking there was a performance. Does it matter that they were mistaken? I don't care.
Will, I've got KML sussed. I only writes stuff like that when he wants to wind someone up. Like "you lot are wasting your time do something useful and be a topclass scientist like me" and "go and play with some famous musicians like me" and "think of all the starving children in Africa while all you can talk about is music".
Bodhran Bliss, you're the worst. You include a few words of Nox windup in almost every single one of your posts, and even though I know it's a windup, and every single molecule in my body tries to ignore you, sometimes you write it in such a way that I have to respond. It's infuriating, but I guess I'll have to live with it grr
llig: "I think it's straight forward to say the punters were mistaken. The fact remains, however, that the punters left thinking there was a performance."
Maybe they get this mistaken impression from the tw@tty musicians who *do* actually perform (you know the ones - the 18 year old fiddler who does a 15-part setting of the Mason's Apron at lightning speed and then spends the rest of the evening playing solo Flook "tracks"). So perhaps we should be blaming these musicians rather than the punters.
And as I said Noxious, sometimes you have the same effect on me. But that is where experience comes in, (no wind up) as my job is discussing and negotiating, with livlihoods at stake, and modestly I must admit that I am good at it. Therefore I have to show restraint when confronting management, with every instinct thinking "you ar##hole".
Michael thank you for commenting on the rape scenario, otherwise I would have had to respond and it would not have been a pretty sight. Jack and I have stated 20 times that the punters could be mistaken, and 20 times that on occasions the musicians could be mistaken.
As for farting and the Star Spangled whatever, is it because it is a tune that it is a performance?
Re: OverDose and far beyond whether or not anyone likes bodhrans
OUCH! ~ When the analogies get this strong something is definitely wrong...don't you think? Besides, and I know I'm stepping in not completely informed, as you lost me ages ago and I've just dropped back in because 'rape' is being used in the conversation... BUT, what about the publican and their interpretation of things? After all, and you've had this argument going off and on for years now, aren't we there, wherever our session is taking place, but by the grace of the owner of the building or business ~ the proprietor? Shouldn't they be considered in all this? What if they think it is a performance, and you are just there because that's what they were wanting ~ to rope in the punters and get people thirsty and buying drink?
And please, let's try to keep away from bad and inflammatory analogies... I know I'm stepping on eggs ~ I judged the analogy of 'rape', but that word makes me wince, especially out of context, and I think this is way out of context...
One of the regular weekly sessions here is advertised in the pub's window and they put out a sandwich board on the sidewalk for further advertisement on the day the session takes place... I have seen this before, it isn't uncommon... Does that make it a performance, by virtue of the means of promotion? Again, the promoter is the publican, the proprietor...
bodhran bliss, if your job involves discussing and negotiating, why is it you are totally unable to form a convincing argument on this thread? Are you just crap at your job?
What I want to know is (and I wondered this at the time of the post): have I misunderstood this, because how is it possible to be accosted by a willy waggler from both sides? Did the offender keep running from one urinal to another?
When is, or is not, playing music in a pub session a performance? I think we'll only get a definitive (and useful) answer if a judge in court is ever required to consider the matter. Possible scenarios in which the matter could arise in a legal context may come to mind.
The judge may well have a mountain of evidence to consider - perhaps including points raised in this discussion.
Ceolachan, I admit that there may be the odd publican who runs a pub for his own enjoyment and gratification, but to most publicans all sessions are performances, designed to attract people and thereby money, to the pub. At the risk of sounding arrogant and condescending, to Will, they do not advertise "Private non-performance session -every Wednesday at whenever the musicians decide to amuse themselves".
And Noxious, it should by now be obvious that I use this site to practice outrageous statements, and see if people believe them, or take them seriously.
The only completely honest to God thing I have EVER posted here is that I am the best bodhran player in the world. (assuming that there may be others as good, none better, it is merely a matter of personal taste, and we all know Ptarmigan has no taste).
Why does the cricket start later GMT when it is in Perth?
fidkid writes: "Just because a punter thinks a performance took place doesn’t mean one did. He could be mistaken."
He's not mistaken in that a "performance," or as the dictionary puts it, "a presentation of an artistic work to an audience for example, a play or piece of music" did take place as far as he could tell. Other punters would agree as would most people he related the story to. But the musicians went away confident that they weren’t performing even though they played tunes in a public place where punters might have been listening. Other musicians would likely agree, as would anyone they explained it to.
So who's who's wrong? My hunch is neither. The punters aren't concerned about what the musicians thought they were doing anymore than the musicians were concerned about what the punters thought they were doing. But does that matter? Of course not, the event fit the criteria for both of their definitions.
Will writes: "If a woman says no and resists, but the man goes ahead and has sex with her imagining in his mind that it's consenual, is it rape or not?"
I think I already answered this... sort of. It was after you brought up "intent."
Jack writes: "Hey, this could be good allegory. If the actions of one man causes another man to die, whether it's determined to be murder or involuntary manslaughter -- someone's going to be doing some hard time."
~~~
Will writes: "So PLEASE ANSWER THIS JACK, instead of ignoring the reasoned point that's already been made several times here (and not just by me):"
Is this really necessary? Haven't we gained anything at all from what happened on this thread?
I haven't ignored any reasoned points on this thread. If I asked you to substantiate this you would no doubt ignore it as you’ve done elsewhere on this thread. Is the fact that I pointed this out and substantiated it the real reason you’re posting this bit? Do you really think this is going to promote goodwill and mutual understanding?
We all agree that some punters think it's a performance and some don't, but where we differ is that Jack thinks that the fact that some punters go away thinking it's a performance means that it's been a performance. So there you go. That's where we differ. We've found that out now. What are you trying to do? Sway people to your side so that everyone agrees? It's not going to happen people! There's nothing left to talk about. Apart from cricket. Tell you what annoys me. Why is it that Pommie batsmen (who presumably train regularly during the week) can only stand in front of a wicket for a couple of runs before being bowled or caught out in a real game? Is it just that they're crap and don't practise enough, or is it that they lack moral fibre? I want answers.
For those, like me, whose bedtime reading isn't always the works of the philosopher Jacques Derrida, you'll find what you need to know in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida
My experience in the past, as part of my job, of reading and analysing High Court judgments was that they were usually well-written, extremely well thought-out, and pragmatic in the sense that they were directed at finding real practical solutions for difficult commercial problems (if the problems weren't difficult they probably wouldn't have reached the HC).
Phantom, it's pretty obvious what David was on about. He wanted to show that he was willing to find some common ground with you, but you spat it back in his face, and still continue to do so by simply refusing to make an effort to understand him and listen to what he's saying.
Dear What?!!, Due to the fact that Mr Murdoch is a leech upon the World, and a power mad lunatic, you thought you could accuse me of offering support to him. Sorry, I follow the cricket on the computer, and I do not have Sky, "The Times" or "The Sun". The bas###d is not going to take over my mind.
I admit few from my background enjoy cricket, my father was interested in it, and I became addicted. My main sport is hurling, far removed. If you understand cricket, it offers a welcome burst of nerve tingling excitement after watching premiership football. To see those stars perform.
Jack has now repeated for the 21st time that punters and musicians can both be right in their interpretation of what happens at a session. Perhaps Will will get it this time.
However as there are usually more punters than musicians, certainly when I am playing, although something forewarns me that things may be different in Montana, and as democracy is modelled on the den of inequity or Mother of Parliaments that is the House of Commons, where majority rules and stuff the rest, the punters must be right. All sessions are performances.
And Noxious, in Montana the punters understand when you tell them to f### off.
We are fortunate at our Sunday night paid PERFORMANCE. Young punters began adding all sorts of obnoxious and insulting words to "The Fields...." that we are not allowed to perform it.
Well if they're crap at their jobs then they should bloody well be sacked, like anyone else in any other field of work. I hate all this pandering to crap sportsmen. I mean god, even I could last out longer at the wicket than some of these so-called professional cricketers, even though I don't exercise properly, drink far too much, and spend too much time playing tunes.
Never understood cricket - a bat and ball game (and a minor religion perhaps?) where it is apparently possible for two sides with different scores to draw. Probably something to do with my spectacular lack of ball-and-eye coordination when I was at school. Although that never affected my rugby playing.
Mark writes: "We all agree that some punters think it's a performance and some don't, but where we differ is that Jack thinks that the fact that some punters go away thinking it's a performance means that it's been a performance."
Why do you stop there, Mark? I said it was a performance as far as the unsuspecting punter was concerned. It wasn't a performance as far as the sessioner was concerned -- but they're both right because the facts verified each of their criteria. Both things happened in the pub the night of the session. Neither was wrong. Why is this so hard to understand? Does the musician's perspective trump everyone else's? Maybe musicians should rule the world if that's the case.
Yes, bliss, I think I finally do get it. Jack's point is this:
The punter's misunderstanding of what a session is remains valid because that misunderstanding doesn't disagree with at least one dictionary definition each of "performance" and "audience."
Never mind that many session musicians play primarily or even only for their own enjoyment.
Never mind that "performance" and "audience" are not the first words that come to mind (for many people) in association with sessions and drunks in a pub.
And never mind that this has nothing to do with how some sessions actually function in the real world, or the fact that session musicians chatting on a web site devoted to sessions might want to distinguish what they do from any sort of "presentation of music to an audience."
Never mind that we see sessions as a way of carrying on a core tenet of this musical tradition that's been passed down for generations--that it's about the tunes, not about the musician's virtuosity or ego, and building a sense of community, not "performer/audience."
Which leave me mystified why anyone--unless they were a clueless punter (which Jack clearly isn't)--would come onto this particular site and argue over several record-setting threads FOR calling sessions "performances" and punters "audiences."
Given Jack's position, I can see why he might not care what punter's think a session is.
But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters.
It's not at all hard to understand. I just don't agree with it. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't agree. And now I don't care. Please understand this: I DON'T CARE ANYMORE. I just want to have a laugh again and talk about something different. I'm off out to have some tunes now so I expect you to know all the rules of cricket by the time I get back.
Will, it doesn't matter if EVERY musician plays for his own enjoyment, THE PUNTERS, most of them, SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
Ah to hell. Will, you talk of disparaging and most of it comes from you.
You are the most self centred, self opinionated, egotistical, air of superioritied, unbending, "I am always right" empty head that It has been my misfortune to encounter.
Now that is disparagement in all its glory. Now come back please with something highly original like "f### you Bliss" and I will forgive all, as at least it will show you might be human.
Should never have got Ponting out, Hussey is next in. He will still be batting long after this thread is forgotten.
Will writes: "But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters."
Will, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I never said this, did this, or implied it, or suggested it in any way. Please point out where I disparaged you and the others talking about the great things that a session is. This is putting words in my mouth again -- why do you do this?.
First, there's the bit where you insinuate that I said punters are irrelvant, when what I really said was their misunderstanding of sessions as performances is irrelevant to musicians (a point which you now seem to agree with). Two different things.
The next post you agree with bliss that those of us who think of sessions as not perfomances (which includes me even if you're not addressing me personally) are wrong, no matter how much we try to hide it, and you add "or deny it."
Then you flippantly suggest we hand out flyers telling punters to pretend the musos aren't there and to ignore the music. No hint of sarcasm there....
In your next post, you say:
"The funny thing to me, Will, is that you and I agree completely on the perspective of the session musician. Our only stumbling block is the difference regarding the punters perspective. I will never be comfortable going into an environment that includes non musicians and pretend that they aren't there, or to ignore them if they try to express appreciation for what we're doing. I don't want to grill them and find out if they understand the session from my perspective before I thank them, and I don't want to ignore them, but to them it's a performance. So what's the big deal? So what?"
Which clearly says that the difference between you and me is that you aren't comfortable ignoring punters or their appreciation, implying that I am comfortable ignoring them. Even though I've explained at length how far we go to include them as participants.
Further down the thread you wrote:
"Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point."
even though you've never been to my session and have no idea what it's like. So you're saying you know more about my own session than I do, and that I'm lying just to make a point.
Then you write: "I love it -- Will's refuting the dictionary to support his argument. Brilliant!"
Misrepresenting what I've said. And I suppose there's no hint at all of sarcasm in that "Brilliant!"
In short, by saying you're not "as quick to dismiss punters as irrelevant," not "so comfortable ignoring them," and you live among people, "not above them," you're implying that I do dismiss punters as irrelevant, worthy of being ignored, and feel I'm above them.
Then you accuse me of lying, and then you start the straw men and ad hominems by misrepresenting my comments about dictionary definitions and disparaging my reasoning with sarcasm.
How's that for a start?
At the most basic level, Jack, just the fact that you dragged up this session vs. performance debate yet again (you were first to mention it in this thread) suggests that you enjoy stirring the pot on this topic. You seem to agree that the punters' perception of sessions as performances doesn't have to matter to the musicians. Nearly all of us are session musicians here. And some of us have repeatedly given good reasons for supporting the concept and reality of non-performance sessions. So why keep bringing it up on this site?
David, I agree. Most of the time I don't think Jack means to sound nearly as disparaging as his words come across. I certainly hope that's the case, even in the examples I listed above.
And Jack, I can understand why you'd get defensive when people (not just me) "accuse" you of being disparaging, etc.
So let's change our approach here. In genuine good faith, earnestly, would it help if I said it this way?
Jack, some of the things you've said here SOUND disparaging, sarcastic, and condescending to me. Other people (short list is David and 'c' on the tune thread) have said they felt the same way. Perhaps what you are saying is fine. But HOW you're saying it is coming across different than you mean it to.
I'll admit to using sarcasm on this thread. And I readily confess to challenging the lapses in logic I've seen in several people's posts. At some point, the sarcasm crosses the line from good natured slagging (we did some of that early on) to nasty rhetoric (and several of us wallowed around in that a bit).
Jack, I'm willing to rid this conversation of the disparaging tone, sarcasm, etc., if you are.
Will, none of what you wrote provides anything to back up this quote: "But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters."
Read your post again, you provided no evidence that supports your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance. Where did I say that?
Now I'll tell you one more time: "They" isn't "Will"... two different words. If you see yourself in it, that's your interpretation, but I didn't say, "Will is in denial." Got it?
Saying that I don't consider the punter's perception is "irrelevant" means just that. It doesn't mean I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
There was nothing flippant about my suggestion of handing out flyers; it was the only way I could imagine informing punters about the session that they were about to witness and how they should understand that it's not a performance. I suppose one could have them all go quiet so they could have it explained to them, but I seriously can't imagine doing either of these things. It still does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
When I said, "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point." I was basing that on your own description of your session and never implied that I knew what it was like. You obviously do, and you described it on this thread and others, and I referred to your descriptions. But we already covered all of this earlier in this thread. Why do you bring it up again? And besides, it still does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
I was truly amazed when you were refuting the dictionary. But that also does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
Will writes: "Then you accuse me of lying, and then you start the straw men and ad hominems by misrepresenting my comments about dictionary definitions and disparaging my reasoning with sarcasm. How's that for a start?"
Well... you WERE lying and arguing Straw Man and using ad hominem. But seriously Will, I really don’t see how what I said is misrepresented your view of the dictionary. But once again, this also does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
I still can't believe you're continuing along this line. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Several times now I have proven that your accusations are baseless, and that you fabricated my position. Please stop -- it's not doing either of us, or the massage board any good.
David writes: "I *was* trying to find some common ground. "
Ok, now I know what you're talking about. Yes, I could see what you were doing and I appreciated that, but I seized the opportunity to make a point using satire. But I thought I told you this when I said, "Oh... and as for you David... I realize your comments weren't directed at me, I just couldn't resist the chance for some good satire. Cheers."
Your posting and my satire opened the door for me to try to get at the thing about this thread that irritates me the most -- people putting words in my mouth and then ignoring me when I ask them to find the quote where I allegedly said it. This and the fabrications of my position along with the insults and derogatory innuendo is totally uncalled for. What's more, I can't understand why some of you are co-dependent with it. This sort of behavior has no business being on any discussion board... why is it tolerated here?
If Mr. Harmon and Mr. Gilder don't want to take their medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that they can have it some other way. But I don't think that they would like it....
1. a quantity of medicine prescribed to be taken at one time.
2. a substance, situation, or quantity of anything analogous to medicine, esp. of something disagreeable: Failing the exam was a hard dose to swallow.
3. an amount of sugar added in the production of champagne.
4. Physics.
a. Also called absorbed dose. the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed by a unit mass of matter, esp. living tissue: measured in gray or rad.
b. exposure dose.
5. Slang. a case of gonorrhea or syphilis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to administer in or apportion for doses.
7. to give a dose of medicine to.
8. to add sugar to (champagne) during production.
–verb (used without object)
9. to take a dose of medicine. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dose
So, tell me, which 'dose' are we actually talking about here?
& has anyone here picked up 'No 5' from playing the Bodhran?
I've realised that when I start reading Will and Jack's long posts, I don't know whose writing it is anymore until I get to the end of the post. You're just stuck on repeat now asking each other for evidence and substantiation. I think it's time for you both to call it quits and agree to differ, or if you can't even do that, just agree that nobody needs to get the last word, because let's face it, we've almost hit post #1000 and it's all been said now. Both of you are talking to brick walls as far as trying to "sway" one another to your points of view or get the other to back down and admit they've made wrongful accusations or whatever. Anyway, so what if you don't get your evidence. I don't think anyone on the board cares anymore! The only people left are the ones with very quick broadband indeed, and some time on their hands to read the thread, and it's sounding like a stuck record. Why don't you 2 talk about something else? You might find some common ground. Do you actually know anything about each other? Jack, have you read Will's book? Will, have you heard Jack's CD? Why don't you kiss and make up? Maybe you could even try and get the thread back on topic! Fancy that! We could talk about bodhrans for a change. I don't mind bodhrans, so long as there's only one of them being played in exactly the style I want to hear. I've never experienced that yet in a session, but I'm keeping an open mind until I do. So what about you two? Dose you like bodhrans?
oh no it is whose! I think I need an early night. It's a bit late to play tonight because I'll disturb the neighbours, but I might try and learn a new tune by hearing it in my head before I go to sleep. I've been inspired by that article Danny posted. Hear that, Danny? I find you inspirational
I'd quite like to hear what tunes people are learning at the moment. And we have to make it a rule that you're not allowed to mention anything to do with the above argument about the "P" word in your answer. I'm learning Donnelly's reel. I've heard it played a few times and have been wanting to learn it for months, but have deliberately put it off, so I could savour it just at the right moment. Dose anyone else do that? My favourite bar is the one that goes |dF~F2 cFBF|. I've never heard that particular twist in any other tune, and it always leaps right out at me.
Mr Button's assessment that two opposing realities can simultaneously exist with equal validity down the boozer is interesting science fiction, but ultimately pure hokum.
He sees it akin to two space ships travelling with no frame of reference. Spaceship A thinks it has overtaken spaceship B. But spaceship B thinks it was going in reverse and has overtaken a static spaceship A.
But sorry lads, The punters leaving the session are merely mistaken, that's all. It's not their fault of course (though any half intelligent punter assuming it was a performance should have suspected something was up when he saw half the musicians sat with there backs to him)
Though more important than all of this, is that it doesn't matter.
“Most of the cultural conflict in the world occurs when certain individuals or groups try to impose their phenomenological realities or truths on other people or communities.”
“The schizophrenic is said to have hallucinations and delusions which concern people and events that are not real.”
Reality is only - “in the mind, ... a product of our ideas.”
Now if the English cricket team were to get a piece of wood as a handle, attach a bodhran to it, they could send Collingwood out to stonewall at one end, and maybe Pieterson could score 300 at the other end for a famous victory.
What a performance that would be, although if there is no audience, thinking it all over, would it be a performance?
"In the matter of breaking eggs they were also divided into parties: those that broke their eggs at the smaller end were in power and had banished their opponents who broke eggs at the bigger end. "
Bliss asked: "..... although if there is no audience, thinking it all over, would it be a performance?
Well Bliss, the way I see it, some ego type musicians out there are only happy when 'performing', be it in front of an audience or only their fellow sessioners, so I believe the answer is YES!
Yer right Nox. You summed it up earlier. I, too, don't agree with Jack, and he doesn't understand my reasons, nor the fact that I do understand his argument--I just don't agree with it.
"Performance .... - the actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time which constitute the work. It can happen anywhere, at any time, or for any length of time. Performance ... can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body and a relationship between performer and audience."
"Sometimes the dividing line between performer and audience may become blurred, as in the example of "participatory theatre" where audience members might get involved in the theatrical event."
So I'm afraid, like it or not, a session is a performance, although many of those involved may not like to think of themselves as actually being performers - they are!
Oh dear, this latest relevation could well lead to another 980 posts.
A sesssion iws a performance.
A session is a perfoirmance.
A SESSION IS A PERFORMANCE.
In future the 16th December will be known as VP day, Victory for Performance, and celebrated world wide with session performances. The main session will take place in Will's pub in Montana, complete with muted TVs.
Mr Gill will don a clown outfit and lead a performing parade, complete with instruments, through the streets of Edinburgh.
Noxious will become a hermit, emerging every so often to curse and swear and shake his fist at performers.
What?!!! will retire, and wonder if the Aussies had not declared could they have scored more runs than posts on this thread.
Bliss will remain, as ever, quietly in the background.
Dear Abbey,
our banjo player carries the native American name "Tommy two tunes", because he never plays more than twice in any given evening. He keeps informing us that he is in charge of the "ambiance" section, and that interaction with the audience, slabbering to people all night long, is an integral part of any session. He would do well in Montana.
However, he is actually saying that this chatting to the audience is part of the session, and a major factor in the overall performance.
As you know Bliss, in the intimate atmosphere of a session pub like Tom's there is no way the musician's can put on their 'snob hats' & ignore the 'audience' as they shove past, push, & trip over us on the way past, to the bog.
But the fact is, some of the best nights in there are when 'the session' in an old Ceili sense of the word, includes almost everyone in the bar, while some slag us, comment on the music, joke with us & very often can even be coaxed to sing a song, or play their Bodhran (), from their high stools!
So on the best nights the session actually does include all of the audience too & we are all performing for each others benefit in a sense, but not in a 'show offy look at me I'm the Dogs crap' sort of way, but in more of a - isn't it just great to simply be a part of such a great night!
So, I'd say - more power to "Tommy two tunes"'s elbow!
Mr. Gill writes: "Mr Button's assessment that two opposing realities can simultaneously exist with equal validity down the boozer is interesting science fiction, but ultimately pure hokum."
If that didn't convince you, Mr. Gill, then please study the word below.
WOW
You probably think it says "wow," but you'd be wrong. What I actually did was write "mom" upside-down. But that's ok, how could you have possibly known that was my intent unless I explained that to you first? But you see, according to your logic -- you'd be wrong when you looked at that word and thought it said, "wow." It has all of the characteristics of the word "wow," so it must be wow. But that wasn't my intent you see.
So the question becomes, which one of us was right? My answer is of course -- we're both right.
Mark writes: "I've realised that when I start reading Will and Jack's long posts, I don't know whose writing it is anymore until I get to the end of the post."
Isn't that interesting. The irony is that I didn't know whether I was reading your post or Will's half the time either because you were just as prolific as Will with your ad hominem and fabrications of my position. If you would have tried to understand what I was actually saying instead of putting words in my mouth we might have finished this topic within the first 50 posts.
Ok Mr. David the wise guy... I'll reframe the question just for you. What is it a picture of, two profiles facing each other, or a silhouette of a vase?
From what I've read, special relativity is more supportive of reality being absolute. I think a lot of people have taken the word "relative" and run with it, leading to a popular misconception that einstein's model supported multiple realities. A better quote of einstein would be "God does not play dice."--himself rejecting the notion that a particle could exist at two points simultaneously.
None of this matters because this strange argument (which i have wasted all morning reading) is about perceptions, not reality. The vase/face picture demonstrates that a given symbol can be perceived multiple ways (however, it was clearly composed with this intent). It does not indicate that most symbols are likely to be interpretted this way.
But that was my reason for posting that image -- the vase/face picture demonstrates that a given symbol can be perceived multiple ways. What you believe you see in that picture could be either of two things.
The "WOW" being intended as "mom" upside-down demonstrates that intent doesn't dictate the perception of other people until they've had it explained to them. Both of these examples are relevant to the debate that came up on this thread.
Now, now, I don’t think what I said was unfounded at all. This week its Jack stirring the pot, last week it was MG, the week before, it was Dow and before that me, oh and Bodhran Bliss is in there somewhere as well. I have seen some really horrid things on this site, but for some reason what has really, really offended me, hasn’t offended say Will or Zeens or some other people. And vice versa - sometimes you guys get offended about things that I don’t necessarily find offensive. Just because I don’t find it offensive does not make my opinion less valid than the other opinions expressed on this thread. Also what I said about calling in Jeremy is true as well, and it worked, it was a heated argument, now it’s just a long and boring and totally snorish kind of thread. See. And we didn’t even need to call in teacher Jeremy.
Although - On the other hand, everybody is starting to annoy me re this thread - I mean, can you change the position of a John Howard supporter to vote for Bob Brown? I dont think so - for those non Australian's on the Board if you were talking to a George W supporter - could you make him/her change his/her vote to vote to David Suzuki if he ran for government? I think not....and this is really getting nowhere - even the windups arent funny anymore. Can we please talk about something interesting like Bodhrans or hornpipes or piano accordions or anything other than this!!!!
But now that you bring it up, Beebs, this might be relevant after all. What is the War in Iraq; a "war against terrorism" or an illegal military invasion and occupation to control Iraq's resources?
Did you convert your George W supporters to vote for and environmentalist or to vote Democrat?
Anyhow - I just mean that I'm scouting this site looking at the other threads and there is no one there because you are all still over here slagging each other off about nothing. And I really really do want to talk about Hornpipes or something and so can we not go to another thread and all be friends again? (excpet you Bliss cause youre not invited!)
PS - Not ignoring your question on the war Jack - but I know better than to talk about politics on this site
Thats part of my point, when you post it takes ages to get back on the thread cause its way too big. Lets go start a thread about 'Hornpipes vs reels -- which is better and why?'
"silver bow - if you ask David he'll tell you neither is right since it's just a picture of a vase and not an actual vase.."
I had a philosophy professor ask me once to sketch a triangle on the blackboard. Having done this, he told me I failed because it did not fit the strict definition of a triangle. We had first defined 'triangle' as a flat shape having 3 straight sides enclosing an area. My lines were not straight, and did not connect up at the ends. Upon correcting my triangle with a yardstick, he took out a magnifying glass and noted the area still was not enclosed due to spaces in the grain of the chalk. I gave up trying to correct my triangle, because I knew the argument could be taken to the molecular level. Instead I told him that I study engineering, and have created thousands upon thousands of triangles, and that my drawing was in fact a triangle.
All of this was leading in to a discussion on Plato's Forms of which I can remember little except that I am a 'conceptualist' rather than a 'platonist'. To me, elements exist in reality which we put together and give names. But the names are symbols we ahve assigned, rather than the object itself. What is vase? To me vase is not 5 pounds of porcelain arranged in a cylindrical configuration, but the idea of such. Vase is a symbol created by the human mind which we use to simplify our perception of reality (though this does not mean that vase or triangle are arbitrary definitions. There is a 'wrong' definition of vase).
That's all well and fine, silver bow, but if a few musicians go into a pub and sit down around a table, get out their instruments and play tunes together whilst the patrons of the pub are in the room as well, and some are even enjoying the music; what is it? To the musicians it's a session, but unless the punters are edified on all of the subtle aspects of what a session is or isn't, to them it looks like some sort of performance.
Which one is correct if the event meets the criteria for each of their opposing definitions?
When you answer this please keep in mind the black & white face/vase graphic, and the "WOW" (intended as an upside-down "mom")
As the Inuit have many words for different shades of 'snow,' are there really many shades of 'performance?' The LA Philharmonic gives performances, but then so do little girls playing for their parents. Perhaps it is the all-inclusiveness of that word that causes the disagreement here.
We did address the "shades" of what a performance could be already. Punters can distinguish the difference between what ever sort of informal performance they witnessed in the pub from a concert where everyone sat quietly and listened to a show on a stage; but they still are more likely to perceive the session as some sort of performance regardless, unless someone were to explain to them how it wasn't.
Well, I am not one to really debate the core issue of this thread. I have only been a part of one session (whoosis'), and only for a couple of months. I mostly got hooked in by the talk about the nature of reality, perception, etc. However, when I first saw the session (more as an observer than as a punter) I saw it as a bunch of musicians sitting in a corner, not too concerned with the other people in the bar (though not ignoring them entirely), and definately not looking as though they are getting paid or trying to promote themselves as an enterprise. Is that performance? Shrugs.
Ta Raa! Well done guys, you made it past the 1,000. I'm sorry I missed it, but we've been down the pub playing & singing for the past couple of hours. Unfortunately, it was one of 'those' nights - for you see absolutely nobody was listening to one word or one note ................... so if nobody was listening, was it actually a performance at all?
Ah... you're from Will's pub eh? Will has told us here on this thread that in the pub where his session is held, all the punters understand the distinction. I suppose you would be good evidence to support that. So now all we have to do is to ask the punters in all the other pubs around the world what they think and we'll have it sorted once and for all.
You 'do' realise that I 'was' being sarcastic don't you Button?
I mean, let's face it, even if they weren't actually listening tonight, they could still hear us, so it's not like we were like some old Bear in the forest that Farts, but if nobody heard it fart well then, did it really fart at all?
Or was that a tree?
No, silly me, trees don't fart, they just creak a bit!
Och well, you know what I mean.
Tonight I went to the annual Christmas party where the community of Irish musicians and their friends and spouses in the area gather for food, drink, and music. A great time was had by all and the house was filled with friends and tunes. Some sat on the couch, and others stood nearby and listened to the music. Everyone else was carrying on chatting, eating and laughing. We were performing tunes on our instruments but none of us were "performing." And because the crowd was made up of mostly musicians and their spouses, I think it's safe to say that everyone understood and appreciated it as a non-performance event.
Now as much as I'd like the pub to be like that every time we have our session there -- it isn't. There are moments when the only people in the pub are musicians (the barman sings sean-nos) and I think you could say everyone in the pub gets it, but those moments are fleeting. But even though some people come into the pub and think we're performing, it doesn't matter to me once the tunes start up.
The heart of what? You must define your terms before embarking on any debate.
And benhall, how can you think you may be wrong about this? Or rather if you think you may be wrong about this or anything, by definition therefore you believe that no matter what thought you have is incorrect including that said belief, so therefore by cancelling all that out you are right about everything. So you think. How arrogant!
Now we are using relativity theory to prove our points? This discussion has gotten to be like an object spinning into a black hole, moving faster and faster as gravity draws it in. Any resemblance to the original object has been destroyed by tidal forces. I look forward to it passing the event horizon, never to be heard from again.
I love the bodhran and have been playing since 1992. I think it has a very special place in Irish music. Just some examples of stuff bodhran legend is made of, the Joe Cooley album, old Jack the brother can play a fine bodhran. The first eleven Cheiftains albums with the goat skin heros, Paeder Mercier( don't forget Ceoltori Chulann)[someone correct my spelling] and kevin Conneff. The Crooked Road - Ceoltoiri Laighean with Eamonn De Butlear on the drum (thats what you call a loud bodhran played in best possible intensity). Most of De Danann's stuff (Ringo and Murphy), the guy who backs Josie McDermott on Darby's farewell reel. Lunny on Stony Steps. Best Planxty album with bodhran, without a doubt is 'After the Break '(East at Glendart changed my life). The Mary Bergin Albums. Colm's stuff with Martin 'OConnor (Connaught Man's Rambles) and Jackie Daly & Seamus Creagh. Of course, this is only a needle in the haystack yet. anyway gggggtttthhhuuuunnnkkk!
Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dose anyone like bodhrans
What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
May I add at this point that many of the derogatory comments relating to bodhran playing which will most likely follow in this thread are to be taken with several pinches of salt. I like John Joe Kelly's playing aswell. I heard a recording just minutes ago of Francis McIlduff of Belfast (more famous for excellent pipng and low whistling) playing the bodhran at first light. He is barely mentioned in the same breath as John Joe Kelly, Ringo, Junior Davey etc, but his bodhran playing is first class.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Sinocal
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Not literally at first light, as in early in the morning, but with the band At First Light.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Sinocal
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep, Francis Is a super player,not usually regarded as a bodhrán player.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by t byrne
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I must check out Francis. Im not a fan of Junior his a bit too busy for me i like solid playing.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I love bodhrans....the only problem that I see in most music is that they are not loud enough. The pitter pat pitter pat in the back ground just is not enough to get my blood pumping.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Hawthorn
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hello Hawthron
Check out Conal o Grada "Top of Croom" for flute acc. by my favorite Colm on bodhran. I agree pitter pat pitter pat is more anoying than anything .
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
sorry hawthorn
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Have you ever sat next to a VERY loud bodhran in a session? I have, in a session in An Teach Beag in Clonakilty in August this year. I couldn't hear myself play, let alone the whistle player on my right, or anyone else in the session for that matter. The middle-aged bodhranist on my left studiously ignored all attempts to get him to quieten down, and ten minutes after I joined the session the leader lost patience, reached across me with his foot and kicked the rim of the bodhran, making it perfectly clear that it and its owner were surplus to requirements. Our man got the message and immediately packed up and left. A rare case of someone literally being kicked out of a session!
Generally, I enjoy bodhrans in sessions here in Bristol. There are usually one or two in a session - one of them frequently being an excellent player from Norn Iron (hi, Jenny!) - and the playing in my experience only adds to the quality of the session.
I was told once about a summer school in Ireland where in one of the beginners fiddle classes the tutor was having a problem trying to get one or two pupils to loosen up their very stiff bowing wrist and hand. So he sent them along the corridor to a bodhran class for an hour's tuition. Problem solved.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The bodhrans at our session have driven away good players so we've attempted to solve the problem by requesting that only one of them play at a time. They seem to be a bit thick though, and when the craic gets going, they can't contain themselves, and they all (three or four) jump in and drown things out. They've been spoken to politely, yelled at, and shunned, but like I said, they're thick. I'm fairly new on the session scene, but my experience is that good drummers are rare. I suspect that any drummer who is a veteran of this board is good because they are interested enough in the music to really be part of it as contributors, not simply to hang out, drink the beer, and pretend to be "musicians".
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by jtrout
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Donnchadh Gough, John Joe Kelly and Tristan Rosenstock are all superb and unique players. My favorite player, however, has got to be Sean McCann of Great Big Sea, a fantastically popular band from Newfoundland that plays both traditional and original songs and tunes. His playing is not flashy, but it not only keeps the beat but, rather than adding to the music, it is the music. No one but Sean McCann, so far as I can see, has the ability to make the bodhran the core of the music, the central part that everything revolves around. That deserves merit.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Zazzaliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
By the way, when I say 'popular', I mean to say that I'm surprised and impressed that a group that has remained so true to its traditonal roots has managed to get national-if not worldwide-acclaim and popularity. I realized that the wording could be misinterpreted.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Zazzaliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think I hear Bodhran Bliss coming. (hand to ear)
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"has the ability to make the bodhran the core of the music, the central part that everything revolves around. That deserves merit."
Oh dear. Llig where are you?
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I once had the pleasure to be accompanied by Seamus O'Kane. He's definitely my favourite player.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by slainte
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
fear not, I'm here...
"has the ability to make the bodhran the core of the music, the central part that everything revolves around."
Oh dear, and all too often, the eedjit banging the drum is so useless at listening that everyone else has to just play along with them.
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/9423
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I love the kind of flat playing continuously insisting on the basses. There's a bodhrán player called Niall McQuaid I think, in Galway, he plays this way. hes the guy playing the bidhrán in Galway postcards
It's a very unassuming style, but I find it very up to the point.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by nutsmuggler
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just to second what has already been said about Fra McIlduff; he is a class bodhrán player and he certainly taught me a lot. He and his brother are great percussionists, althought they are both primarily known for their virtuosity on the pipes. In my opinion it's a great asset if you can play another instrument; you can appreciate the music and how it should be accompanied much more. No surprise that JJ Kelly plays a schneaky mandolin.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bodhran players can add , rather than detract, IF played within the players skill limits. e.g. even a beginner , if playing simply, and not too loudly, by tapping out the beat (in strict time of course) can 'set the pulse' of the music. A skilled player can add much more of course - see this video of John Jo in a recent session in County Clare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWXUEiFKUQ8
(poor video quality -but great playing). This clip was during a particularly exhuberant few minutes - but as a 'proper musician' he also knows when to hold back - or stop playing altogether.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Col Arco
Re: DOSE anyone? ~ like bodhrans
Dose = amount of medicine or poison administered at any one time ~ a measure of concentration varying from pleasurable to bearable to toxic ~ depending on the method of delivery can also result in extensive bruising and pain...
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by ceolachan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thank you ceolachan. Bad bodhran playing can be like a dose of the cl#p. Does anyone like Bodhrans? In the hands of a skilled musician they,like any instrument, can be fantastic. However, in the hands of a novice, they are usually truly destructive to the music. So yes, I love a well played bodhran......Such a pity it'e such a rare beast.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by woops
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Woops, "It's"....Case of the pot calling the kettle black.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by woops
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
When Trouble in the Kitchen let Benno loose on a bodhran solo it's amazing. I guess it's because when he isn't playing the bodhran he's on the flute or the guitar that he knows how to get it just right! Oh....and Gino Lupari is pretty amazing too!
I guess it's like any instrument - there are those who are amazing, there are those who just think they are amazing, and there are those who are pretty awful! (the good, the bad and the ugly!)
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by FiddleFancy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That vid above left me stone cold.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No, it's not like any other instrument. Even if you are really really good, all you are doing is repeating what the tune does, but without the notes.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks to those who replied to the question and for the rest of you , bad fiddle playing,bad banjo playing or anything else played badly can ruin a session.There seems to be alot of musicans who don t like bodhrans full stop. But i have reliased that the good musicans know what a bodhran has to offer.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, do you mean that literally? That a well-played bodhran just repeats what the tune does w/o notes? I don't know that I'd agree with that.
Still, I suppose, that's kinda-sorta what happens, and it explains -- at least to me -- why the bodhran is so unpopular. I like the effect, which happens in, say, symphonic work, by creating a whole new tone out of each note. But it's only really pleasing as a special effect, I'd say. A little bit goes a long way, which is probably why bands like the Bothy Band used it so sparingly. But in a session, having that sound occurring tune after tune is tedious, in my opinion.
That's another reason why multi-instrumentalists who bang the drum can do so well -- not only because they likely have greater sensitivity to the tune but because they occasionally don't play drum.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Punters love them, to answer the question, which causes much jealousy among "hierarchy" melody players.
Anyone with ears adjusts to the level at which it needs played, because a pitter patter bodhran at a full session is a waste of time.
For example, I was at a session the other week, one flute player and me, so I played by hand rather than stick. That is commonsense.
There are many fine exponents of the bodhran, all capable of enlivening and adding to a session.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
............Ilig Leahcim, in the green shorts. And in this corner, bodhran bliss, wearing red shorts and waving a matching red rag. Now I want a clean fight with no.......
Actually, all of the above is true at different times. What else is new?
We have a local tuba player who knows how much to play, and when not to play. In anyone else's hands.......
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It's just a drum for feck's sake.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just noticed someone says John Joe Whatever plays the mandolin. He will turn up on TV in that "Stars in their Eyes" programme some week as me.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mr Bliss's answer, "the punters love 'em", should be over on the Bruce's/Starting Over's diatribe of a thread.
I think the bodhran can have a very effective place in a performance setting or a recording. Donal Lunny is my favourite. But to say the punter's love 'em in a session setting shows up a particularly irritating arrogance. That of wishing to transform a session into a performance. And If you could find a session melody player who would be jealous of then, then that would be one tune player I'd rather not play with also.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Look in the mirror.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat"
Saint, I'm with you there.
Been playing the drum for over 20 years and learned in the (I later found out) "Kerry" style. Friends and relatives said I ought to see Flook so I did. Experimented with "Top End" style for a while (see JJK clip above) but Kerry style felt more natural to me and fits into the sessions I play in.
Saw Flook recently and JJK was playing mostly Kerry style apart from the tracks where Top End was part of the arrangement.
I agree with most of the above comments, apart from the silly ones. But they're to be expected.
\())
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by greenman
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss, just to clear this up, do you consider sessions performances?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Cieran Boyle plays best Bodhran in my humble opinion...He Plays with Idle Road.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Dave_
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No, but the punters do.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
that's interesting then. So do we agree? Do we agree that your statement, "the punters love 'em", while undoubtedly true, is, to the session playing musician, irrelevant?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ahhh... the crux of the infamous "sessions ARE public performances" thread in two posts.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, I thought my post would follow Blisster's.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
MG writes: "Bliss, just to clear this up, do you consider sessions performances?"
Blissters writes: "No, but the punters do."
Two posts = the crux
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks for the JJ clip its a pitty there is not more clips like this around.I just listened to Teada s new cd and the playing is excellent .I think Tristan has got it spot on .
Can bodhran bliss actually answer the question instead of talking sh*t.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PB, I think "irrelevant" is the operative word here. The point against which you argued at length--"to the session playing musician" any notion of performance is irrelevant.
And in my neck of the woods, some of the punters (i.e., non-playing participants) get it, too.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, some of the punters in our local get it too, but I'm not as quick to write off everyone in the room who doesn't "get it" as "irrelevant." It’s my opinion that we live in a world of people, and when we go out in public we are among them – but not above them.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As quick as whom? I don't write them off as irrelevant either, Mr. Twister. But I don't care a whit about whether they think I'm performing or not.
Besides, way I hear it, you *do* in fact tower above most people.
Me, I'm talling sitting down than when I stand up (short legs, long waist).
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Er, "taller."
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes they are a dose
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Red Robin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No one has mentioned Jim Higgins or Siobhan O'Donnell. Both understated players who use tone and no pyrotechnics although they are capable of it. I still go back to Ringo who I had lessons with this year on Inis Oirr.
Jeremy.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Tassiebodhran
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Saint, you tried to ask "does anyone like bodhrans?". I answered "punters do".
What part of that can you not understand?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And BT are still messing around with broadband, affecting my computer. It is a pity I do not need to practice, because I have nothing to do.
And who is Colm Murphy? Just proves there are lots of good players, I haven't heard of many on this thread, and I suppose some of them do not know me.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So, to re-cap:
1. You do not consider sessions performances.
2. Punters do consider sessions performances.
3. Punters like the bodhran.
4. You play the bodran.
There are only two ways you can reconcile this apparent contradiction. Either:
a. no matter how hard you try, you just can't stop yourself from performing.
b. No matter how many times a musician might say to you that they are not performing, you don't believe them.
Is this accurate?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep, this persistence in logging onto a site about sessions and telling us we're public performers reminds me of the habits of a certain Canadian keyboardist who was roundly berated (by some of the same people) for being undable to tell the difference between a session and a performance. Weird, really.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just like a drum can be beaten to death, so can a discussion like "are sessions a performance?".
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.
I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ahhh, there's the old Jack. Beginning to think someone had hijacked your nomde guerre....
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Correct Michael. But then,why should I deny the world............
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And I commend your stance Jack. Visions of "what are you clapping for you ######ers, we are not here" spring readily to mind.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The funny thing to me, Will, is that you and I agree completely on the perspective of the session musician. Our only stumbling block is the difference regarding the punters perspective. I will never be comfortable going into an environment that includes non musicians and pretend that they aren't there, or to ignore them if they try to express appreciation for what we're doing. I don't want to grill them and find out if they understand the session from my perspective before I thank them, and I don't want to ignore them, but to them it's a performance. So what's the big deal? So what!
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You assume too much, Jack. I don't ignore them, but we do gradually help most of the regulars understand the differences between a session and a performance. It's called communication, craic even. I'm not sure why you keep jumping to the conclusion that I ignore people or treat them with hostility. Imagining that you know how I behave or think in a session stikes me as strange, eh?
Some of the best craic we've had is joking with newcomers about how an Irish session works. Laura and Gail come to mind. Neither plays the music, but they come almost every week, sit close, and visit with us between sets, very much part of the circle. They've learned to "show appreciation" (if that's what it is) by buying a round instead of clapping.
One way to understand the differences might be to compare thesession.org with this site: http://www.performances.org/. Right in your neighborhood, too, PB.
Really, to me, insisting on this separation of musicians and "audience" misses a huge part of the magic of a good session. And misses the point and spirit of this site as well.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So how long does it take before the punters understand that you're not giving a "performance"? As for clapping; I clap too if I think someone played a tune particularly well. (I do this on tunes I'm not playing) Am I not getting it? There are also a few folks (non musicians) who regularly show up to enjoy the music, buy us rounds, etc., but they'll clap now and then for the same reason. I'm curious now... do you instruct people not to clap? Did you tell Laura and Gail not to clap? How did they come to avoiding it?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Clapping in and of itself isn't much of a bother. But it can get in the way. Sometimes a punter will start clapping, thinking the set has ended, but just because all of the louder instruments stopped doesn't mean that our lone mandolinist or a more tentative player isn't taking the opportunity to continue on a tune s/he wants to play and keep the set going. I've also noticed that clapping encourages the musicians to start pandering to the "audience," or hike up their anxiety levels because they're suddenly aware that they're "performing." Both indicate a shift in attention and attitude that can kill the intimacy of a cozy session.
We consciously do a few things to encourage participation in ways other than clapping. If a particularly rousing set gets them clapping, I've been known to tell the punters (with a big smile on my face), "No need for applause--it only encourages us!" Also, clappers quickly suss things out if they start clapping, thinking the set has ended, but we launch right into another tune. If one of the musicians later says, with a chuckle, "Help! Stop me before I diddle again!" or "Ha! We fooled 'em that time!" it takes the possible embarrassment away, but they still get the idea. In other words, we find little openings to draw people into our circle with humor and direct communication.
I've lost count of how many times someone new to the session experience has come up to me afterwards and commented on how refreshing it is to enjoy music played for its own sake.
Laura and Gail introduced themselves early on and started asking questions about how our session works. We lied to them mercilessly, but they figured it out anyway.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, and for some reason everybody always claps after a song, and we don't discourage that at all.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Point being that we don't have a rule against it, but we prefer to create an environment where people can engage without assuming that we're playing music for their attention or even benefit. They're free to sit and listen, join in, whatever. But they're also free to sit nearby, eat a meal, and have a conversation about the latest episode of Survivor.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
whoosis, Since singers tend to be more prone to vanity than instrumentalists, it is good that you folks clap for them to prevent hurt feelings!
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Heh, you said it, Al, not me.
Actually, I think what happens is that the lyrics beg people's attention. Songs tell stories, and we all instinctively respond to that, like sunflowers turning to the light. Instrumentals don't "mean" anything, don't require a casual listener to decode any message.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Um, so there's less need for a social way to mark the end of a string of diddly than for a song.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Your conduct doesn't sound any different than what happens here, but there are always people in the pub who want to show their appreciation regardless. To them we can only assume that they believe we are in the act of performing our skills on our chosen instruments for everyone's appreciation (including ourselves) and they just want to acknowledge it.
After they thought we were done only to find out we were still going a few times, they lose interest and settle into their conversation or whatever. Others who are more interested will eventually learn that it doesn't necessarily mean the "set" has ended and they'll wait to make certain if they intend to clap. Others still might have gotten the idea (as Laura and Gail did) that clapping isn't necessary even though they might be enjoying and appreciating the result of how we perform our musical skills.
And as you said: the singers get applause from everyone. But does that mean that part of the session is a performance and the rest isn't? Why even try to make a distinction? Why does the word "performance" cause so much controversy? Why can't we acknowledge that we're performing our skills in public but it's not a formal performance? I think even the punters understand that much. It just seems like we're demonizing the word "performance" when there's no need to.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No one is demonizing anything Jack. There you go again, ascribing attitudes to people whose heads you're not inside.
This conversation is similar in substance to the one with poor Bruce, for whom playing music means performing. I think the barrage from the peanut gallery here made it quite clear that many session musicians and session.org members don't see it that way. And "performance" is a term they'd rather not dwell on. It's a "session." We don't need another word for it.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Does anyone like bodhrans at these sessions/performances?
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "There you go again, ascribing attitudes to people whose heads you're not inside."
Not exactly -- I said, "we're demonizing the word" not "you're demonizing the word." To exclude the word all together and make it forbidden reminds me a little to much of when people become too PC about certain things... that's my point. I don't think it moves the discussion forward regarding what a session is or isn't. Instead, I think it's useful to acknowledge the word for what it is, what it means to the punter, and then move on.
The difference between the conversation we had with Bruce and this one is that Bruce was unable to separate the word "performance" from "session" the way you and I can. I do think you and I agree on what a session is essentially, where we differ is about the meaning of the word "performance." You seem to want it to be excluded all together even though the meaning of the word describes the act of playing music in public -- like we do at sessions in pubs. Whereas I recognize the perspective and experience from the punter’s point of view to be just as legitimate as our own. We’re all in the pub together.
# Posted on December 7th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Lol, then demonize away, Jack, but leave me out of it. Maybe you should've written "I'm demonizing...."
Heh, I don't care what word you want to use instead of "session." You can call it an enterprise, function, engagement, production, exhibition, affair, execution, etc. All of them perfectly good synonyms for "performance" (as in "we are now going to execute some tunes on our instruments"). And you can deal with the unfortunate or inappropriate connotations each of those might bring to your session. If you want to talk about sessions like a linguistic semantacist or ESL student, that's your perogative.
But given your stated understanding of how a session differs significantly from a formal performance, I don't see why you'd want to. You can "perform" your tunes to your heart's content...I prefer to play mine, and lower the risk of misleading people into thinking a session is a formal performance (which we both agree it isn't).
Why didn't Jeremy call this site www.theperformance.org?
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, that should be splattered with smilies like paint on a Pollock canvas. This is hilarious.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'd like to think I'm not demonizing the word performance, though I can understand people getting that impression. For that I'm sorry.
I like performances, I love a good performer, in the propper setting. I even liked performing myself, though long ago now.
And I agree that the topic seems a bit done to death of late. However, The interesting point about it, for me anyway, is that I think it very neatly defines what a session is (and given the name of this forum, we can't complain about that). Namely, live music without performance. And as soon as a performance element comes into it, it, by definition, is no longer a session.
Of course there are grey areas, like everything. And I've often participated in sessions that for one reason or an other turned into performances. Two grey areas that irritate me though, are 1. when the punters in the pub, usually through simply not knowing what's going on, demand a performance. And 2. when one of the musicians (or drummers) in the company start to play to the crowd.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A secular amen, to that, Michael.
And I hope Jack can see that I've gone out of my way to describe how I relate positively to the punters and anyone else in the pub (despite his insinuations to the contrary).
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Play = perform
play v
8. to use a musical instrument to produce music
per·form v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music or a play to an audience
~~~
When you're in public you have an "audience" whether you like it or not. Granted, we aren't playing to them -- but they're still there and think of themselves as an audience.
So I guess the bottom line is, as MG puts it, when the word "perfomance" comes into it he feels he is no longer participating in a session. This gives the word "performance" too much power in my opinion. If someone in the bar thinks the session is a performance it has absolutely no effect on me. I couldn't care less -- I still enjoy myself regardless, and it has no effect on the session whatsoever.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, can you see the difference in the two definitions you provided. One says nothing about an audience. The other does.
And Michael and I have just given two instances where the "performance" aspect *does* in fact interfere with a good session--(1) when punters demand a performance (insisting that you cater to them, and (2) when musicians start to play to the crowd for their own ego's sake. Both of these can ruin the intimacy of a good session, and they are examples of why your notion of audience is at odds with session craic.
It's not about the word. It's about the concept of dividing the pub crowd into players and audience, and all the attendant pitfalls that can follow. I don't mind an audience at my gigs. But I prefer my sessions with a roomful of participants.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I concur. If someone in the bar thinks the session is a performance it has absolutely no effect on me either. I still enjoy myself regardless, and it has no effect on the session ... (except, however, when that person claps loudly between tunes and complains when you sit with your back to them, etc).
But the being in public and having an audience thing is not as cut and dried as you state. An example someone came up with earlier was having a conversation in a bar. You are in a public place, so does that give the guy stood next to you the "right" to listen to your conversation? You are in public, and the conversation you are having is tailored accordingly, and if the guy next to you can hear it, so be it. Even if he wants to listen, to eavesdrop, that's OK. But is he "allowed" to laugh outloud at one of your jokes?
I'm not saying people should pretend not to be listening to your music, or that they should refrain from showing appreciation in some subtle manner, just that the polite thing to do is to realise that it's not their conversation. I disagree with Will here, I think there is a divide
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
To me, a session is like a potluck. I don't discriminate against people who didn't bring food or choose not to eat, even if I'm stuffing my pie hole. But it would be a bit odd for me to go to a potluck with the idea that I'm going to eat in front of other people for their entertainment....
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, the rewards of bridging the divide are wonderful. Sessions can be community events--neighbors, craic, and pints.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah-ha
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah-ha again. Michael has introduced a third concept, namely playing to the crowd. That is a whole new topic.
Liam Og O'Flynn could perform at the Royal Albert Hall, but he would not "play to the crowd".
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, sessions can be community events and they are great. But it's not easy in a town of busy itenerant tourists and rowdy students. I don't mind that I'm going to play music in the same room as them, but would mind if it was for their entertainment.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And yes, ther is a world of difference between performing before admirers and playing to the crowd. But I wonder where banging the bodhran within an intimate group of non-performers because the punters love it fits?
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Jack, can you see the difference in the two definitions you provided. One says nothing about an audience. The other does."
Yes, Will, I see the differences, but I also see the similarities. I did address that in that same post. When you "play" an instrument you "use a musical instrument to produce music," but when you play tunes in public you "present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience." The audience doesn't think they're "eavesdropping" or at a "potluck" (unless your session is happening at a potluck.) They're enjoying your performance whether or not you think you're giving one. Big deal.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Big deal."
Hint of sarcasm noted. So if it's not a big deal, why do you keep bringing it up at every chance, on a site about Irish sessions?
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
By "big deal" I meant we needn't be wasting our time on it.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, and quite often the people in the pub at our session don't think they'r at a potluck or a performance. They think they're at this peculiar thing called a "session." And so do we. So that's what we call it.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ours is advertised as such too, but it doesn't change anything for punters that haven't edified themselves about the ethics.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"By "big deal" I meant we needn't be wasting our time on it. "
Yep, but it beats talking about bodhrans....
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Advertised"
Ouch.
LOL, sorry, couldn't resist.
Jack, is your Grinter keyed? If so, which keys?
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
To tell the truth I play mostly mandolin on our Sunday session, because this is indeed a paid performance, and not a real session. We play a number of tunes, but we are required to "entertain", and would play to/for the crowd to an extent.
At a real session I would play the bodhran. Where that fits in with
"But I wonder where banging the bodhran within an intimate group of non-performers because the punters love it fits" I have no idea as it is a concept that is foreign to me.
Problem is Michael, you always jump to extremes, certainly where bodhrans are concerned.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If anybody ever even so much as indicates they're listening to the music at our session, we club them to death with a tenor banjo. It's just plain sensible.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Seems a shame to put something so soft and padded between a swung banjo and a hard place....
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Between a banjo and a hard place...heh, I like that.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
By "advertised" I mean it's listed as such in various calendars around the area.
The Grinter is fully keyed... and so is my bodhran.
I play the bodhran at our session because we seem to have frightened all the other playersl away. (joking) Because I also play flute and concertina it's impossible to play the bodhran too much -- often only once or twice a night at best. But I love to play it, and I love the sound. If another player comes in I usually just leave it in the case. If another concertina or flute player comes I'll play it more often to give them a chance to be the only flute or concertina on a few tunes. If another flute or concertina player is there... and another bodhran player as well... I uh... flirt with the ladies more. If the other flute, concertina, or bodhran player is a ladie I would like to flirt with... I just sit there and listen politely...
... or go for pints.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Perhaps I should have said it brings out the worst in you, Michael, the mere mention of the B word. Your usual humour, and reasoned argument, seems to desert you.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blissters writes: "To tell the truth..."
Don't change your habits on our account.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Got me.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The mandolin bit was true, cut down on whistle and blues harp, but find myself increasingly given to playing the guitar and singing.
To put it bluntly, performing, at a session.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bliss the heading is "dose anyone like bodhrans" look at the ? i think your knowlage of bodhrans is limited and sully is embaressed
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
it all about quailty
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Two thoughts: (about sessions/performances)
If a group of individuals sets up in a public place like a restaurant or a bar and has a private conversation at a volume that might intrude on everyone else's enjoyment of that public place, they have a responsibility to be sensitive to those other people's needs. (I'm acutely aware of this, having recently been seated with a group of very loud and obnoxious clients in a beautiful but very reserved and quiet Paris restaurant.) Obviously the punters can't impose topics of conversation on the group, but they can expect them not to use foul language, break out in fistfights, etc. In the same way, the output from a session needs to be "pleasant" in fairness to the other people who share that public space. So it's not a public performance in the audience-versus-stage mold, but it is to the extent that punters have a right to expect quality music.
Why clap for singers and not for tunes? For some reason, our culture sees singers as going out on a limb much more than players of musical instruments. The clapping is usually more to encourage the individual and congratulate them for taking a risk, rather than to compliment them on the song or its performance.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What does the publican expect when s/he invites a session? It would seem to me that it is expected that punters will enjoy it and hence stick around and spend money. At one of the pubs we play at it is required that we will be playing among the punters (paying customers) and not in the more comodious and quiet back room.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by feardearg
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, I appologise. My usual humour does escape me when I talk about bodhrans, though not, I hope, my reasoning. But it's hard to reason with someone who glories in "performing, at a session".
Mr Bliss classes himself as a multi insrtumentalist, but the one the thing he does not do is play the tunes that are the backbone of what everyone else here accepts is a session. By his own admission, they bore him. And I don't blame him, it would be boring to simply bang a drum along with them all evening, in the same way that it would be boring to sit at the bar and just listen to them all evening. At the very least, he seems intelligent enough to realise this. Instead, he'd rather perform.
Grego's take on why people clap for songs - to congratulate the risk of it, - is interesting, but i'm not sure it's the whole story. For starters, there tends to be silence from the punters for a song and this is for two reasons which are interdependent. The first - and it was mentioned earlier - is that the narrative that is the words asks, especially to non musicians, for a more structured approach to listening than do instrumentals. The second it that performers are attracted to singing for this reason. Bliss's attitude is a classic description of this.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm really beginning to despise these bodhran threads.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by newfie percussionist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, have you met me? Who said I do not play tunes, who said I glory in performing at a session, who said I do not like tunes?
I perform, musically, for pay. At a session I join in,in a quiet unassuming manner as befits the world's supreme bodhran player. You may find someone as good, or you may prefer someone else, but they will not be better. All a matter of taste.
And my dear Saint, you mention beginners like John Joe Kelly at the start of this thread, and then suggest I know little about bodhrans. Surely a contradiction there somewhere.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think the singers get the unanimous applause because the cues are so clear. The room gets shushed, everyone's paying attention, the song has a clear beginning and end, etc. And about the applause: depending on how well the singer does the applause are either for the performance or just the relief that it's over.
# Posted on December 8th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mr Bliss, it's difficult sometimes to clock the difference between bravado and serious comment, which is as it should be of course. I can't be arsed to search the back catalogue for your postings, but, correct me if I'm wrong: I seem to remember you talking about playing O'Carolan tunes on the mandolin, and the lownesome boatman on the whistle, and the blues moothee. And I think I remember you talking about the value of the inclusion variety of stuff because of the tedium of jigs and reels. And I seem to remember you talking about not having the dexterity to play jigs and reels fast enough. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, I don't know you, (though I suspect we would have a bit of a craic if we met). Though you must admit, the statement, "at a session I join in, in a quiet unassuming manner," is a little at odds with you cyberspace persona here.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes Button, but why does the room get shushed?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Because... unless the room is shushed you can't hear the singer at all. Also, it's impossible to sing if there's noise in a room like that. You can still hear the tunes provided punters aren't screaming at each other or laughing like rabid hyenas. Also, the tunes are continuous throughout the night and the punters don't feel they have to give them undivided attention as they would during a formal concert. Why do you think the room gets shushed?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's a brilliant answer mate. Absolutely no sarcasm, I love it.
"The tunes are continuous throughout the night and the punters don't feel they have to give them undivided attention as they would during a formal concert." Perfect.
Why do I think the room gets shushed for a song? The two reasons I mentioned above, inherant narative of words and projected ego of the singer.
This gets to the rub of it and I'm pleased. The whole concept of punters NOT feeling like they owe the tunes undevided attention is the whole basis of the non-performance ethos. It's music that neither asks nor deserves attention from those not participating in its creation.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I agree with you on that llig - I've never once felt that a session was a performance - in any sense of the word - I play in a pub in public because there arent many house sessions going on. And if I want to play with others thats where I have to go.
And for any of you who are interested - 'Tommy Tiernan - sums it up on his live DVD - all about how your almost at that perfect state in a session where the tunes are flying - and someone always comes with a song 'annnndddd eeeeyyye dunnnoooo' - Highly recommended for anyway who just loves and old tune session without songs every second set.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PS - not saying I dont like songs or singers - I just think there really is a time and a place. And good on the sessions that have an equal number of both tunes and songs - thats great - it just wouldnt be my ideal session.
Okay - I'm bracing myself to get shot down now for expressing an opinion - just like MG did on the 'Our Band' thread. Ducks for cover.....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
thanks beeb
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But Michael... if you asked those punters how they thought the musicians performed at the pub that night, they might say, "Excellently!" or, "It was pure sh*te!" but I guarantee you they would be very unlikely to say anything like, "Well... it wasn't actually a performance, you see... it was a 'session' -- and sessions aren't 'performances'."
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bb writes, "I've never once felt that a session was a performance - in any sense of the word - I play in a pub in public because there arent many house sessions going on. And if I want to play with others thats where I have to go."
Of course, bb, but what do the punters there think you're doing? I'm sure they enjoy listening and watching you perfoming your skills on the fiddle. I can see it now...
1st person to 2nd: Gosh... she performed that tune beautifully! Don't you think?
2nd person: No... she wasn't performing you eejit... it's a session, and people aren't performing -- they're just wiggling their fingers around on instruments. Geesh... goes to show what you know.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
a lot of folk have mentioned great bodhran players on record or on stage, but how many can say with their hand on their heart that they'd like one sitting next to them in a session, unless they could be sure it was a sensitive genius like bbliss ?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Bren
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thank you Bren.
And Michael, fair enough I am crap on the mandolin, but is a Carolan tune a tune?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
.. if a mandolin plays in a forest of bodhrans, does it make a sound ...?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Bren
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep mr button, good posting, to the crux again, quite right.
But the question is a misnomer.
It would be like asking a horticulturist how beautiful a flower was. they'd say "lovely", of course. But I guarantee you they would be very unlikely to say anything like, "Well actually, the flower is just an abstract shape to attract insects to aid pollination."
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Michael, I just know we would get on. As long as you can play.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
play what? music?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now I understand that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners, but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code. Let's look again at the meaning as it appears in the dictionary.
per·form v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience (punters)
Now I realize we aren't playing to the audience, but they're there, and some of them are listening, and that makes an audience.
audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or other live performance (other meaning session)
Since the dictionary has already defined that to perform is the playing of tunes on an instrument, then the punters in the pub who are listening become the audience that makes the event a "performance.” These are just the facts according to anyone who doesn't know or understand the ITM sessioner's secret code. Sessioners avoid the term "performance" because they don't like the connotation, and I understand that, but the rest of the world still goes by the English language according to the dictionary when they try to perceive what's happening at the pub during a session.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Informal performance
I really don't know how to make it any more clear than my prior post. I think the best way to describe what a session might seem like to punters, or what punters believe they are witnessing, is more or less an "informal performance." If punters are interested enough to want to get inside our heads they might realize the shortcomings of that definition, but few will bother. A vast majority will go away thinking that's what they saw -- an "informal performance" of Irish music.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep, the phenomena of having to use language that exists in a more subtle way than is described in a dictionary.
How else do you think dictionaries evolve?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"bbliss" is perhaps getting too close to "bb". For the sake of clarity, and to confer suitable respect, I propose that the name Bodhran Bliss be used, which could be shortened to BB.
Clapping at the end of a song. Heeuuuch! or Yeeeeehaaaa! at the end of a tune. No admiration implied. OK?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, good again, "few will bother". And the vast majority will consider it an "informal performance".
But the onus is on the musiician not to bother
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And musicians don't need to bother. But that doesn't change the facts.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I was warned about on-line flirting Michael.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, real-world use of words doesn't come from the dictionary. It's the other way 'round--dictionary definitions are taken from real-world usage. Unfortunately, they too often come from formal written sources, rather than straight forward street vernacular. So most native speakers of a language don't go around citing dictionary definitions and taking them so literally. Thank heavens we don't all go around talking like dictionary definitions....
Words take most of their meaning from context. Take them out of context--or USE THEM IN THE WRONG CONTEXT--and you create confusion and misunderstandings.
Our sessions are so unlike performances that it would strike me as odd if anyone described one as any kind of performance, informal or otherwise. If the punter's in Jack's scenario were commenting on our session, the conversation would much more likely go as follies:
Punter Bob: "Not bad for a bunch of drunks. That one in the corner can really play."
Punter Joe: "Yeah, every now and then they'd all get in the same groove--imagine if they actually practiced!"
Punter Bob: "Well, I suppose that's the difference between a band gig and whatever this is. What'd the bartender call it--a session?"
Punter Joe: "Yep, just like the one's I saw on vacation over in Galway. 'Cept the Guinness is better over there."
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Come to think of it, it would also be really strange if the people in the pub thought of themselves as an audience. Most of them aren't really listening--they're eating, drinking, talking, reading, watching telly in the back, or throwing darts. Not at all typical of audience behavior I've seen at "performances."
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ask Joe or Bob what they thought of the performance and they'll answer that in a similar way as well. And I bet they won't correct you on the use of the word either. You'd have to explain it to them first before they'd even notice.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I disagree. No doubt San Francisco has some "performance artists" who abuse their audiences by ignoring them while they juggle cabbages or pose mannequins on stage and it's considered not just a performance but high art.
Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
First thing you insist on when you go into a pub to play, is to turn the TV off. If you want to watch TV, stay at home.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've tried to get people to refer to BBliss as BB and not 'bb' - it doesnt work - and now people tend to call me beebs
BB = Bodhran Bliss the talented and if I say extremely modest Bodhran player. bb = Beebs - the one who has taste in tunes
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Seriously. If you asked Joe or Bob what they thought of the "performance," I think they'd laugh and tell us to keep our day jobs.
The regular punters get it, of course. And many of the irregulars get it, too, because they've come to an Irish pub, so the whole concept of a session--as we understand it in all of its differences from a formal performance--fits their expectations.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss, here they just turn the sound off so those who want to can watch the game. We did play in a pub where the manager kept turning the sound back on (and up)--didn't take long for us to find friendlier quarters.
Geez, I have no trouble keeping beebs and bliss apart--haven't you seen a pic of beebs?! No mistaking her for a hirsute goat thumper.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ok, Will, in that pub at your session EVERYONE GETS IT. Happy?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Actually, it's almost always like that.
Funny, so are most of the sessions I've been to elsewhere. Seems like most sessions go out of their way to find a pub with a side room or snug big enough for the players, off a bit from the usual bar crowd. And I've played in brilliant sessions with big names where between every set some lout of a punter was yelling at us to stop or leave. I've overheard punters call a session a "private party."
Jack, I'm starting to worry that you might not really understand just how casual and nearly invisible a session can be. They are so unlike any kind of performance, in intent, appearance, vibe, etc.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Happy? Yes, thank you. Sitting here cheerfully thinking about the fun I have at sessions. I thought we were just chatting about this again, since you and Michael and Bliss rekindled the topic.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Gotta run--dinner calls.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, I happy for you too, but unless a news bulletin goes out to the general public and English professors around the world are updated concerning this new exclusion for the meaning, most punters are still going to be going by the dictionary definition for what it means if people are playing music in a public place. I’ve been to a fair amount of pubs where sessions are in progress and the punters give every indication that they believe what’s going on is an informal performance of some sort regardless of what the musicians think of what they're doing. I have yet to visit the pub where you hold yours; it would be interesting to see these edified punters of yours.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Aiiieee - cant you guys argue about something worthwhile - like
* Is BBliss the Best Bodhran player ever in the world - or is he the Best Bodhran player ever in eternity
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My nickname is "Carlsberg".
And I agree with Jack.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Okay -but dont you agree that it is neither here nor there if the punters think themselves as an 'audience' and think that we are 'performing'? I mean really - who cares what they think? unless you are getting paid to do it and even when I get paid to do it I could care less if there are people there listening or not.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wow, these dictionaries are powerful books, I guess. Let's see, what does Merriam-Webster have to say about Jack?
n: 1: a man, laborer (e.g., lumberjack), or sailor
2: any of various usually mechanical devices: as a : a device for turning a spit b : a usually portable mechanism or device for exerting pressure or lifting a heavy body a short distance
3 : something that supports or holds in position: as a : an iron bar at a topgallant masthead to support a royal mast and spread the royal shrouds b : a wooden brace fastened behind a scenic unit in a stage set to prop it up
4 a : any of several fishes; especially : any of various carangids b : a male donkey c : JACKRABBIT d : any of several birds (as a jackdaw)
5 a : a small white target ball in lawn bowling b : a small national flag flown by a ship c (1) plural but singular in construction : a game played with a set of small objects that are tossed, caught, and moved in various figures (2) : a small 6-pointed metal object used in the game of jacks
6 a : a playing card carrying the figure of a soldier or servant and ranking usually below the queen b : JACKPOT 1a(2)
7 slang : MONEY
8 : a female fitting in an electric circuit used with a plug to make a connection with another circuit
Yer right, Jack, the dictionary has certainly clarified things for me. I now have a much more complete picture of who you must be.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Beebs, that's too easy. We have it on Bliss's own word that he is the best bodhran player the universe has or will ever know. Others may be as good, but none better.
Which, come to think of it, also applies well to, say, a stone dug out of a field. Others may be as good a stone, but none better.
Remember: we are each of us unique...just like everyone else.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I love it -- Will's refuting the dictionary to support his argument. Brilliant!
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bb writes: "Okay -but dont you agree that it is neither here nor there if the punters think themselves as an 'audience' and think that we are 'performing'? I mean really - who cares what they think?"
I don't care what they think we're doing either, bb. But I don't think we're above them; their experience is just as valid as ours. To us it's a session... to them it's an informal performance. Who's right and who's wrong is irrelevant, but for all intents and purposes -- both are right. You can educate the punters about what you're doing the way Will has in his pub, but that won't change the facts. The only difference will be in the definition.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I dont think we are above them at all. I just dont care if they are there or not, it doesnt bother me, unless they are noisy, and annoying and start singing the 'fields of Athenry' - then I have to tell them to feck off.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sigh. Jack, there you go reading what you want into my posts instead of what they really say, and getting all condescending and sarcastic. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, you take it down to the level of a junior high playgorund argument. Not a flattering position to take.
We've been through this before. For the sake of anyone else reading this (since you apparently refuse to comprehend it): words derive meaning from the context in which they're used, not from a dictionary. Dictionaries merely document commonly assigned meanings. Lots of words have more than one meaning, sometimes even meaning the opposite of one another. (E.g., depending on who's saying it and under what circumstances, f**k can mean either "let's make love" or "I'm gonna kill you.") So the fact that "performance" can mean "to execute a skill" or "musical or theatrical entertainment for an audience" doesn't mean both of those definitions necessarily apply to the same real-world phenomenon. Love making would become prohibitively risky if we typically misunderstood each other so drastically....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And I'm tired of looking like a fool for debating with someone so intent on the "correctness" of their position that they no longer make sense. Ciao.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I agree with Whoosis.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, it's disappointing that you feel it necessary resort to ad hominem. I have not described you with words like "condescending" and "sarcastic" nor have I compared your discussion abilities to a "junior high playground argument." I refuse to engage any further if you insist on insulting me in this manner. Thanks for the discussion thus far, but I won't respond to your future posts unless your attitude and language improve.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bb writes: "I dont think we are above them at all. I just dont care if they are there or not, it doesnt bother me, unless they are noisy, and annoying and start singing the 'fields of Athenry' - then I have to tell them to feck off."
Yea... hahaha... that's when I start caring too.
But it would be like me seeing punters chatting and drinking in a pub only to find out they didn't see it that way themselves. To them they might see it as something else and could even argue the point, but for me it wouldn't matter -- they're chatting and drinking in a pub as far as I can tell. Which one of us is wrong?
Maybe this is too much of a philosophical discussion that none of us here are qualified for... I know I'm not. But I just can't see that a tree doesn't fall in a forest if the loggers didn't think they cut it down.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Used in moderation and in appropriate tunes, I find the sound of the bodhran anywhere from entrancing to hair-raising, and I like it a lot. To judge from most posts here, the instrument is being abused a lot! It's like a heavy spice, you don't want too much, and you certainly don't want it in every dish you cook.
I have a tar, which could be a tame version of the bodhran, and I love playing it though even with its relatively mild voice I suspect my neighbors might not, so I rarely use it anymore. I believe I'll take it out into one of our pretty parks some fine day and play away as much as I want. It's truly meditative....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by jonrkc
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I'm tempted to let you off the hook, but I can't. Your reasoning is flawed, and whenever someone reveals that flawed reasoning, instead of re-examining your position or posting a reasoned explanation of it to move the conversation forward, you resort to cheap sarcasm, ridicule, and patronizing language. I'm calling it as I see it.
It's impossible to have a civil discussion with you--and then you accuse me of being insulting because I've pointed out your unreasonable and condescending rhetoric. You attack, and then cry "I'm the victim!"
Enough goes on here at the yella board--like the gang-up on Bruce--that would cross my threshold for basic civility, and yet I can abide Jeremy's decision to let much of it stand. But your relentless incivility when someone disagrees with you or challenges your idiosyncratic notions of what sessions are about crosses the line. I hope you come to your senses before Jeremy does.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Apologies to the innocent bystanders who stumble on this sordid scene. I'm sincerely disappointed that it's come to this again, but I'm tired of ugly rhetoric trumping reason. I'm tired of listening to people who think that if they say something is true often enough, it must be true, even when it flies in the face of other people's reality. That's what's wrong with public discourse in America these days, and I'm sad to see it infect a community I've enjoyed for many years.
So...any fresh news on the cow tipping scene?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think the answer's staring you both (Whoosis + PB) in the face. Will, it's simply that your session is different to Jack's. We all have different tastes in sessions and the way they are run, adn this leads us to hold different ideals and definitions of what a session should be. I imagine Jack's session to be much more like a performance than yours, Will. I get the impression that his would be a lot more serious - less getting up and walking around and chatting, little or no noodling of half-remembered tunes, just set after set of well-rehearsed tunes played by people who play together on a regular basis as a band. That's fine if that's what you're into. I think unless you've been to each other's sessions there's little point in discussing it further because it's all speculation.
I don't think you can really judge how the sessions compare in Ireland either. I doubt either of you have spent long enough as a regular in one particular session over there to get into the musicians heads enough to judge their ideals and definitions of how a session should be. I would think you'd have to be going every week for a few months or years to get a feel for that.
I can only make a point from my own experience of sessions I've been a regular at in my local area, and people in my area who I've played with. Someone like bb for example, I play with her quite a lot, and we're good friends, so I know what tunes she plays and her likes and dislikes, and how she views sessions and what her ideals are. They're a bit different from my own, but I nevertheless have a broad understanding of how she works. Now, Jack, you've seen her YouTube posting right? I can tell you right now that if you take those 3 musicians out of Bridie's kitchen and plonk them in a pub in Sydney or Melbourne, if the 3 of them were playing the same set together, they would *not* play *any* differently if there were other people in the pub. The only issue might be if there were distractions of some sort to take their minds off what they're doing. To them, it doesn't matter who's there listening or not listening, or taking pictures of them with a camera, or making a video of them.
But you take Ado out of Bridie's kitchen and put him on stage with Katiebee and the other people from his band, now *that's* a performance.
A performance has to come from a performer, not from any perceived audience. If the person playing tunes doesn't feel some sort of responsibility to an audience, then it's not a performance.
Here's another example. There's a YouTube posting of Simon Thoumire playing some tunes for the camera. This is a performance. There's nobody in the room where he's playing, at least nobody that you can see, but he is aware that he is playing for a potential audience who download his posting. That's why he makes an announcement before he plays. Now, if you secretly filmed him through a hole in the wall of his house playing concertina alone, that's not a performance right? This 2nd scenario is how Will et al view sessions.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, my point is that if Jack views *himself* as giving a performance at his session, then *he* probably is. It's as simple as that!
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark, I've been to a lot of sessions and ours is really no different. But that's not even my point. It's quite simple actually; what the session is to the musicians isn't necessarily the same as it is to the in the pub. We see it as you describe -- they see it as a performance. According to the definition of what a performance is they're correct. According to our definition of what a session is -- we're correct. Who's wrong? Neither. Who's correct? Both.
I think I summed it up best in my response to bb: If a tree falls in the forest, but the loggers don't think they cut it down -- does that mean it didn't fall?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bb, I am concerned that you may be at risk of being mistaken for such a controversial figure as bodhran bliss.
I urge you to immediately change your name for your own safety. You could be called.......you could use the name "starting over"!
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm sorry the people in your pub think it is a performance, but that doesn't make it one. That's just their misunderstanding of the situation due to their inexperience with sessions. Do you find you get a lot of requests for songs and stuff? This tends to happen when punters have misread the situation and think that the music is there for their benefit.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've never contested that, Mark. I have no idea what Jack's session is like, and he can make it as much of a performance or not as he likes. But I'm not the one characterizing Jack's session. He's said plenty about mine, however, as though he's been there.
It's not what Jack wants a session to be that I've argued against here, but his insistence that my session and others can't be anything but a performance. In my understanding, he's missing some essential differences--the same differences that other people have highlighted to me about their sessions vs. more gig-like approaches to the music.
And I really don't care whether Jack gets this or not. But it does strike me as rude and insensitive that he persists in telling people here that their sessions must be performances, even though several people have tried to explain the differences to him and put him on notice that his relentless insistence on this rude. A bit like Michael's crusade against bodhran players (but at least Michael gives a well reasoned stance for his point of view).
And when Jack stoops to ridiculing my posts instead of addressing the reasoned points in them, it makes civil dialogue difficult if not impossible. I eman, this is a guy who once, rather than respond substantively to my post, told me to go make love to my wife. What's the point in trying to reason with that? And why is this repeated ugly behavior tolerated?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry... I left out the word "punters" in this line: "what the session is to the musicians isn't necessarily the same as it is to the [ punters ] in the pub"
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As far as I understand it Jack, you're saying that *you* don't think that the playing you do in your session is a performance, but that the punters *do* think it's a performance. This logically means that the punters don't understand what's going on, which is understandable; you're in San Fransisco. So maybe it's up to you to educate them and involve them more so that they *do* understand what you're doing. That's assuming you care, of course. But then, if you care what they think, then that means you feel some responsibility towards them, which means that you *are* performing for them. Thus bringing us back in a full circle. So, what do you think?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "He's said plenty about mine, however, as though he's been there." This is a lie... I never said I knew what Will's sessions were like. Even in this thread I said, "I have yet to visit the pub where you hold yours." Why Will is resorting to lying now is anyone's guess.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark... as I told bb: I don't care what the punters think. My point is simply that they believe their seeing a performance. For them it IS a performance... even if we don't think so and don't care. For us it's a session... not a performance. simple as that.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, I why does it bother you what Jack thinks about your session? You know yourself that his assumptions are off the mark, so isn't that enough? If he's going to sessions in Ireland and experiencing them all as "performances" like gigs, then all his musical experiences, whether at a gig or session, are going to be of "performances". Therefore he misses out on the feeling we get when we go to sessions such as your own. That's his loss, not yours.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"My point is simply that they believe their seeing a performance. For them it IS a performance... even if we don't think so and don't care. For us it's a session... not a performance. simple as that."
But even if the punters think it's a performance doesn't make it one unless the musicians also see it that way.
It's like a magicians trick. The people watching might think they are seeing something like a person getting cut in half, but just because that's how they perceive it doesn't make it actually so. The magician knows this.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"If a tree falls in the forest, but the loggers don't think they cut it down, does this mean the tree didn't fall?"
See, I can't tell if Jack thinks he's being logical here, or if he's misrepresenting his "opponents'" position just to make his own look good.
And it's nonsensical. Of course it doesn't mean the tree didn't fall. But neither does it mean the loggers in fact cut the tree down. If the loggers never laid a blade to that tree, then obviously it fell for other reasons.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The only difference with the magic trick is that people would know from their own common sense and experiences in life they couldn't possibly be witnessing someone being cut in half. With sessions on the other hand, most people would not have experience of session culture unless they've played the music themselves, especially in somewhere like SF, so any conclusion they come to about what they are seeing will be flawed due to their ignorance. Therefore I conclude that Will has managed to educate his punters to an extent, whereas your punters don't know what the feck is going on and think it's probably just a gig. You seem to be happy with that, so endov.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
In this thread above, Will wrote: "Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them."
Jack wrote: "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point."
How would you know what my session is like?
And then you accuse me of lying? Nice. How civil of you.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark... I'll say it again. I never made assumptions or claimed to know anything about Will's sessions. If you think I did -- please point it out.
Mark writes: "It's like a magicians trick. The people watching might think they are seeing something like a person getting cut in half, but just because that's how they perceive it doesn't make it actually so. The magician knows this."
So your position is that a session is like a magic trick? And you think I'm not making sense? Cop on!
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, that wasn't very nice of you. What made you suddenly lash out at me like that? I thought we were having a conversation, not a slanging match.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will has described his session differently in other threads. He has described it as a wonderful musical event in other threads -- I never doubted this. In this thread however it sounds like a different affair all together where people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm not lashing out at you Mark... come on.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PS in answer to "I never made assumptions or claimed to know anything about Will's sessions. If you think I did -- please point it out."
Will just answered this in his post above, EXTREMELY clearly.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I never said chatting, cookies, and half playing tunes detracted from making wonderful music. In a nutshell, that's the aspect of a good session (which isn't a performance) that Jack seems not to understand, and is apparently unwilling to admit exists, except in the minds of self-deluded session musicians.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wrong... Mark. I was referring to the way Will described his own session. I never claimed to know the slightest thing about his session and you know it.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Listen right.
1) We all agree that for us, sessions aren't performances.
2) Will thinks that his punters think his session *isn't* a performance
3) Jack thinks that his punters think his session *is* a performance
however:
4) None of us cares what the punters think
So why exactly are we arguing about this?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, but feel free to tell me my description of my own session is wrong....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will wrote earlier about his session: "Here in Montana, it'd be a huge stretch to call what we do a performance. Five or six people sitting around a small table off in the corner, drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends. If people think that's a performance, I feel sorry for them."
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "So why exactly are we arguing about this?"
Now you're starting to make sense.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And PB, you go on to say "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point", and you infer from it that "people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies"
That's not how I interpret Will's posts at all.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ROFLMAO--this reminds me of being a kid, listening to my parents argue about me as if I wasn't in the room.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So what you're saying is that we're not arguing about sessions as performances at all. This is personal, and it has to do with your misinterpretation of Will's posts about his own session, and Will's frustration at your misunderstanding. Ah, okay, then I can go now. I see that this isn't actually a discussion at all, then.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Update on my philosophical allegory: If loggers cut down a tree and it falls, but the loggers don't think they cut it down, does this mean the tree didn't fall?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If the loggers don't think they cut it down then they have a medical problem. Jack. YOU are the one not making sense here.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A person from an environmental group finds a tree that looks as though it has been cut down.
He goes and complains to the loggers.
The loggers know that they didn't cut it down because they were logging in an area that was nowhere near the fallen tree.
In fact, the loggers didn't cut down the tree.
But the person from the environmental group thinks they did.
Does that mean they did, just because that person *thinks* they did?
No!
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark, I'm trying to avoid an argument with Will. I stopped talking directly to him after he started with the ad hominem back there. I'm simply trying to get across my point regarding sessions and what they are to the public when you hold them in public places. That's all.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Still mis-stating the argument. A more accurate metaphor might look like this:
"If loggers cut down a tree in the forest to make fence posts out of it, but a nearby cabin owner thinks it's for his firewood, who's on the short end of the stick when the loggers haul the tree off to the mill and make fence posts?"
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Avoiding an argument" LOL, this just gets more surreal.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hahaha.. Mark, your allegory doesn't compare to mine in the slightest.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, you are saying that the loggers must have cut down the tree just because that person from the environmental group accused them of it. Dude, I hope you never get called up for jury duty
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No PB, mine doesn't compare to yours. Yours makes no sense whatsoever.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Don't think I haven't noticed that after posting Will's own words no one has acknowledged that Will described his session as I indicated.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nobody but Mark and I, but we're not in the same conversation as Jack, apparently.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My very next post implicity acknowledged this by showing how you made assumptions based on that text. Okay, now I know you're not listening. Blah blah blah, with your fingers in your ears.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "you infer from it that "people are only half playing tunes, chatting and eating cookies""
Will writes: "drinking and telling stories, noodling misremembered tunes halfway through. Occasionally launching a set. Last night we ate homeade chocolate chip cookies one of the punters brought. At any given time, one or two of us is off chatting with friends."
Explain where I misread it, Mark.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, I would never assume from what Will said that people are only half playing tunes. I would assume that when they lauch into sets (his words) they play them in full. The chatting and eating cookies I think you got right. Same at our session, but without the cookies. We've never had any of our punters buy us cookies, or "biscuits" as we call them.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "Well, I would never assume from what Will said that people are only half playing tunes."
What part of "noodling misremembered tunes halfway through" do you not understand?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will said "noodling misremembered tunes halfway through"
For me this does *not* equate to "people only half playing tunes".
I would infer from this that, because it is not a performance like a gig, people at the session would feel free to pick out a tune between sets so that they can remember it properly to play later, or maybe they are turning to the person next to them and saying "do you play this one" "oh yesion before, so this is my assumption. Am I right, Will?ah, I know that" "I can't remember the 2nd part, how does it go?" "isn't it this?" "no that's the corner house I know that one - oh I know it's this" [launches into set].
I've never been to Will's session so this is my assumption. Am I right, Will?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oops my post got screwed up, try again:
would infer from this that, because it is not a performance like a gig, people at the session would feel free to pick out a tune between sets so that they can remember it properly to play later, or maybe they are turning to the person next to them and saying "do you play this one" "oh yes, I know that" "I can't remember the 2nd part, how does it go?" "isn't it this?" "no that's the corner house I know that one - oh I know it's this" [launches into set].
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What part of "launching into sets" does Jack not understand?
What sort of arrogance lets a man disagree with someone else's assessment of their own session, one he's never been to?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I can't believe this... Will is disputing with his own description of his session. I give up... I'm off to bed. G'night fellas.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I could be wrong:
"noodling misremembered tunes halfway through"
Another interpretation is that Will starts a tune and suddenly realises halfway through the B-part that there's a turn in it he can't remember, so he plays something that will do so that the tune hangs together.
Of course this would be unthinkable in your session, Jack, right? How dare he play a wrong note
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Eh? Will is disputing with his own description of his session. Did some posts of Will's get wiped or something? Jeez, this is really confusing. Who would have thought a discussion between 3 people could be so confusing. I've had this before but only when I've been talking to someone in like Vietnam or somewhere where my addressee speaks a language I don't understand.
Fascinating...
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, the noodling takes different forms. Yes, as my senior moments start melting together into a constant stream, I sometimes noodle the B part of a tune before actually starting it, to fend of that unpleasantness of soaring into the A part, only to come up blank at the turn.
But sometimes, when my friends are talking, drinking, eating cookies, whatever, I noodle on parts of tunes that come to mind. Mind you, I'm most often chatting, drinking, and gnoshing too. But sometimes a tune I haven't thought of in ages pops into my head, and I'll quietly tickle it a bit to see if I could do it justice at some later point in the evening. Obviously, this isn't a habit I take to my gigs--I don't think an "audience" would appreciate or even understand such behavior. At our session, however, nobody in the room bats an eye.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Cross posted with you there, Mark.
I dsiputed my own description? Wow, my dementia must be worse than I thought. Better up my dose....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I pity the poor souls who wake up to this in a few hours....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
There are numerous "sessions" in pubs where a group of musicians sit in a corner, or side room, and play music for their own enjoyment, totally oblivious to the other people in the pub. This happens all over the world. It is not my cup of tea, but that is a personal preference.
However the other people in the pub cannot reach this state of "separation" and are likely to see the musical proceedings as a performance. Nothing too difficult about that. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and all that.
I remember playing at a session in Dublin, where the musicians were "removed" from the crowd. The crowd however had travelled from all over Dublin to go to that pub, because "there is a session". However not one of them showed any interest in the proceedings, and talked and drank all night without appearing to listen. Next day however, when questioned, they are likely to say that the music was "mighty". It is simply human nature.
However when half of the world are starving, despite a surplus of food, and the wealthy half are trying to kill each other, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
By the way, does anyone like bodhrans.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Don't pity us Will, his is the best thing I've ever read for ages. It reminds me of that painting by Goya of the two giants mired up to their waists, belabouring each other with clubs.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hahaha I almost wrote a post to correct Bodhran Bliss and explain my point of view, but then I suddenly remembered that I don't need to because there's no point because he's a bodhran player. Hehe, lets me off the hook.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dose anyone know the names of any sites where i can have a proper discussion and avoid bliss and the rest of the limited clowns who f**ked up this one.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Perhaps the loggers cut down the tree in order to sell the wood to bodhran builders?
Now, does a proper discussion have to have an audience?
If the discussors don't understand each other, is it a true performance?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The dead horse is still kicking?
Bliss wrote: "However the other people in the pub cannot reach this state of 'separation,' and are likely to see the musical proceedings as a performance."
There are several problems with this.
First, Bliss gives no evidence to support his claim that he knows what state the other people in the pub are in, or what they're thinking. As I've mentioned above, I've had punters tell me outright that they enjoyed the music, played for its own sake (and not for theirs), an all too rare occurence in this overcommercialized, ego-ridden world. Some people, at least, do seem to "get it." They understand that it's not a performance for them or anyone else. They understand that they are not an audience, and they don't have to behave like one. They can --and do--talk, read, fall asleep, or get up and leave in the middle of a set--all things which would be fairly taboo in a formal "audience" role.
Second, Sme punters undoubtedly do separate themselves from the session (I've seend people apparently oblivious to the music, watching a telly at the other end of the bar, or reading a paper while listening to their ipod on headphones). That's fine by me.
But I'm more interested in the punters who actually become participants in the session.
That's not 'separation'--just the opposite. And they're not our "audience." They're participants in the session.
And my point here all along is that Jack and a few others seem hell bent on telling me that this cannot happen. I'm juts saying that I've seen it happen, on a regular basis, and I really enjoy it.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss does not live in a cocooned world, and actually talks to0 the other people in the pub, that's how I know what they think, and what their opinions are. It is not a difficult task to achieve this, justs requires an interest in your surroundings. That is the reason why the "cocooned session" is not my cup of tea, as I would find it difficult to imagine that the circle of musicians were the only people present, despite evidence to the contrary.
And Saint, oooohhhh, Huffy-Puffy. Derogatory statements flowing, without an inkling of substance to support them. Tell you what, I will leave my bodhran to you when I pass on. If a John Lennon guitar fetches £100,000, my bodhran should be worth double.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss doesn't live in a cocooned world? Maybe he could actually *read* the posts he responds to, then....
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Contrary to popular belief people in Ireland are not stupid, and many of them actually understand sessions, as they are a common thing in Ireland.
They know that the performance is not for them, and they fully understand that. However by dint of being in the same place at the same time, they are aware of the performance taking place, and some of them enjoy it, have an opinion about it, or hate it because they want to listen to "Take That" on the TV. This fully corresponds with your description of your session, Whoosis, and indeed many punters become attached to the musicians.
I would say this could be applied to many countries. Whoosis, however, seems to be embroiled in a pedantic discussion as the meaning of the word performance.
To me a performance is given in a public place, and obviously that has a vast scope. Playing a concert in a venue, having a "private" session in a pub, indeed busking. The average busker thinks he/she is collecting money, but because they are in public, they are seen by passer bys as performers.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think cookies are an excellent idea! I just might bring some with me the next time I go to a session and ask to record a few sets on my iPod.
The problem with this whole discussion is that none of y'all are punters, so you're only supposing what they might think.
I have yet to play in a session, so I still qualify as a punter. Started going to them 20 years ago in Scotland with some musician friends of mine and their non-musician girlfriends and other friends. We'd go out as a group, there'd be a session, the musicians would join in and play, and the rest of us got to watch, or just hang out and have our drunken conversations. It's great fun! No need to applaud---I think I tried that a couple of times and my friends were just embarrassed, so I learned to be nonchalant about it. But I do tell them afterwards how much I enjoy it.
The sessions I go to now are the same. I bring friends with me sometimes who think they have to pay close attention and applaud after all the tunes, but they realize pretty quickly that it's not necessary.
Live music in a pub made by living, breathing, humans---what a rare, wonderful thing in a world where everyone is used to mechanical music and jukeboxes and television. How many people even know how to play an instrument any more? And how often do you get the opportunity to get physically near someone who plays? I think people are so divorced from acoustic music these days that they just don't know how to react when they see it right in front of them. Which might be why they feel like they need to applaud---that's what you do when you go to a concert, isn't it?
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Very well put Mr Kennedy.
However you are treading dangerous ground if my friend Michael discovers that you are bestowing the status of "musician" to bodhran players.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"And my point here all along is that Jack and a few others seem hell bent on telling me that this cannot happen. I'm juts saying that I've seen it happen, on a regular basis, and I really enjoy it."
Will states this about me as fact, but if we asked him to point to where I said it we wouldn't see any confirmation. This is the 3rd time I think he's done that in this thread alone. I have no idea why he insists on doing this. Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway… all I've done here is to suggest that the punter's experience is different than ours as session participants. Why that causes so much controversy and angst is a mystery to me. I’m sure there are plenty of punters out there who’ve had enough experience with sessions to realize there’s something special about it, but I’m sure the vast majority thinks it’s just some sort of informal performance that’s not really a concert. How did I arrive at this conclusion? It's the impression I get based on punter's comments I've heard.
So there it is – the big controversy. Is it worth all the posturing and ad hominem on this and other threads? I don’t think so.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Spot on, Kennedy (that'll be ms to you, Mr. Bliss).
Many people, even here in the States, suss out the differences between a session and a concert pretty quickly.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
In this thread, Jack wrote: "Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.
I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
Right Jack, so please stop doing exactly what you've wrongly accused me of.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The post above confuses me. Do you really hand out flyers like that? Would it not be easier to just ignore people, as many session participants do, although it is rude.
Happily I do not appear to have any of these problems, probably because I am such a likeable guy.
And I agree that most people could distinquish between a concert and a session, the difficulty here however centred on a performance, which may not necessarily be a concert, as I recently illustrated.
And Kennedy, if you are a Ms, forgive me for being sexist. I do try to write her/him all the time and things like that, although it is still unforgivable.
Mind you this site is full of rampant sexists. Earlier in the thread someone stated that bb was attractive and therefore could not be mistaken for me. Music or instruments, or initials, didn't even come into it.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's right... if people want the punters in the pub to understand all the subtleties of why their session isn't any kind of performance, informal or whatsoever -- they should hand out flyers or put up posters explaining it. How else will the punters know?
But I fail to see how I'm doing anything I've accused you of here... sorry.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
again bliss it there any information about bodhrans you can share (i dont think so). Being aware is the key but you first have stop thinking about yourself.At the end of the day its what publican wants.Why would a publican pay money for entertainment if it was not for the punter.Or Maybe they just come to see your priceless drum.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss, it was Jack that sarcastically suggested handing out flyers.
And Jack if you don't get it, I can't be any more clear. You're behavior here is rude and offensive and disengenuous.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
First you tell me I'm falsly accusing you of something, but you don't point out where or what it is, and now you tell me my behaviour is "rude and offensive and disengenuous," but you wouldn't be able to point that out either. Why are you going down this path, Will? I've already told you I have no interest in exchanging insults with you or anyone else.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"How else will the punters know?"
By watching what's going on around them. If you're sitting at a table and the music stops and you're the only one applauding, you can't help but notice that it feels kind of weird. Better yet, if you're sitting at a table talking to your friends or people you just met and they pretty much ignore the music and don't applaud, you're going to follow their cues and do the same. We humans are social creatures and most of us can figure out the best way to behave in a given situation.
I must say, though, that this is one of the reasons I can't stand amplification at a session. There's one here where I live that has some of the most talented musicians in town, and the bar mics it and it's so loud that it cuts through any other crowd noise, and I think that just makes it more like a concert and encourages people to treat it that way. And indeed, people do applaud this session more than others I've seen. This same bar has another session the next night without the pyrotechnics and it's a totally different scene. But I guess this is a subject for another thread...
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, Kennedy, I mentioned in this thread that experienced punters can catch on eventually, but that still doesn't account for the vast majority out in the world. But even of the ones that have come regularly over the years and seem to have caught on, I've still heard comments from them that lead me to believe they think it's an informal performance... sort of.
I also avoid amplified sessions and I've never advocated that for the same reasons you give. It seems to reinforce exactly what we're trying not to be.
But it strikes me as a bit of a paradoxical relationship we have with punters since we seem to want them to ignore us, yet we want them to be quiet enough so we can hear ourselves. You would think we would hold all of our sessions privately in each other’s homes or private clubs instead of a place the general public has access to. But we’ll do it anyway and expect them to somehow get the gist of how we aren’t what most people would assume us to be.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My Dear Saint, you have lost me. At my regular session we do a performance, because we are paid. For myself they probably think I am a pretentious git because I have been known to miss the odd riot breaking out, because I have my eyes closed when playing. That is one of the tips I can pass on, you need to be concentrating 100% on the tune to play the bodhran, otherwise you end up playing a rhythm which may not fit. Nowadays many learn rhythms, without music, and that way lies disaster at sessions, and hence a bad press for bodhrans.
There is not a lot else I can pass on, because I just play the thing, it's a natural thing. I do not believe in lessons or books or CDs about bodhrans, just play it along with loads of music, at home, until it comes naturally.
You are also right that many punters do indeed come to see me, and tell me that I am the best all round musician they have evert seen. Fortunately I know what I can do, and fortunately when it comes to bodhrans, I also know that Mr Gill, when he is not winding up, is close to the truth.
I can send an autographed photo if you would like one.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Please allow for the Christmas post.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks bliss that was nt hard . I mentioned Colm Murphy earlier and thats how he plays it by listening to the tune and the better a bodhran player knows a tune the better he/she can acc.For me all round musican is another way of saying jack of all trades master of none.Sorry i was looking to have a chat with bodhran players .
P.S.
If there is anything you would like to know about the drum let me know and i will do my best to help.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Tip
Open your eyes when playing.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Often I'm playing bodhran on tunes I know on the flute or concertina. It does help, but you can sus out the rhythm of tunes you don't know after they pass through once or twice. But having my eyes opened or closed doesn't really matter unless I want to see when they plan on switching to another tune or ending.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bodhrans went downhill when the live goat was removed from most of them in the 70s, to make them more saleable to the "Atomkraft? Nein Danke!" and vegetarian brigade. That's why bodhrans were unaccountably rare as an ITM instrument in earlier years. So as not to perturb the musicologists, their owners would stake them out to graze peaceably in the paddock till their visitors had gone, content with a tape of this or that tune cranked out on a crappy old melodeon or something, suspecting nothing of the bodhran's existence out there eating the buttercups. Later, seven shades would be whacked out of it at some clandestine session. Nobody knew; those who knew, wouldn't let on. Breandan Breathnach probably didn't know; Seamus Ennis probably did, but wouldn't talk.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by nicholas
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes PB Thats when to open eyes and yes its easy to sus the the rhythm after its played once or twice but in my opinion by knowing the tune and knowing whats coming next is very important .Finding the little gaps in a tune and filling them is the difference the good and great players.Little pauses at the right time can sometimes be more effective than a big base beat but this can only be acheived by really knowing a tune.Bliss mentions concentration but don t concentrate too hard because it can lead to hesitancy and hesitancy leads to playing out of time.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thank you Saint, your tips for a drummer, especially the bit about great and good drummers, merely confirms my own belief.
I probably am the best player ever, for eternity.
Who is Colm Murphy? I do not keep up too much, usually out playing, or signing autographs, or whatever.
And I do not need to see the riots, when you've seen one you've seen 'em all.
Your point about hesitancy is good, it helps if you know the tune. Fortunately I have been listening since 1962, so I recognise a couple of tunes. Not by name anymore, once I started the bodhran I stop thinking about the names, so it is usually a case of "ah, that's those ones that go like this.....".
After that it just flows naturally and effortlessly, until I have to stop to listen to myself because I am that good.
Just as well I am modest. Which leads to the "jack of all trades....." bit. I agree with you, because I am only a master on the bodhran, not the others. You see, knowing one's own shortcomings is useful.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So true... there are tunes that I have worked out stops in that are quite effective and help drive the tune forward. For example: on Exile of Erin there's a good opportunity for this.
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/1293
I play a strong down beat rhythm here:
| FGAG FDDE | EDAG FDAc |
Then syncopate a bit for this part:
| de=fe dcAG | E/F/G AB[c3G3]G |
Back to the strong downbeat here:
| E/F/G AG FDDE | F/E/D AG FDCD |
And stop here and wait to come back in at the repeat or beginning of the B-part:
| {G,}[A,3D3] D C~A,3 |1 G,A,CD EDDE :|
If you know anyone that plays this tune, give it a try.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just popping out to visit a session I haven't been to before, just to listen and appreciate the performance.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just looked Colm Murphy on the web. He seems to be playing with a load of old friends of mine, Seamus and Jackie, not Frankie.
I used to play IN the Exile of Erin, Jack, it was a pub in Manchester.
# Posted on December 9th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Colm is also on cds by Martin o connor , Conal o grada ,Sliabh notes and he was a member of "Damp in th Attic" to name just a few.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I hate to say it - but this seems awfully like the time everyone ganged up on Bruce and Tanya - regardless of who is right ( I lost you guys way up the top of the thread) But I really dont see that Jack has said anything more offensive than anyone else on this thread. It seems to me we all agree on the main thing - NONE of us thinks of a session as a performance.......why are you all arguing - we all believe the same thing!
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Honestly, I can't tell if Jack is just being coy or he really can't see how derisive his comments are (since he also seems incapable of reading my posts), but I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged. Paraphrasing Burke here: All that is necessary for incivility to prevail is for good people to do nothing. That's a shame.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry Will - I disagree with you on Punters becoming part of that session. Until a punter picks up an instrument and tortures themselves and neighbours with it for years and years then I dont beleive for a second that they are a part of any session. No matter how much they appreciate it or like it. That would be like me saying that I am a painter because I appreciate art even though I dont paint.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If you're so convinced, Will, why don't you collect your evidence and make your case to Jeremy so he can decide if my behavior is what you claim it to be.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You've done that yourself, Jack, in this entire thread, and in the ridiculous 400-plus thread.
Beebs, does that mean only instrumental musicians with years of experience can be session participants? Seems like you're leaving out newbies, singers, and people who bring a good story or joke. Not at all like the community sessions I've heard tales of and been to. So your sessions are about tunes and only tunes? Someone who greatly adds to the craic is doomed to be an outsider? Not how it works here, so please don't tell me it's not possible.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've done what, Will?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, you've built a case against yourself by posting snide and sarcastic exaggerations of views contrary to your own, and by belittling anyone who challenges your position.
In a previous post on this thread you suggested that people who think sessions aren't performance should hand out flyers telling punters that there are no musicians in the pub and to ignore any music they hear. Tell me that's not a deliberate, sarcastic, and demeaning misrepresentation of the case I've made.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will - we are all adults here (sort of) And hopefully we can all work this out ourselves - asking for Jeremey to step in is just another form of killing that old favourite of your land 'Freedom of speech' - If you think it is offensive, thats ok - because sometimes things are said that are offensive in every day life- on the telly, by politicians, by musicians etc etc - we have to learn to deal with it ourselves. You cant have someone come in and stop people talking - then we turn this site into a dictatorship. And that is just stupid.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I'm afraid I don't have the energy or desire to explain both sides of this "discussion" to you.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I suppose it is possible Will - if you say so, obviously our sessions differ greatly though - I would say you would have to be a musician or singer to participate. Why is that offensive to you? Its called a music session for a reason - because thats where we make music - its fine to have a chat and a cookie and tell a good joke - but I'd want to hope that those doing that are musicians/singers.....not just punters taking up seats where musicians should be sitting. At a session a few weeks ago there were not enough seats for the musicians but a punter happily sitting in the thick of the session totally oblivious to the fact that she was offering nothing and there were three musicians without seats. That drives me nuts. I have this thing though - I struggled and still do struggle everyday with my playing -thats every day for 11 years. I feel that as a person who struggles to make it better, who devotes years and years to playing and spends my time if not playing then listening and if not doing that travelling overseas to learn more and more. Sorry if I beleive that being a part of the session is more than turning up and offering a plate of bikkies and saying the odd 'wwwoooohoooo'. But again Will - this is OK - because we have different opinions and that is fine! Because what a dull place the world would be if we all agreed. I didnt mean to make it seem like it wasnt possible - I just meant that in my opinion - I feel that it takes more than that.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's not a deliberate, sarcastic, or demeaning misrepresentation of the case you've made. I can't think of any other way to edify the general public that happens into a pub where there’s a session to know such subtleties about sessions. I wasn't demeaning any points you made, but rather, I was illustrating my point that most punters haven't a clue about what a session is and that session participants don't consider it any sort of performance informal or otherwise. How would you let them know?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I just learnt a new tune while youse were fighting, and I'm starting on my next one. No, you carry on. Watching people belittling each other is kind of entertaining in a sort of sick "Big Brother" way
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Beebs, Jack's the one who suggested calling Jeremy in. I've figured the Benevolent Dictator is keeping his nose out of this intentionally. So be it. As I said above, that's a shame. But that's Jeremy's call.
So I'm speaking out against it myself.
It is possible to disagree without disparaging and ridiculing the other point of view. I've a long stated record here of agreeing that some sessions can be performances, and that's great if that's what the participants want it to be. But everytime this topic comes up, Jack get's it in his bonnet to ridicule anyone who thinks sessions can also NOT be performances.
To me, it's an important distinction, for reasons I've explained above in detail. I'm just tired of hearing that I'min "denial" and that I should hand out flyers telling punters to ignore the music coming from invisible musicians. It's repetitive and insulting and sophomoric.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Beebs you total liar - you never practise!
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's cool, Mark... I've been learning tunes and working on technique the whole time. I just learned a great jig by Sean Ryan called, "Seamus Connelly's," and I'm reworking a few others to include the Phantom Button doudle-bounce single-note triplet in the left hand.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, apparently Jack seriously thinks that handing punters a flyer telling them to ignore the music from and invisible session is "edifying."
Yikes.
Yes, Mark, I've learned the Honeysuckle Hornpipe today, and two tunes from the Blindman's set.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dow - you liar! then how bout the other night when we went through all those tunes and it took us 6 hours!!!! Huh!
Okay - can I hijack this thread? How bout we talk about bodhrans or somthan or nothan!
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Crank up that blindman's set - specially the last tune - its fantastic.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I would never dream of handing punters such flyers -- I just can't imagine any other way to let them know. I couldn't care less what they do or don't know as long as they just show a little respect and contain their boisterousness a bit.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blindman's set?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Beebs, your idea of a session isn't offensive to me at all. What is offensive is Jack denigrating my idea of a session by saying I'm in denial, and by making ludicrous suggestions about my approach to sessions. I learned this approach from people who sessioned back in the 1950s, some in Ireland. It's much more about the people than the music--an older communty approach. I like it. I've also enjoyed high-end tune sessions that aren't so inclusive.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Why are we even talking about punters? Who cares about punters? I've just learnt a version of the Coalminer's in D which I got from Dennis Liddy. I shall post it in the tunes section. I need a breather from the discussions. It's getting stuffy in this chatroom has someone been farting? Do carry on. Pay me no heed.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "What is offensive is Jack denigrating my idea of a session by saying I'm in denial, and by making ludicrous suggestions about my approach to sessions."
Was I talking about you specifically and your session, Will? You should go read it again -- there's no mention of you or your session. This thread is about sessions all over the world -- not just yours -- and it's not about you.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What's the "Blindman's set"?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blindman's Set from Time on Our Hands, Siobhan Peoples and Murty Ryan
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/1300
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1297
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1299
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ahhh... right... brilliant! I have that CD. Now I know what you're talking about. Thanks, Will.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I was the only person on this thread advocating for non-performance sessions. You like this ploy of saying it wasn't aimed at me because it lets you disparage other people's ideas without accountability. I suppose that quip about making love to my wife in the 400-plus thread wasn't aimed at me either.
If you can't take responsibility for your own words, perhaps you should think before you post.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, the cross posting here makes me think Jack and I would do fine over tunes, as long as we kept our mouths shut.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, I wasn't aiming it at you, my comments were about the topic in general. If you insist on reading yourself into my comments we will never get anywhere.
As for comments on another thread -- they were on another thread that ended ages ago -- they aren't relevant here. However, having said that, I do sincerely hope you and your wife enjoy each other's company.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, we haven't gotten anywhere in many moons.
Pity you continue to take the low road.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm sure we would get along just fine, Will... even if we talked. I think in here you tend to direct my comments at yourself personally when they aren't intended. In the real world you probably wouldn’t misinterpret me that way.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm stunned. I've followed this for a bit, and simply can't understand Whoosis' position, which is self-evidently untenable.
First, my take: I've been to many sessions over a great many years. Now, admittedly I've only been to sessions in four countries and have no experience of them elsewhere, the countries being Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I don't think I've ever been to a session where the punters didn't appreciate the music and believe it was some kind of performance. There are simply two very different views of the same event occurring: the punters' and the sessioners' (who, for the sake of clarity, are just having fun, not thinking of themselves as performing). You don't have to *reason* that this is the case - you just have to listen for a moment to what's going on outside the privileged enclave of the session itself.
That's just to make my position on this clear. However, I don't get why Whoosis is so relentlessly attacking PB. It seems to me he keeps accusing PB of things he himself is actually the instigator of. For instance, to someone who has not participated so far in this discussion, it's failry clear if you read all the posts that PB has been trying to argue calmly, but is constantly accused of sarcasm - that I can't find anywhere in his posts - of being insulting - which, again I can't find; and the last one took the biscuit. Whoosis accused PB of being the one to suggest bringing Jeremy in. Now, I *have* read every post on this thread. If I've missed it, I apologise, but to me the first time it was suggested was in these words: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." - Whoosis. If I've missed an earlier post of PB's suggesting this, then please point it out, and I'll apologise for my error.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Glad to hear I'm the cause of all this, or is that just me taking your comment too personally again?
Cop on, Jack.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If you set your differences aside for a moment though, and think about the whole thing of performances etc, it's an interesting philophical question, and probably one that's beyond our ability to discuss without the necessary training and jargon. It's no wonder really that this topic always comes up in debate and is never resolved. It's clear that these differences in attitude and viewpoint underpin most of our difficulties in a session with regard to people disturbing our tunes in some way or haranguing us for requests. Maybe this topic is one of those things that will never be resolved, sorta like one of those "meaning of life" questions for trad musicians. It's like: "what are we *doing*?? why are we here?"...
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
benhall, who *cares* what the fecking punters think? I don't care if they think I'm doing a performance. I'm *not*. Okay? If I thought I was going to be performing every time I went to a session I wouldn't go to sessions. Period.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL you can tell who has had an e-mail from Jeremy before when they use the expression "cop on"
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PS benhall, Will has always been open to the possibility that some punters will view a session as a performance, but he's trying to make others see that it's possible that punters could view a session as something else other than a performance, and obviously he's right. What you're saying doesn't make sense. You're implying that all punters view a session as a performance, and therefore, if you're to view a session as something else then you have to be one of the musicians. So where do you draw the line. Do you suddenly see the light the minute you pick up an instrument? Do you have to know a certain number of tunes before you realise? What about newbies? I for one accept that some punters can understand what a session is even if they can't play an instrument. Not to acknowledge this is an insult to the intelligence of non-musos. Unfortunately, here in Sydney, it's quite rare to find a punter who views a session as anything at all. Most of them completely ignore us. And I mean completely. But that's cool by us.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "it's an interesting philophical question, and probably one that's beyond our ability to discuss without the necessary training and jargon."
That's exactly what I said to bb on this thread last night.
"Maybe this is too much of a philosophical discussion that none of us here are qualified for... I know I'm not."
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL @ my own comments: "who cares what the punters think... this is an insult to the intelligence of non-musos". Never mind.
So I'm I the last one to leave?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Maybe this is too much of a philosophical discussion that none of us here are qualified for... I know I'm not"
Me neither, but hey, you know me. I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to fan the flames of a Will & Jack showdown
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "Will has always been open to the possibility that some punters will view a session as a performance, but he's trying to make others see that it's possible that punters could view a session as something else other than a performance"
Really... is that what the fuss is all about? I never disagreed with that. I even mentioned that some of the punters at our session "get it."
Welcome to the Flame Pit of Misunderstanding, Ben. I appreciate your recognition that I'm not instigating the negative discourse here. Thanks.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, unless I've misunderstood too, I think Will was trying to get you to see that it's theoretically possible to have a session which neither the players nor punters view as a performance. He's saying his session can be like that, and he thinks that you're saying that his session can't possibly be like that. But if you try to imagine Will's session (and I realise this is pure speculation here), I dunno, 7 or 8 musos, a couple of regulars at the bar who've been to the session every week for years, a few more regulars sitting around at tables, buying drinks for the regulars, maybe taking the p*ss a bit from the sidelines, etc. I mean this is rural Montana he's talking about. Our sessions in Sydney aren't really like that. We do get punters like that but I can only think of one or two, or sometimes Mary's friends from Mayo come in and they know what's going on, but usually you find out later that they were All-Ireland Champions at the banjo or something and they just didn't have their instrument with them.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You mean "think of all the starving children in Africa"? Danny and I used to call that one when we wanted to annoy each other back in the day
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark, I never had a problem with that concept, and I said so more than once on this thread. But I didn't think we were only talking about Will's session. Did you?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Lol, I go play some more tunes, come back, and you're still at it.
Benhall, Jack's the one who suggested I give my "evidence" to Jeremy. I didn't call on Jeremy, only said that I was disappointed he hadn't weighed in yet.
And I'm not just talking about my session here, but many sessions I've been to with a similar bent. And the way the old codgers thought about playing the music.
The bit where Jack says I'm refuting the dictionary to support my argument, calling it "Brilliant!" is where I see Jack resorting to his rhetoric of degradation. He either deliberately ignored the substance of my post there, or didn't bother trying to understand it. And then he dredges up his old tactics of saying that people who think sessions aren't performances are in denial, and then we get the surreal bit about the flyers to punters.
Jack's not discussing the ideas here on their merits, he's belittling people for disagreeing with him, and then playing innocent and even victimized.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As Ben pointed out, the first mention of Jeremy was from yourself when you said: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." I only suggested (after you said that) to take your case to Jeremy if you felt so strongly. I didn't bring up Jeremy... you did.
As for the rest of your case against my behavior that you just stated -- I'm not convinced, and I don't see any indication that others are convinced with it either.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sessions, in a pub or public place, are performances, that's it. You may not think you are performing, but you are.
Now performing does not mean showing off, playing to the crowd, or for the crowd. Performing is playing in a public place. Can't say it any easier.
Now I do not like "closeted"" sessions, where the musicians completel;y ignore the punters, because that is like going into someones house to play, and just ignoring them. In many cases the punters are the regulars, and the musicians are invading their local. So I personally would interact with punters, especially if they are humans. That's what people do.
Now you don't have to have them up singing, dancing or making cakes.
And finally, Will, read all of this. You may notice a bit of the pot calling the kettle black on your behalf. To begin a thread saying "Jack is insulting" and immediately adding "and he can't read" could be considered insulting.
As in most harassment cases, it is the perception of the harassed that it is usually important.
Saint possibly thought I was insulting him/her until he/she caught on that I was just a stirrer.
But to paraphrase Shakespeare "Methinks the man doth protest too much".
I have just returned from a session where the musicians didn't realise they were performing, but they were, because I was listening to them. That's why it is a performance.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, I brought Jeremy up, but I didn't suggest bringing him into this mess. You did.
"Did not."
"Did too."
"Did not."
Did too."
(There. That should save a few minutes typing.)
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The above could also be considered insulting, although I presume it is said in jest?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've played in sessions in Ireland where the customers in the pub are quite definitely there to be entertained by the music - and they can safely be assumed to be very knowledgeable. The musicians know this and respond accordingly.
In my neck of the woods it's not quite on that level, although there is often appreciative applause, which reminds us that people are listening and enjoying our music.
I've always taken it for granted, when playing in public (whether in Irish sessions or other types of music) that there people out there listening who may very well know as much about the music, or more, than those playing it. The converse is - would any musician really enjoy playing to rows of cabbages?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Alas, Lazyhound, doubtless someone will.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, BB, that is indeed an unfortunate possibility (hopefully of very low probability), which makes one wonder about the "musician(s)" concerned. But here is a question,
Would a session in a pub prefer the pub to be empty, or that there are some customers present?
If the answer is "some customers present" then the session is "performing", whether or not it is aware of the fact, because there is an unspoken interaction between the session and the other people present.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss is right Its a performance , musicans still try to play thier best because they are aware people are listening and there is probally a sign outside the door to let people know that there is a session inside so people will come in and watch the musicans perform.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Certainly the publican wants people inside, usually they are interested in the till roll rather than the music. And I have said all along it is a performance, willingly, wittingly or not.
Thank you Saint for your support. Do you actually play (have to be careful incase Michael is about) a, (whisper) BODHRAN?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, do a "find" for this page, (command "F" on my computer,) put in "Jeremy" and you'll see that your post comes up first. (I can't believe I'm having to say this.)
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, as I said above (I can't believe I have to repeat this), I brought up Jeremy by name.
But all I said was that I was disappointed he wasn't weighing in. I never suggested actually dragging him into it. You did.
I assume he's letting us verbally duke it out on our own, shaking his head all the while.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, when you type things like "I can't belive I'm having to say this," I have to assume you're either grossly underestimating my reading comprehension abilities, or overestimating yours. Does the latter ever occur to you?
(And before benhall or Bliss chides me for being insulting again, I'd like to point out that I've merely adopted Jack's own conversational approach.)
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You're saying that I brought up Jeremy first, It was pointed out by Ben that it was actually you, but you still insist it was me. I'm having trouble believing that you're actually disputing that when the evidence is so clear.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Of Course, David, but you aren't the target for Will's errant accusations here either.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
"Yes, as I said above, I brought up Jeremy by name."
-whoosis
Hello? bonk, bonk? Lights are on, nobody home?
Jack, take a breath. You can argue with yourself if you want, but please stop making up counter-arguments on my part. It's kinda creeping me out....
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes Bliss Im obsessed with bodhran playing and i am always trying to improve . One can never stop learning .
P.S.
I love perfoming at sessions
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I wish the Corleone family would weigh in on this, I will ask them.
Oh my God, they have gone and whacked someone. I never wanted them to be DRAGGED into this.
That's my conscience clear.
Goodnight fair friends.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wow, this is some thread.
I don't see sessions as performances. I see them as an evening where people in the community get together and some of the people play music and some sit around and drink and some maybe dance and some pick up the dirty glasses, etc, etc. And there's usually lots of smiles and laughter. And cookies. It's one of the most pleasant human activities.
Performances, by contrast, are far more serious things. Some performer gets up on a stage in front of some other people who paid to get in and performs something. And some guy from the Philadelphia Inquirer publishes a review about it the next day. And Green Linnet releases a "live" cd from the recordings of the performance.
I dunno, that's how I see it.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh yes, and then there is a stramash, which is kind of a session happening on a stage. I need Ptarmigan now to help me know if my knowledge of Scots is on target or not...
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, I don't know how much of this thread you read, but we all pretty much agree that from the sessioner's point of view it is as you say. The crux is what the punter thinks is happening when they encounter us having our sessions and how that's in contrast to what we think we're doing. The average punter thinks it's an informal performance of some sort and responds to it as such. This is where the discussion goes from practical to philosophical and the question becomes: does that make a session held in a public place a performance? Some people would argue it does since the punter's presence is just as valid as those in the session, and others will dismiss the punters as irrelevant and insist it does not. But I'm certain that if punters were represented on this message board they might take issue with being considered "irrelevant." Does that clear it up for you?.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oo I'm scared of the punters taking issue with us. Do they have guns? Maybe we should make them feel better and humour them by telling them that what we're doing *is* a performance, instead of telling it as it actually is. You know when I was little I asked my dad if a tree grows inside you when you eat an apple pip, and he said yes. I believed him, and he probably found it entertaining. So perhaps there *is* a point to all of this.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Uh... I don't think the punters are irrelevant, but you might be.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I knew it. I'm off to slash my wrists now. It's been nice knowing you all. Good bile.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Remember to slash the palm side... bye...
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just caught up with this again - a small point: Noxious, I didn't mean to imply that ALL punters view it as a session; just that at all sessions that I have ever attended, there are some that do. There are clearly two different viewpoints: the sessioners' and the punters'. (I've re-read my post, and it's not you, Nox, it's me - I didn't say it very clearly. What I should have said was that *some* punters experience a session as a performance - what I actually said was that "the punters believe it was some kind of performance".)
This reminds me a bit of one of my favourite UK politician characters (as a character, that is, irrespective of what you think of her politics) - Edwina Currie. Some years ago, she said, correctly, that 90% of all UK egg production was affected by salmonella. She was *reported* as saying that 90% of all UK eggs were infected by salmonella, which was not correct at all.
And, I'm sorry Will, but I think you're being disingenuous. If you didn't intend to provoke Jack by bringing Jeremy into the discussion, then I don't know why you did it. In the circumstances, I thought Jack's response was reasonable. He didn't call on Jeremy's assistance - you did, at the very least by implication.
Still, who cares what I think? I'm not an arbiter, and I don't believe anyone else should be either. We ALL agree on the sessioners' standpoint on this (I think) - it's just that Jack, myself, Trevor and others are acknowledging that there is a wider world out there beyond the closed circle of the musicians themselves. And we've got to acknowledge also that we do get a small kick out of there being some reaction from the punters, even though we're not performing. Otherwise, as others have said, why on Earth do we go out there into the wider world, to pubs, rather than to, say, rooms in village halls etc? (Before I get the obvious response of cost, I could get 3 or 4 free rooms in such places with much less effort and time than I could find a session-friendly pub - it just requires a little thought, and I can't believe the rest of the world is that much different in this respect.)
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
'The crux is what the punter thinks is happening when they encounter us having our sessions and how that's in contrast to what we think we're doing. The average punter thinks it's an informal performance of some sort and responds to it as such. This is where the discussion goes from practical to philosophical and the question becomes: does that make a session held in a public place a performance? Some people would argue it does since the punter's presence is just as valid as those in the session, and others will dismiss the punters as irrelevant and insist it does not. But I'm certain that if punters were represented on this message board they might take issue with being considered "irrelevant."
Okay, let's take this one point at a time. First of all, much as I'm trying like the dickens to become an actual musician, I AM a punter. Been hanging out with other punters for 20 years (well, 24, but who's counting).
As a punter, I can tell you your assumption is flawed. The average punter can easily see that a session is not a performance. Said punter probably has experienced many actual performances and knows the difference between the setup of a concert hall with a stage and a crowded pub with tables and chairs placed any which way. If our punter has never ever seen a real live session before, he might be confused at first and think it's some kind of newfangled kind of a performance, and he might think he has to clap after every bit of music, and shush everyone around him because the "performers" are "performing". But he very soon learns that this is not necessary. He'll look up at the bar and see the bartender carrying on with pouring drinks and taking money and talking with the customers. He'll look around him and see everyone else engrossed in their own conversations and not really paying attention to the musicians. He'll see that the musicians don't necessarily respond to his applause. He'll realize, *fairly quickly*, that he's in a different kind of environment and he can relax and have a beer and not spend the evening behaving like a well-mannered audience member.
So. Are punters irrelevant? You mean to the music? I don't think so. They're part of the reason the musicians want to play the music in the first place (oooh, that's a firecracker, what I just said!). Here's why I think this---I see music as an expression of a community, as an expression of being human. Think of when some of the first sessions started in London back in the 50's---entire communities of Irish people were forced to emigrate for lack of work, they settled in enclaves in London and their music came with them, it helped them celebrate who they were and reminded them of home. Ever listened to the Paddy in the Smoke cd? You think the punters in that pub weren't part of the experience? There's one tune where Martin Byrnes is building up some excitement and some punter shouts out his name to encourage him on---these people loved their musicians, and the musicians know it and respond to it. Any musician who doesn't care at all what other people think is missing out on one of the greatest benefits of having such a wonderful skill---the ability to have a valued place in the community.
Well, I'd better stop before I become even more philosophical and start waxing on about the meaning of music to the human experience---it's such a spiritual thing for me, I get quite reflective about it. I hear my fiddle calling...
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm also interested in this assertion, which has come up before on this board, that "sessions started in London back in the 50's". I don't know, because I wasn't there, but I guess this may be when sessions started to be routinely played in modern style pubs ... except I'm sure I remember Chief O'Neill writing something about gatherings of musicians and someone bringing out old tunes and the others greeting each one as a long lost friend.
And you'll find descriptions of sessions (Scottish admittedly) in Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped. Too lazy to look it up right now to check, but wasn't that set in about the middle of the 18th century?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good point, benhall. I've been wondering about that myself. My grandmother told me about how my (Russian Jewish) great-grandfather used to love Irish music---apparently he used to stop for a beer after work on the Lower East Side of NYC back in the 1920's, and there were bars then that had live music. It blows my mind to think that he was listening to exactly the same kind of music that I'm learning to play!
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Think of sex. Even in the privacy of your own bedroom, without an audience, you and your chosen partner are performing.
Having said that I am currently baking a gigantic bodhran shaped cookie to bring to the session/performance tonight. That should keep everybody happy.
And lastly, all you have to do is think of an informal performance, for example a session, and a formal performance, such as a concert. They are SEEN as performances by the public, if not the musicians.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I almost started to write something there, but then I remembered again that there's no point. Damn, I always do that.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
performance can be described as a particular act , deed or proceeding.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No point, Noxious? All quiet on the love front then?
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, I for one never said the punters were irrelevant, though the notion that the session is a concert for their entertainment might be an irrelevant notion, as far as the musicians are concerned. We went over this above: that notion only becomes relevant if said punters start demanding Fields of Athenry or asking us not to turn our backs to them.
In fact, anyone who bothered to read my comments would know that I welcome non-musicians as active and essentially equal participants in our session. The opposite, in fact, of irrelevant.
The problem with insisting that *all* sessions be performances (as Bliss, among others, has said) is that no one here has been to *all* sessions, and so can't accurately assess what some sessions are really all about.
Also, the performance mindset drives sessions toward commercialism ("the publican's only in it for the till," paid session leaders, catering to the tourists, etc.). If some people want their sessions to be like that, all power to them. But I'll keep working to foster a session that's uncommercial, unselfconscious, and communal because I enjoy it that way, and I understand how those very qualities are at the deepest roots of this musical tradition.
And Nox is right, there's little use in talking with people who repeatedly show that they aren't listening.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I am listening. The number of sessions one has been to is not relevant. The style, make-up, rules, layout, basis, and content of the session are not relevant. It does not matter what any particular session is like. The discussion is not about types of sessions, yours or anybody elses. We all agree that all sessions are different.
The point being debated is simply this. We contend that playing music in a public place is a performance. That's it.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I am now going out to our session.
Sometimes we do a blues number that I wrote called "All the women love me". Now that is a performance.
Told you all "sessions" were different.
# Posted on December 10th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: “Well, I for one never said the punters were irrelevant, though the notion that the session is a concert for their entertainment might be an irrelevant notion, as far as the musicians are concerned.”
Irrelevant: MG said it first: “that's interesting then. So do we agree? Do we agree that your statement, "the punters love 'em", while undoubtedly true, is, to the session playing musician, irrelevant?”
And Will kicked in his 2 cents within a post or two: “PB, I think "irrelevant" is the operative word here. The point against which you argued at length--"to the session playing musician" any notion of performance is irrelevant.”
Sounds to me like the punter’s perspective is “irrelevant.” You might not have said, “The punter is irrelevant” but if I told you that your opinion is “irrelevant” I think you’d feel I thought of you as irrelevant. Later you pointed out how the punters in your pub were converted over time and some even became part of your session, and I’m not doubting that, but since the discussion was about sessions around the world and not just about yours, all we can conclude is that most punters are considered “irrelevant.” This notion was picked up on and carried throughout the thread.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy writes: “As a punter, I can tell you your assumption is flawed. The average punter can easily see that a session is not a performance. Said punter probably has experienced many actual performances and knows the difference between the setup of a concert hall with a stage and a crowded pub with tables and chairs placed any which way.”
You’re talking about the difference between a formal performance, or “concert,” and an informal performance that would happen in the same environment where public sessions happen – pubs. When a band sets up on stage with mics and such and gives their performance… punters continue chatting and know they don’t have to pay attention or clap after every number unless they’re compelled to. Sound familiar?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm kinda surprised somebody from Montana would take that position anyway. Some pubs if you're playing an instrument, you are performing, you'll take requests or end up in the hospital. Either the state has changed a lot in the last fifteen years, or Whoosis is living in one of the more sissified place...full of actors and trendy coffee shops
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Irrelevant to What?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think it's all closely linked with arrogance, which is in turn linked with self esteem. What was it Ropy Harper sang?
"You can feel bona-fide if you ride with the tide,
You can feel magnified if you hide in your pride"
Kennedy writes, "Any musician who doesn't care at all what other people think is missing out on one of the greatest benefits of having such a wonderful skill---the ability to have a valued place in the community." This seems noble enough, but my stomach really turned when Bodhran Bliss told us of his sexual performances. The poor guy is just unable to switch it off, even in the privacy of the bedroom.
And the problem with not having the ability to think outside the concept of everybody judging you, every second of every day is that it is impossible to get in touch with your own self expression.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hmmm... my act of playing in a public space... well, for me personally, not really. But I'm not the only person in the pub. Besides those of us playing music there are the employees and anyone else who happened to come in while the session was going on.
To determine what happened in the pub that night you'd have to investigate by asking a cross section of people that would include the punters. I think the punter’s answer might be different than mine, but no less valid in determining the facts. I would tell you I went to the pub to share tunes, drinks and laughs with some friends. The punter would probably say he (or she) went in for a pint (or whatever) and to chat with friends etc., and he might ad the bit about some people playing music. If he was a punter who paid attention to the music and was enjoying it he might say the music was “mighty.” If the punter was paying that close attention they might then be considered an "audience" and would have been enjoying watching musicians in the act of playing tunes on their instruments. All of this adds up to a "performance" according to rudimentary definitions.
If you were to ask the punter what he thought of the performance, he probably wouldn’t hesitate in saying it was favorable if he enjoyed it, or that it was “pure sh*te” if he didn’t like it. But there would be few punters that would respond to that question by correcting your use of the word “performance” and begin lecturing you about how it really isn’t a “performance” and fill you in on all the subtle differences. (Notice I didn’t rule out the possibility all together here or anywhere else on this thread.)
So after investigating the case of ‘what happened at the pub the night of the session’, you can only conclude that people drank, visited, laughed, etc., and there was music being played by some folks and enjoyed by other people listening and/or watching them. Sounds like a session to you and I, but it also sounds like an informal performance of some sort to the punters. Who’s irrelevant? Neither.
Conclusion: a session in a public place (like a pub) becomes a performance for most of the unsuspecting punters who also happen to be in the pub.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Once again, Jack's "logic" doesn't hold up. Just because a punter's sense of a session as a performance is irrelevant to me does not mean I think the punter is irrelevant.
Try this on: If a punter sees Jack playing his flute, and the punter thinks to himself, "Wow, he can really play that recorder!" is the punter's misidentification of Jack's flute relevant to Jack's playing?
And I can't help it that other people on this thread picked up the "irrelevant" idea and misunderstood and misreperesented it for something it was not. Lots of that going on here.
Heh, Taocat, you just hung out in the wrong bars. Or didn't carry a big enough stick.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Cross post, I was refering to Jack's logic in his previous post.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But it remains germain because he persists in misrepresenting my (and probably Michael's too) notion of "irrelevance."
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And now Jack says that by definition, anyone listening to music is an "audience," which in turn means that the music being played must be a "performance," because there's an "audience."
This is a tautology.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Come off it, that's the whole point of this. Rudimentary definitions is just not good enough.
Take a bunch of people stood around the local park's duck pond. "Lovely ducks eh?" says a lady throwing in some bread. "Actually, those two over their are grebes and there's geese over there." say some smart arse. Does the lady care? They're just ducks to her.
But here, on theSESSION.org, lets get more into it than rudimentary definitions.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, we're not disputing "performance" in the sense that sessions are an execution of music in the presence of other people.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Will is right, the use of the word "irrelevant" was by no means meant to be disparaging. It's use is to point out the subjectivity of non-performance music.
It's blindingly straight forward:
The musician is not performing.
The punter thinks he is.
To the musician, it's irrelevant.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And some session clearly *are* designed to entertain. That's fine. But that fact alone shouldn't preclude that other sessions are NOT intended to entertain, and that everyone in the pub understands that.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Folks, I'm not making these words up, I'm looking them up in a dictionary. This is basically the same dictionary that most people in the English speaking world refer to. Most people aren't looking up their words and finding out their meaning in a special dictionary of ITM session terms.
Perform v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (or tunes) or a play to an audience
Audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or "other" live performance
Performance
1. a presentation of an artistic work to an audience for example, a play or piece of music (tunes)
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I wonder if some places are just so full of arrogant punters scrounging around for people to entertain them, that some session players have never had the joy of playing for their own pleasure amongst people who either don't care, or who listen without creating the ambient expectation that the music is for them?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, I'm not doubting that everyone in the pub where you hold your sessions understands the concept as you present it, but we're talking about sessions all around the world here -- not just yours.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
MG writes: "To the musician, it's irrelevant."
I've never disputed this. I'm just saying that the punter's experience is different, and just as valid.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Whenever Jack gets cornered, he runs back to the dictionary.
He ignores the reality that dictionaries don't create meaning, usage by people and context creates meaning.
He also misses the tautology in his logic based on definitions of performance and audience. "A performance has an audience. An audience is people listening to a performance. Therefore any time an audience listens to a performance, it must be a performance."
And he conveniently ignores the INTENT behind the gig or concert sense of performance--that the musicians INTENDS to play FOR the audience. When you take INTENT into account, it is clearly possible to play a tune in a public place with no intent of entertaining anyone but yourself.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
correct, just as valid, but irrelevant to the musician
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack also like to remind me that we're not just talking about my session. Even though I've never said we were. I think we're also talking about Michael's session, and likely the session experience of many wise musicians around the world who grasp the pleasure of playing for playing's sake, regardless of whether other people are listening.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, is it your position that the dictionary is wrong concerning their definition of the word "Perform" and "Performance"?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm not so sure that a poorly informed opinion is "just as valid" as an informed one. If a punter thinks Jack is playing a recorder, when in fact Jack is playing a fully keyed Grinter flute (and Jack knows the difference, which I assume he does), I have a hard time seeing the punter's opinion as equally valid.
There's nothing wrong with helping people better understand what they're experiencing. Many people often feel enriched by learning about something they didn't previously understand. It helps them more fully appreciate the experience.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David writes: "we're not presenting it to the audience! Just playing within earshot..."
Right… and ostriches don't think anyone sees them just because they have their head stuck in the sand.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No Jack, those dictionary definitions are good ones.
But they take you only so far, especially if you ignore the performer's INTENT to entertain an audience.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack also likes to belittle other people's points, not by saying they're stupid, but by using quaint metaphors that compare those people to ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.
This is also a flawed piece of logic. It amounts to saying: "You're wrong because you're in denial."
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will's the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to belittling other people's points.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I just looked at a bit of my screen there and saw something funny:
Does anyone like bodhrans?
Jesus wept.
tee he
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No Jack, I'm just pointing out the lack of rational cohesion in your points. In a discussion such as this, pointing out lapses in logic is the only way to constructively move forward.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "But they take you only so far, especially if you ignore the performer's INTENT to entertain an audience. "
I've never seen "intent" contingent on the meaning of the word. If you have substantiation for this I'd like to see it. I would agree however that the performance could be unintentional, but a performance none-the-less.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Also, I would like to add that I wasn't belittling David's point, I was simply offering allegory to make my point. Any belittling is purely speculative.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think the reason y'all can't convince each other is that you're both right. The session experience is so removed from the cultural standard that there really is no good means of defining it. It is a conversation between musicians, a provider of background entertainment for the punters (with some musicians being cognizant of punters and others not) and more.
What I don't understand is why it is so important to make your perspective dominant. It is just a matter of perspective after all. Just as everybody's experience of the session will be different, and that is not a bad thing at all.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I like that thought experiment. It gives a way of explaining the non-performance music concept as a kind of psychological one way mirror. They can see you, but you can't see them.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack's dictionary definitions for perform and perfomance both mention "presenting" something "to" an audience. "Presenting to an audience" sounds very intentional and purposeful, as opposed to, say, "playing music within earshot of other people." In the first, the musician's INTENT is to present a tune to a listener for the listener's appreciation. In the second, the musician may be unaware and unconcerned whether anyone actually IS within earshot, let alone whether anyone within earshot actually wants to hear the tune.
INTENT is crucial.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Actully TaoCat it's very important because it is waht we do. And is it not important to be aqble to define what you do?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David, I've been to a session in a snug at Hughzes in Dublin when I was there once for a couple of months. There were nights when only musicians were in that snug, so only their perspective mattered. But on other nights music loving punters would squeeze in and enjoy the music complete with applause and all the other hallmarks of a "performance." It would be difficult to explain those nights as much else than an informal performance to anyone other then the musicians. So was it a session, or an informal performance? Depends on who you ask I suppose. Who would be wrong? Neither.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Jack has seen the word "intent", in "unintentional"
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, you can't define what we do anymore than you can define the tunes by the dots. It's all just a representation.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's exactly what I've been saying all along, TaoCat.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Taocat, that's precisely why I've stuck it out on this one--Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience."
Why is that view the only acceptable one to these people?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
AAARGG
so why do you keep quoting the bloody dictionary?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And all I'm saying is that it is possible for a group of people, musicians and non-musicians alike, to enjoy an evening of music, drink, and craic, without necessarily being a "performance," formal or informal or otherwise.
It's shocking to me that this offends Jack and Bliss so. Especially since the aural tradition of this music makes it clear that this is how the music has been played and understood for generations.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Intentional, unintentional, it doesn't matter. You're presenting "an artistic work such as a piece of music (or tunes)" in a public space where punters are also present, and will be likely to think of themselves as an "audience." Thse are just the facts -- intent is irrelevant.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, yes, Jack's the one trying to draw a narrow definition around what a session is.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, you are NOT presenting it
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Right, any more than you'd be "presenting" your privates for an audience in a public loo. Unless you're into that sort of thing....
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"You" being the generic "you," not implicating Jack personally.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Debauched minds think alike.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nothing offends me about the discussion, Will, except when you accuse me of being, "condescending and sarcastic" and start telling me I "take it [the discusision] down to the level of a junior high playgorund argument" and so on.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
OK, come back to the physiological two way mirror thing. They can see you, but you can't see them
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
one way mirror, sorry
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Firstly, as for my performing in the bedroom, the goat demands it.
And poor Will has seized on the word INTENT, as if this was a murder trial.
And I don't care if you go into the pub, erect a screen between you and everyone else, and then play. It is still a performance, completely without intent, although when Perry Mason hears that you erected a screen, he will wisely ask if this does not show intent.
Going into the pub with instruments would also show intent.
Right that's that settled.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was telling you how your rhetorical tactics made me feel. I said those things because I'm tired of seeing the level of discourse on this board lowered by the use of mean-spirited sarcasm, condescension, and apparently deliberate use of tautologies and other logical fallacies.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
For example, tautologies and sarcasm and condescension of the sort Bliss routinely whips out for our entertainment.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Funny that these threads on the session/performance issue are the record setters, and that many other members here laugh at us for carrying on this way. No other topic generates this much heat. We must be on to something.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ha, punters, performers, and Bliss's goat. I'm off too
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I smell dinner....
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just back from a session there was some great performances . one guy played his first set of tuneson his own he gave a great performance.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blissters writes: "And poor Will has seized on the word INTENT, as if this was a murder trial."
Hey, this could be good allegory. If the actions of one man causes another man to die, whether it's determined to be murder or involuntary manslaughter -- someone's going to be doing some time.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "No Jack, I'm just pointing out the lack of rational cohesion in your points. In a discussion such as this, pointing out lapses in logic is the only way to constructively move forward."
Well, Will, I really think it would be best for everyone concerned if you limited your analysis of the commentary on this board to your own. To be instructing others about the "rational cohesion" in their points" and their "lapses in logic" comes across not only as needlessly pedantic, but arrogant as well.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David writes: "I must admit I'm uncomfortable with the notion that because the punter thinks something is something, then it is."
How do you keep missing the point that both the musician AND the punter's perception is correct? This isn't about which one is right, but more about niether being wrong.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "No other topic generates this much heat. We must be on to something."
I think it might be for a couple of reasons: 1) because it's a philosophical argument that few, if any of us are really qualified for, and 2) it cuts to the heart of why we have sessions.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience." So says Will.
I never once said anything of the sort. I always play for my own enjoyment, while other people go about their own business. They however think I am performing.
And as I am something of incredibly fantastic on the bodhran, they are drawn like flies to s##t and soon become an audience.
As I have my eyes shut, I do not notice them
And when they ask if I had intended to play, thereby showing intent, I just tell them that I always carry a load of instruments about with me. That usually fools them, and Will.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I never said that either, Blissters.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Shouldn't it be, really, be a one-and-a-half-way mirror? A two-way mirror is a window.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by fidkid
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack writes: "Welll, Will, I really think it would be best for everyone concerned if you limited your analysis of the commentary on this board to your own. To be instructing others about the "rational cohesion" in their points" and their "lapses in logic" comes across not only as needlessly pedantic, but arrogant as well."
Actually, it's very much in everyone's best interests, whether it's me doing the pointing or Michael, or David, or someone else, to reveal the lapses in your logic. It's called shedding light on the subject. Better that than cloaked in the shadows of unreasonable beliefs.
And if you really think that both the punter's and musician's perceptions are correct--equally valid--then (as David alluded to above) a rapist who says it was consensual and his victiim have no beef with each other. They're both right.
And if "perception is reality" (which seems to be what you're saying), then it shouldn't be any bother to you when a punter decides to sing a 30 verse ballad off key at your session because he perceives that it's an open floor for anyone with a perceived talent for music.
Unless "perception is reality" stops when one person's fist meets another person's nose. Once these perceptions actually interfere with another person's life, then what?
Relativism has never stood on solid ground, except when you're talking about the effect of large gravitational fields on the speed of light....
(Pedantic enough for you?)
Bliss, your first two sentences after quoting me (where you say you've never said anything of the sort) say exactly what my quote says. I appreciate your generosity--providing yet another briliant example of self-contradiction.
Right. Looks like you lads can continue the debate on your own from here, seeing as how Bliss disagrees with himself, and Jack doesn't need anyone's help reasoning through it. Onward and upward.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
There is no helping some people. I tried, Dear Lord, I tried.
Well that is my perception.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And there are only a few reasons why someone would sing a 30 verse ballad off key.
They could perceive that they were at a "performance session, or;
They could perceive that the elitist group in the corner were playing for their own amusement, and decide to sing for their own amusement.
Either way, he/she would be performing, at a "session".
With deadly, pre-meditated intent.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, many people perform at sessions and there are many reasons. To prove something, like the guy earlier who played his first set on his own. To wreck someone else's music, like the guy Bliss mentioned above. To altruistically share your genius with the world, like Bliss himself (or was that "feed some sh*t to some flies"). You simply can't help it, like Jack, because he thinks listening to logic is pedantic, which disqualifies him from a philosophical argument.
Yes, people often perform at sessions. But I've never once yet seen anybody do it for a good reason.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've seen it too and it makes me squirm. No-one likes a showoff.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wil writes: "Actually, it's very much in everyone's best interests, whether it's me doing the pointing or Michael, or David, or someone else, to reveal the lapses in your logic. It's called shedding light on the subject. Better that than cloaked in the shadows of unreasonable beliefs."
This is very disappointing, Will. After failing to convince us that you're right and we're wrong you now are resorting to ad hominem. Since you couldn't win the argument on it's own merits, and have ignored all requests for substantiation, you have chosen to attack me personally instead. What you don't realize, obviously, is that this tactic represents an admission of defeat. It's probably best that you bow out now since all you have left is to invent ways to insult and demean myself and others in this forum.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ahh... Michael the philosopher. Tell us Michael, what makes you so qualified as a philosopher? Let's see your credentials.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What exactly is "winning" an argument ?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by murfbox
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will want's us to accept that the punter's perspective is irrelevant since the people in the session didn't consider what they were doing was any kind of performance whatsoever. But the punter's perception had all the hallmarks of a performance, and unless someone explains it to him -- he'll go away believing he saw a performance of some sort.
So who's perception determines what actually happened in the pub... the punter or the session musician? My position is that both are relevant, Will wants us to dismiss the punter's perception and consider the session musician’s view as the single correct perspective. He hasn't convinced me and a few others of this, so now he's resorting to insulting our intelligence instead. So whatever winning an argument might be – Will isn’t doing it.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Logic is the basis of philosophy, to dismiss it as pedantic is akin to dismissing colour in painting, or tonality in music (oops, there I go again, bodhran bashing)
And lets say it again shall we. I've all the time in the world.
The Punter's perception is not irrelevant, to the punter. It's irrelevant to the musician. What defines performance is when the punter's perception becomes relevant to the musician.
So what's actually happening in the pub? You are quite right, two things, that are both relevant. One is not right and the other wrong. It's just that one thing is relevant to one lot, and the other relevant to the others.
Your problem is that you have difficulty dismissing what is relevant to the punter and until you can, you are doomed to for ever be a performer.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's certainly nice and clear and easy to understand and seems to hit the nail on the head.
End of argument?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by iain beag
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'll say it again, since certain voices in this thread have been continually saying the opposite---punters do not necessarily see a session as a performance. It's a major error to assume otherwise.
And we're getting into some pretty fine semantics by describing a session as an "informal performance". Wouldn't that make ALL sessions "informal performances"? How do you know when a session is NOT an "informal performance"? When every single person in the room is a musician? If so, wouldn't that make EVERY session *by definition* an "informal performance"? And if that's true, why call them "sessions" anyway?
Hmmm, let's try it out...I went to an informal performance last night...
Nah.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Would an informal performance be a ceilidh?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by iain beag
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, it's intent. If the musicians intends to consider as irrelevant the punters perception, it's not a performance.
If for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"punters do not necessarily see a session as a performance. It's a major error to assume otherwise."
so forgive me if this next point has been mentioned before.
I've just been skimming this thread as the "bodhran" aspect put me off a little
Kennedy, what you say is true especially in a regular established session pub with regular punters who have "been trained" to a certain extent and do not expect a performance. In many cases, it's just background music and often "tolerated" rather than appreciated.
In other circumstances, the punters sometimes think that the musicians are just "practising" and accept this too, although some might expect a little more..you know "Come on on, give us a proper song", "Play up" and so on.
It really depends on the pub.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by John J.
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael says Jack is doomed to be a performer. "Doomed" has obvious negative connotations. But what disturbs me is that this won't bother Jack because he is already aware that he is a "performer" and he seems to be cool with it. Michael, I'd be interested to see you take this further and tell us what you think "people who are doomed to be performers" miss out on, because that's the crux of why this thing is so important and why we've argued about it for so long.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Strange argument, isn't it? I mean this whole discussion. I think what "certain voices" are trying to say is simply a recognition that there is more than one view of the same session on the same night, from different standpoints.
)
I did a gig last night in a pub - nobody took the slightest notice of us, most of the time - just carried on chatting and drinking and laughing. We were background music. Doesn't mean to say they didn't enjoy it or appreciate us being there and the music. In fact we had lots of nice comments afterwards. Even though we were background music, we were still performing. Thing is, there will, in my experience, always be some punters - not all - just some, who will have the same sort of feeling during a session, even though the musicians' view is, in the case of a session, different from those involved in the sort of background music 'gig' described above. Their view (the punters', that is) is valid - might not be mine, might not be the same as other sessioners', might be a minority view, but still valid.
We're just arguing for inclusion and tolerance of other peoples' point of view aren't we?
Plus, there's a nagging doubt in my mind - like many, I suppose, I've played in the sort of 'back room' session where it's just the musicians present, shut away from the rest of the pub. There's a strange uncomfortable feeling in such sessions, and, paradoxically, you'd have thought, people are actually shyer and MORE conscious of their playing (and hence of their performance?) than when playing in the main body of the pub. In other words, we'd rather play in public? And isn't that performing, in at least a litle way? (I've also got a nagging feeling that I'm missing something blindingly obvious here, so feel free to point it out
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Rats! I posted, and, while I was writing, Michael posted this: "If, for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform" and the b***er's started to win me round ... rats! again ...
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Okay, let's work with that. Say I go into a bar *intending* to have an honest-to-goodness session and play the music I want the way I want and not care about what the punters think (this is all hypothetical, of course, as I haven't actually done this yet). I'm sitting there playing my fiddle and some punter comes up to me and says how much he like the music (can't quite imagine this happening, but I suppose it will some day). I say thank you, as you do, and I feel happy that he's happy. And it feels good to keep playing knowing that other people are enjoying it. I'm still playing the same music, the way I want to play it. Does my awareness of someone listening to me mean I'm performing now?
And let's say he comes up to me again and asks me to play Out on the Ocean (this is a knowledgable punter here). I tell him sure and give it a go. He's happy, I'm happy he's happy, he buys everyone a drink (this is also a very nice punter). My session mates and I go back to doing our thing. Are we performing then?
I'll answer my own question---I don't see it as a performance. I see it as sharing music. And *as a punter myself*, I know that that punter who bought me a drink doesn't necessarily think I was performing. He thinks I'm playing music. He knows he doesn't have to clap for me, but he can appreciate what I do.
I don't know, I'm just having trouble with this "performance" description. The word has all sorts of connotations that don't match up with the music as I've experienced it.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
benhall, you are indeed missing the blindingly obvious. People get the same awkwardness in quiet rooms in pubs in scenarios which have nothing to do with playing music, because many people don't like silence. People are more comfortable with ambient noise, period. In conversation, you get a certain amount of tension or shyness when someone breaks silence with a remark that is only made to fulfil the function of breaking the silence, like "so, how have you been then". In the same way as nobody wants to be that person to make the awkward comment, it's natural to shy away from starting a tune up in a situation like that. I've had many a great session in back rooms with no punters present, but it's a lot easier if you know the other musos as good friends.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yeah, I'm sorry for the "doomed" phrase. But, Mr blanket, your question is very pertinent and may help to answer why this thread is so long, while moving it forward.
It's about the personal gain you can get from non-performance music. It's about a deep inner freedom from vanity. Just you and your mates and the music. I used to perform a lot, still do occasionally, and still enjoy it. But no amount of performance can come even close to the feeling you can get when you deliberately shut out any perception of how you are perceived.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks NB, I thought I was.
Leads me on to ... so we have sessions in pubs so *we* can enjoy (or at least be comforted by) the noise of the punters. Are *they* performing, do you think?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, you say, "Say I go into a bar ... but this is all hypothetical." You'll need to experience it.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
benhall, to me, your suggestion that the punters might be performing is just as silly as the suggestion that session musos are necessarily performing just because they're in a public place.
Much more interesting is what Michael's saying. I think that I've been interested in reading this thread because I'm intrigued in the feeling of disappointment I get when I think that many musicians out there cannot get past the performance thing. I kind of assumed that that wasn't the case.
So this is about people who are unable to shut out thoughts of how they are being perceived... I find myself wondering whether this has any effect on their actual playing. It must do, surely, because it's psychological, and the playing of music is affected by psychological aspects as well as those of motor skills, etc.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"You'll need to experience it."
Ah well, I guess I'll come back in a couple of months, then. This thread should still be going strong by then, I'm sure.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah ha, that's exactly it. "people who are unable to shut out thoughts of how they are being perceived.". perfect.
And of course it effects their playing, you can spot it a mile off.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, I'm sorry if I was a bit snippy then, I read my post to you and it certainly looks that way.
But let's look at your scenario. Punter asks for a tune and you happily oblige. But if while playing that tune, your thoughts wander to wondering if he likes it or not, then you are performing to him. Bloody hard not to in those circumstances, and that's why we don't like requests, no matter how well intentioned.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's okay, Michael, you are my elder here, after all, and I agree with what you say anyway.
That's a shame what you say about requests. I don't make them very often, but sometimes if I'm around someone who plays something I love to pieces, it's bloody hard not to (to use your phrase).
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"To prove something, like the guy earlier who played his first set on his own. "
What about when someone "starts off" or plays a set on his/her own? Is he performing to his/her peers?
There are many instances, i.e going to a new or different sessions and even in your own sessions where one might be asked to "start something of their own".
Of course, in these situations, I wouldn't think of it as a performance or such and certainly not wish to show off. However, I wouldn't want to make a mess of it either and would certainly be conscious of the fact that the others were listening..albeit even for a very short time until they recognised(if they do) the tunes and joined in.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by John J.
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now we're getting there... There has to be some grey areas
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This is totally irrelevant to the conversation, but I'd just like to point out that this thread has the dubious distinction of being the longest in the history of thesession.org currently at 444 posts. The last "performance" thread that came anywhere close was 415.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hey I found an even longer one at 450 http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/3705. Funny how they're all about the same subject, with the same people arguing. Kinda like countries going to war...
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I found myself at a session with definite 'performance-aspects' last night. It wasn't an Irish session, but a blues/Jazz/old-timey affair. Although it was a session in the sense that the punters (who were very much there for the music) were healthily ignored when they requested tunes or songs, it had the performance thing of everyone being expected to contribute solos, which were applauded by the audience (particularly mine, as they resembled nothing they'd ever heard before, so they assumed I must be really good!). I must say that after an evening of that, although it was great fun in its own way, I'm even more inclined to go with Michael's negative assesment of 'performing'. I think that the people with his give-no-quarter outlook are useful in holding back the tendency of musicians to use sessions to display their abilities and perform to the audience or other musicians. The odd song and well-played solo or party-piece sit well within an evening's session, I feel, but need to be reined in quite firmly or Irish music could easily end up being like bluegrass, with musicians taking turns to demonstrate their 'chops' (Is that the right word?). The beauty of session music is in the feeling (maybe sometimes erroneous) that you are adding to the sound of the whole, and not simply a demonstration of your ability - unless you have something very special to contribute (I certainly didn't last night!)
Mark
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It's harder not to perform if you are playing on your own, especially if you don't know the company, but it can be done. Though whether you'd want to in this circumstance is another point. It may be that a hint of a performance, a hint of acknowledging the presence of some people listening would be more polite here.
And this is why playing in ensemble is better
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thank you, Noxious: "There has to be some grey areas". That was EXACTLY what I have been trying to say whenever I've dipped my toes back into this.
There are two things that continue to bother me in this: one is Scotsman's point, in that you are trying to make a good sound, presumably, and there are frequent moments in sessions when at least the other musicians are listening to and enjoying an individual's playing.
And the other is that I don't think it's right to "shut out thoughts" of how you are perceived. Since it *is* a community thing, as has been repeatedly pointed out, then you've got to at least be aware of the community you're in ie the pub. If you're not acutely aware of your environment as a musician then, it seems to me, you're missing out on some of the sensitivity which might make the music that extra bit magical - for the sessioners, that is, not the punters.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think that being aware of the community thing is important between sets when people are chatting, but when you start playing, you're gonna make the best music if you absorb yourself in the music and listen carefully to what the other musos are doing. Otherwise you're conscious of how you're being perceived, and you start performing, and unless you can somehow succeed in blocking these thoughts, the music's going to be different. Like Michael says, you can spot it a mile off. There's no question that some people play like this in sessions.
However, that doesn't mean you can say that "all sessions are performances", just because you're playing in public.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thing is, I do know what you mean, Noxious, and it really irritates me too when someone is "performing" in that sense. I'd also like to own up that I have been guilty myself - I think this has been rare, and whenever it has happened it's always because I'm p*ssed off at someone or something, and I *still* feel like sh*t afterwards ...
... so yes, I know what you mean
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Benhall, mere words are not enough to convey how refreshing it is to see someone actually think through the posts here and earnestly try to understand what other people are saying. But words are all we have here, so--Thank you for participating in good faith, and with intelligence and honesty.
Yes, playing the music with no hint of self-consciousness, no concern for other's perceptions, is absolutely wonderful. And it can be a very difficult mindset to acheive, especially for those of us reared in the ego-ridden world of celebity worship and commercialization.
That's why it's SO important--if playing this way is your goal--to create a non-performaning space for it to happen. For some of us, that's what a good session is all about.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, the grey areas are interesting. However, if you are trying to make a good sound, you are performing. Though if you stop performing and stop trying to make a good sound, it more often the case that you'll end up making a better sound.
Look at it from the other side. The worst performers on stage are the ones who have the crafts of communication and delivery absolutely nailed, but fail to put themselves across. The best performers are the ones who are able to let their eye off the ball for a moment and lose themselves in the music.
What we try to do is far simpler, it's just to lose yourself in the music by throwing out all the baggage of crafts of communication and delivery.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The next question is about performance situations on stage, for example a concert pianist or a member of a chamber orchestra where the musicians arrive with the intent of giving a performance. Is it possible for them to absorb themselves so completely in the music that they are able to view their audience simply as "people within earshot" of their playing, and ignore their expectations and perceptions? Of course the audience are going to view it as a "performance", but I wonder if musicians ever come off stage feeling as though they have not performed, because they have been able to shut out thoughts of other people's perceptions of what they are doing. If this stuff really does affect the music being produced, then surely people like concert pianists are going to have grappled with this issue, but come at it from a different perspective than we session musos would.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Cross-posting, but Michael mentioned the same thing. Michael you say that "the best performers are the ones who are able to let their eye off the ball for a moment and lose themselves in the music". Presumably you mean that the best performers are those who don't perform, and therefore aren't performers. I wonder if these performers who aren't performers view themselves as performers or not
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No, if you stand on a stage and completely lose yourself in the music, you won't be performing and it will be tedius to the audience. I've seen it, people trying to perform with their eyes closed etc. You have to comunicate with your audience. It's really hard to do, to lose yourself whilst maintaining a communication, but the best are really good at it.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I'm sorry you think that I've resorted to ad hominem. In fact, I've focused on your rhetorical tactics and your use of logic, particularly where that logic was flawed. That's not ad hominem--but, as Michael points out, it is how a rational discussion moves forward instead of staying forever stuck on unfounded or poorly supported opinions.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael and Nox, we also have to be careful to remember that some people are apparently wired to be at their best--and derive the most pleasure from--while consciously performing to an audience. At least that's what I assume from the numerous comments (here and elsewhere) that the flutters of performance anxiety can drive some people to play better than they could otherwise. I'm not wired that way, at least not musically, but I don't have reason to doubt that other people are. To them, a non-performance session might be dull and uninspiring, I don't know.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Maybe the session thing is a completely unique 'other way'. Maybe there is an attitude to playing, which, at its best, is almost to do with respect for the music for it's own sake. If performance has developed from that strand of music used for ceremony, maybe session music is a sort of phatic extension of the functional music from which it grows (dance music). If I play at a dance, the musicians are not the focus of attention. If any applause comes it comes at the end of the evening, when the caller or leader introduces the band, or it might come spontaneously at the end of a dance, in which case the applause is more for 'the tune' than for 'the band'.
However, session music doesn't come ENTIRELY from dance music, it also comes from music with other functions (ceremonial, or classical/performance music like Carolan pieces, and of course, songs), which introduce elements of performance into the proceedings. That side of it has more in common with the sort of music that requires an audience reaction, and other people in the pub, or kitchen, or wherever the session is, are likely to react as an audience. I can't see that someone singing a song, unless it is to lead a communal song, which doesn't seem to happen much at sessions, (except those of a dire folkiness), can be anything other than performance. I speaks directly to and creates 'an audience'. But I can't see that as bad thing, as it draws people into the session. If you just want to be ignored totally, it might be a bad thing, but then why not go and play in that back room. Personally, if I'm playing in a session, I usually completely forget that there is anyone outside the circle listening or not listening, or whatever they are doing, but their being there still somehow gives the session a legitimacy and a sense of purpose....
I've probable contradicted myself a dozen times there.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good points, Ottery. This is "roots" music after all. I like a session that harkens back to those music-as-community (the old crossroads or kitchen dances) ideals.
And you're right, I think, that this doesn't preclude a performance interlude now and then--a song, a recitation. That's what the old party pieces were all about, closer, I imagine, to Jack's sense of an 'informal performance' snuggled into a larger evening of non-performance music.
Part of the difficulty these days of trying to have a non-performance session is that even the old dance tunes have become "listening music." So the context for playing them has shifted toward a more audience-centric approach.
But I think we're at risk of losing an important connection to each other as people if we play music only across the performer/audience divide. In short, my hunch is that music didn't originate as a way to impress others, but as a way to communicate (from the Latin, communicare, "to share") amongst our family members and immediate neighbors. At it's core, music is a communal experience--the best performers tap into that. But we can also return to that experience whole cloth, by intentionally NOT performing.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL!
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The "sharing" thing is important too. Not all sessions are necessarily "ensembles", in any case. In Cape Breton, for instance, they take turns and (I suppose) perform for the other musicians and singers in the company.
Even in your average session, there's occasions when you will(for various reasons) play a tune on your own.
However, the emphasis shouldn't be on the performer but rather the tune(or set)s and songs. That's why we don't usually say "That was brilliant. You played really well"(I feel very uncomfortable if anyone says that to me and don't necessarily believe it). Instead, you'll hear something like "That was a nice tune" or "What did you call the last one?" or something similar.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by John J.
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Phatic is always a good word to get in!
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've just had a thought. I was at a session a couple of weeks back, when a very well respected box player started a tune. He looked around as he started, but no-one took the bait, and he was on his own. He played it beautifully, and totally alone, but somehow it didn't come across as a performance, it was more like an exploration. The musicians were captivated and fascinated, but it felt more like a small gift dropped into the proceedings than a peformance for the 'audience'. The audience at the bar hardly seemed to notice how good it was - possibly because he was so lost in the tune and not 'putting out'.
Maybe that is something of the essence of this thing that we all want to hold onto and protect so much.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
yes, I said above that you can play non performance music on your own, you've gotta be good though
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bingo!
Kevin Burke once told me, with a twinkle in his eye, that most people think the tunes exist because people created them. In fact, he mused, it's the other way around--we exist so that the tunes have someone to play them.
Fanciful? Yes, but it nicely sums up how some of us approach the tunes, whether anyone is listening or not.
If someone else IS listening, they also can choose to listen to the tune, not the player. Instead of hanging on the musician's skill or artistry, they can hone in on the tune itself. I think this may be what Scotsman is getting at in his post above. And I find it's a very common mindset at Irish sessions.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, that's exactly how I've always listened to music!
Except now that I'm learning to play, I don't listen the same way any more---I'm laser-focused on every single thing any fiddler does, the fingers, the bow, the shoulders, where the rolls and the triplets are---I feel like if I don't pay that close kind of attention I'll miss something. I wonder if it will always be that way or I'll be able to listen casually again after I've gone a bit farther up the learning curve...
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Fantastic thread this! AND I've learnt two new words/phrases (phatic and ad hominem). Can't help thinking I shouldn't have to use the dictionary *quite* so much when talking about ITM, but perhaps it's just my ignorance.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
customers/punters might think I am showing off, but musicians such as Michael and Noxious should know better, ePerformance does not mean "showing off", just to inform Michael and Noxious. No dictionary will define tr perform as showing off.
So although I am totally impervious to the punters, by the mere dint of playing a tune in a pub, with customers in it, I am performing. I am certainly performing in their eyes, and indeed many of the punters may think "look at that eejit, showing off". In reality I am playing Roisin Dubh or Limerick's Lament, or any slow air, because I get great enjoyment from doing so. Now thespecially as they are arguing that we play for our own enjoyment.
A formal performance at a session could be classified when the musicians, or some of them, are being paid. In short the pub has hired them as entertainment, so they are required to perform their tunes with an eye on entertainment. They may do this in an informal way, but they are still performing formally, as that is the reason they are in the pub.
To perform a tune you play the notes. End of story. You don't need to be showing off, or totally ignoring everyone, you just play the notes, to perform a tune. You could do this in your own bedroom, alone, locked away from the world, totally for your own enjoyment. You perform the tune.
Do the same thing in public, it is a public performance, whatever your motive.
Now, wasn't that easy, if you do not have hang ups about show offs and punters, and customers, or anything else.
My goat, the bedroom one, is not computer literate but has asked me to post the following on its behalf:
"If I die and I am made into a bodhran, and then played in a pub, I will be giving a public performance, or at least my spirit, or skin, will be".
Thank you Goat.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ottery, Michael and Noxious would call your box player a show off.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, Ben, vocabulary is like your repertoire of tunes--you'll never know all the bits everyone else knows. Get enough people together and some is bound to use a word/play a tune you aren't yet familiar with. No worries--learning is an endless journey. (I too had to look up 'phatic' the first time Ottery used it, moons ago.)
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Part of my thread above was lost. Performance does not mean showing off, no dictionary will define it as such, and people should not confuse the two. It went something like that before the rest kicks in.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy
In my own experience - can't speak for others - it just gets worse and worse. Over the years I've just got more and more insatiable in terms of wanting to listen and learn how to do absolutely everything that can be done on a fiddle, or what listening to a good box player, or flute or whistle player can teach me about a tune I like and about the music and my own playing - I don't do it all - can't, and probably shouldn't - but it doesn't stop me wanting to know and learn.
What I have found, though, is that you start to develop the ability to do that while still participating in and enjoying the craic - like there's a part of your mind you syphon off for listening to the subtleties other people are putting in. Also, fortunately, I've found you can use the same bit of your brain for filtering out the bits you *don't* want to hear!
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It also stated that Michael and Noxious, unlike customers, would realise that I am not showing off, I am playing The Cuilin because I like it, and don't care what anyone else thinks. To be blunt, I love slow airs and ballads, Tom Waits, Damien Rice, Leonard Cohen and the immortal Nick Drake would be favourites. Hardly designed to curry favour with the average punter.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Michael, buiy tickets to see Liam Og O'Flynn. Absolutely wonderful player, absolutely dreadful at connecting to an audience, as he totally ignores them, unlike Van Morrison whomtreats the audience with outright contempt, but still performing, on a stage, for an audience.
In fact Morrison may be relevant here. He gets enmeshed in his own work, and once in Manchester when someone shouted a request, Van stopped in his tracks and memorably said "Can you f### up, I'm trying to work here".
So Van was singing for his own pleasure, oblivious to the audience, at a concert.
But still performing.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
BBliss says: Ottery, Michael and Noxious would call your box player a show off.
I don't think you're right. Any more than they would call you a 'show off' if they were actually there on the night. Good session music is what good session players play in sessions, whether solo or as part of the ensemble. It's only here on the yellow board that absolute truths have to be established and hairs split in their pursuit.
Sorry, Will, if I overuse the word Phatic - it seems apposite to the nature what we do ....
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I mean 'the nature OF what we do ...'
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
When a Doctor performs an operation is he;
A: Showing off
B; Letting on he is not really there
C: explaining to the nurses that although he is removing someone's brain, he is not performing, he is doing it for himself.
Answers on a postcard please.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
MG writes: “So what's actually happening in the pub? You are quite right, two things, that are both relevant. One is not right and the other wrong. It's just that one thing is relevant to one lot, and the other relevant to the others.
Your problem is that you have difficulty dismissing what is relevant to the punter and until you can, you are doomed to for ever be a performer.”
No… I don’t need to dismiss anything to enjoy a session. The punter’s perception of what happened in the pub doesn’t affect me in the slightest; all I’m doing is acknowledging that they see it different than we do. Our perception of events is no more valid than theirs. We both go home afterwards with our separate understandings of what took place.
At last night’s session here I was surrounded with friends and hardly anyone was in the pub at the start. As the night progressed some of the regular punters began to arrive, and then people I’ve never seen before as well. By the mid point there were a good number of people in the pub, most chatting, and some obviously listening and enjoying the music. There was applause here and there, but it had no apparent affect on us as far as I could tell. We were having a session.
Michael continues: “If for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform.”
Maybe for you, but I am not subservient to the punter’s point of view. You’re assigning far too much power to the punter. It seems you need to shut out any awareness of their possible misinterpretation of what you’re doing. If you don’t – you’re condemned to performing. It’s not the same for me. I can acknowledge them, even with their misconceptions, and still enjoy all of the aspects associated with participating in a session that have been described in this thread.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: “Jack, I'm sorry you think that I've resorted to ad hominem. In fact, I've focused on your rhetorical tactics and your use of logic, particularly where that logic was flawed. That's not ad hominem--but, as Michael points out, it is how a rational discussion moves forward instead of staying forever stuck on unfounded or poorly supported opinions.”
Sorry, Will, but your approach is indeed ad hominem. If you want to address the issue of flawed logic, your approach to discussing these issues has a couple of well-known logical fallacies. I’ve already pointed out the one known as ‘Argumentum ad hominem’ or “Argument against the person” – a logical fallacy which consists of countering an point by attacking the person presenting the case rather than the actual point. Very early on in this thread when you realize you weren’t convincing me that your position is correct – you resorted to attacking me personally instead by insulting my intelligence. This does little to move the discussion forward.
The other is ‘Straw man’ – a logical fallacy in which one intentionally misrepresents an opponent’s position. To set up a “Straw man” argument is to create a position that is easy to refute, then assign that position to an opponent. Though this technique can be convincing, it is misleading as it does not address the opponent’s actual position. As was pointed out more than once by myself and others, you have continually misinterpreted and misrepresented my point of view to create a faux argument that you can easily knock down. I would appreciate it if you allow me to define my own positions.
I see the discussion as trying to understand each other’s point of view. I’m trying to understand yours without resorting to either of these logical fallacies. I would appreciate it if you could do the same.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Cute, David, but if you or anyone else really believes that, I challenge you to substantiate it.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep, looks like a good summation of Jack's approach here to the T.
Been there, watched you do that. I'm not biting.
Clearly the discussion has moved on.
We've established that Bliss and Jack can call what they do a performance if they want to, or they can perform and call it a session. No problems there.
And we've established in very clear terms that some of us can play music in a public session and NOT at all be performing, in the "presenting-music-to-an-audience" sense of the word. Which is all some of us have been saying for yonks.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, no one has to substantiate what you've posted on this thread--it's all right there, above.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You're really reaching here, David. Michael had already expressed that you miss out on the joy of a session when you perform. The implication being that unless I dismiss the punter's point of view I will be condemned to performing, i.e. missing out on enjoying what a session is.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If you doubt me, here's one of Michael's quotes: "It's about the personal gain you can get from non-performance music. It's about a deep inner freedom from vanity. Just you and your mates and the music. I used to perform a lot, still do occasionally, and still enjoy it. But no amount of performance can come even close to the feeling you can get when you deliberately shut out any perception of how you are perceived."
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, please consider for just a moment reading and comprehending your quote of Michael's.
Instead of trying to make your point, listen to his. Give it some serious thought and consideration. Suss out what Michael means. He (me too) isn't just trying to score a point, win an argument, or prove he's "right" and you're "wrong." He's providing a genuine reason and explanation for what he believes.
I understand that you feel you're doing the same, but it doesn't come across that way.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Aaaaaargggghhhh!!
OK, OK ....
Deep Breath here.
There's one critical thing that hasn't, in all the verbiage (Garbiage?) above, even been mentioned.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Is it bad to noodle at sessions?"
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'll get my coat .....
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael's point was clear from that and other posts; if you don't dismiss the punter's point of view you will be condemned to performing. Many others, including Michael, have gone on in great length about how this interferes with the musician's enjoyment of what a session is.
Here's a real 'Straw Man' argument for comparison:
Will writes: "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a ‘performance to an audience.’"
As you can see my position is clearly misrepresented here and is easy to knock down. But it’s wrong. My position is simply that while we're having our sessions there are people in the room (if our session is in a public place) who will not understand what we're doing and will think it must be a public performance of some sort. They aren't concerned with what we think we're doing -- all they know is what they see. But they're correct in that music is being played and the punters are an “audience” according to basic definitions. In other words, these are the hallmarks of what a performance is to the general public, and for them, in their world -- it's valid and they respond to it as such -- even if it's not what we're doing in the session.
I have no problem realizing this, and it has no affect on my session experience. I'm not "performing" even though it appears to them that I am. I don’t need to dismiss them to experience all of the great things about sessions expressed in this thread.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Conflate" hmmm ... that's an old one. Why, I probably haven't played that for 20 years!
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Drat ... missed by quite a few posts there ...
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
quite a performance guys
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Bren
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nearly ready to go public
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by iain beag
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will says "some of us can play music in a public session and NOT at all be performing, in the "presenting-music-to-an-audience" sense of the word. Which is all some of us have been saying for yonks" Will is Whoosis by the way.
For an awful second I thought we were in Charlie Chaplin land, and Whoosis had a silent session. But finally he is beginning to see the light, after three days.
He says not performing in a "presenting music to an audience" sense of the word. EUREKA.
I have been saying for three days that you can be cocooned, closetted, or whatever, no showing off, indeed totally oblivious to all.
So you are not performing in a " presenting music to an audience" type of way but you are PERFORMING.
So, Whoosis is now in agreement with me, what about the rest of ye?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, I wasn't setting up a straw man. I included you in that paraphrase of the "session are performances" position based on your post:
Above, Jack wrote:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it."
Clearly you're agreeing with Blissters there. You even went on to pose a straw man of your own:
"I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
I'm done today. Gotta go take a conference call.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And does anyone like bodhrans? Apart from Michael, whose secret love for them causes him to act in an irrational manner.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, Bliss, we settled that old point about the mundane "execute a function" sense of "perform" eons ago. It's not relevant to the distinction we've made, and that's quite clear in this thread.
Pass the bottle.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This discussion on this thread began with me saying: "MG writes: "Bliss, just to clear this up, do you consider sessions performances?"
Blissters writes: "No, but the punters do.""
And it ends on the same point. Amazing how it took all those posts to arrive back at the beginning.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Something the matter with agreeing with me?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, I left out the part about those two quotes being the crux of the session/performance debate.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
not quite:
What I said was that performces interfere with my enjoyment of what a session is. For those who do perform in sessions, it seems that it's the other way round. And that's fine. Have your session and perform in it. I won't in mine.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nor relevant? Not bloody relevant, says Whoosis. What have we been arguing about for three days?
OK, I haven't been arguing, just discussing, and practising my "spin". But what have the rest of you been doing?
To perform a tune, play the notes. Play the notes in public, public performance. You should have read the bit I posted about buskers.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Above, Jack wrote:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
Or how much they try to deny it.""
That supports my stated position: To us it's a session, and to the punter it's a performance -- no matter how hard we might try to hide it... or deny it. Compare that to you're actual "Straw Man' argument.
Will writes: "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a ‘performance to an audience.’"
I never said anything about not being able to play for your personal enjoyment.
Then will goes on in an attempt to find a 'Straw Man' argument to pin on me with this quote of mine: "I think they should hand out flyers at their sessions explaining to the public that there's no performance of anything going on like that and people should just pretend there are no musicians in the room and ignore any music they might happen to hear."
This isn't a 'Straw Man' argument because I'm not representing anyone else's position. What I AM doing is giving an example of the only way I can think to inform unsuspecting punters about what a session is or isn't and how to respond to it.
Here's a hint about how to correctly identify a "Straw Man' argument: They often start with something like, "Jack and Bliss continue to insist that..."
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've just realised why alcohol was invented.
If this was a drunken argument, someone would have either knocked someone else out or slid under the table in a stupor by now.
As it is it goes on forever....
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That nails it , Michael.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And lets say it again shall we. I've all the time in the world.
What defines performance is when the punter's perception becomes relevant to the musician.
If for any reason, you start to consider the punters perception as having any relevance, then you will start to perform.
Performers are "those who are unable to shut out thoughts of how they are being perceived."
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Go on Jack, keep it up. You're only trying to convice yourself now. I've heard it before, and I've got better things to do. And you're not doing anyone any favors, including yourself, with poorly aimed condescension.
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
MG writes: "What I said was that performces interfere with my enjoyment of what a session is."
So that confirms what I said and further proves there was no 'Straw Man' argument in my interpretation of what Michael said. But Michael goes on to misrepresent my position.
MG continues: "For those who do perform in sessions, it seems that it's the other way round. And that's fine. Have your session and perform in it. I won't in mine."
I just said a few posts back, (as well as many other times on this thread,) that I don't perform at sessions even if the punters think that I am. And that realization about their perception isn't having any affect on my session experience. Is that quite clear now... Michael?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
See, Will? Instead of even trying to understand me you have to defame me instead and say I'm "condescending." I just can’t imagine us getting anywhere if you insist on this sort of thing. How is this supposed to move the discussion forward?
# Posted on December 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If your playing in a session and out of the cornerof your eye you spot a good looking tourist looking at you and no one else, you then put on a look of extra concintration and play a with a little spring in your step.
Are you then performing?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ha, that's correct. I'll ad that to my list.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm sincerely believe that Jack and Will are probably two of the nicest people you'd care to meet outside a discussion about this topic. But this all reminds me of inter-sect bloodshed in the Mid East.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael says "
Performers are "those who are unable to shut out thoughts of how they are being perceived."
WOW!!! Now if you had just said that in the first place.
Fiddles are herons swooping on the sea, Grasshopper.
What a load of crap. I know you only did it to wind up, but it is still outrageous.
And dangerous. Whoosis is likely to agree with you.
You really shouldn't be mischievious Michael.
Mind you, my goat thinks you might be on to something.
And Grego, Irish music comes from around the middle-east, so at least you are on a music topic.
By the way Michael, your definitiion does fit one scenario, and that is you and Whoosis on this thread.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Shutting out thoughts and all that .Is that Zen.HA!
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Even Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And at the end of the day, fourth, Saint was right all along.
Getting like a cricket test match this. (apologies to all English people) and Irish if we remember Ed Joyce.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks bliss im starting to understand your greatness
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It takes time.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'd comment, but I'm on a conference call right now.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Remember that brilliant scene in One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest when Jack Nicholson is dealing the poker hands and Danny Devito keeps saying, "hit me, hit me, hit me"?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now that is tasty, Jack.
And certainly not condescending.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, so we're all friends again now?
There's nothing wrong with a good old ding-dong on this site. The mudslinging did get a bit tedious though, from some persons you'd expect more from - but hey, who am I to talk?
Michael - tell you what it reminded me of - Chapter 2 in the Hobbit when Bilbo and all the dwarves are caught by the trolls. The trolls were arguing the best way to kill and eat them all. They finally settled on some method, when a voice (Gandalf's - unbeknown to the trolls though) started up all the arguments again and the trolls got turned to stone at dawn.
But the one thing that worries me is that some rather articulate people made points with conviction which when read by relative novices to this subculture, will think that those particular points (depending on by whom they were persuaded) IS "The Party Line" for all sessions, regardless of where and when. This notion, or even, *Ideology*, of whether a session is or isn't a performance may shape a young, possibly impressionable, player's attitude to future session playing, having read the views hammered out here. And that should not be the case, and I hope not.
Mark I think got closest to it. Every session is different and some may be near enough performances, whilst others are much more informal.
That's all.
But to witness 2 heavyweights slugging it out over 15 rounds and yet still avoid coming to that conclusion was pitiful to behold.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Ah ... juicy fruit"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Danny, I came to that conclusion before I posted that infamous thread a year or so ago that stated all of this. My position has consistantly been that each session is different and is defined by the people who are in it. It's my acknowledgement that the average punter is likely to see it as a performance (instead of what the sessioners see it as) that gets everyone's ire up.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"stated all of this" was supposed to read "STARTED all of this"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Danny, I am not called Mark.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bodhran Bliss, if what you have been trying to do is convince everyone that you're performing in the sense of executing a tune on an instrument, you've been wasting your time. As Will says, we've been through that before. Maybe you should keep yourself busy reading these two discussions and then get back to us when you're clear exactly what it is we're arguing about, and can therefore make a reasonable contribution to the discussion:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/7098
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/3705
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
When I say "read", I mean actually understand the meaning of the posts, as opposed to skimming your eyes over them and picking out words and phrases with your copy and paste facility so you can quote people out of context as you and Jack have been doing so far in this thread.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "skimming your eyes over them and picking out words and phrases with your copy and paste facility so you can quote people out of context as you and Jack have been doing so far in this thread."
I can only speak for myself, and it's simply not true. Substantiation please.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them.For most musicans sessions will be thier only chance to perform and others find it hard to except this might be thier highlight.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The musicians don't have to or need to accept it as a performance. All I'm saying is that the average punter will think it is, and they won't be wrong according to their own frame of reference. Unless punters somehow find out different they're always going to think it's a performance. But that shouldn't change the sessioner's feelings about what they're doing. it's two seperate perspectives; neither one is right or wrong -- they just are.
I think the problem might be that sessioners don't want to acknowledge the punter's perspective because perhaps they're worried about what effect it might have on their own experience. I can only speak for myself, but when I see a punter at our session who obviously thinks it's some sort of performance -- it doesn't bother me in the slightest, change the way I feel about it or how I play.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Is it time to discuss bodhrans yet?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No, which kind of concertina is better...
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by TaoCat
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, but could you all repeat what you said?
I'm sure it was important, but I missed it, because I was playing tunes instead. Lots and lots and lots of tunes.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by John Galt
The Perils of Performing
Over in Milan .....
The so-called "fourth tenor", Roberto Alagna, was yesterday facing the biggest crisis of his glittering career after storming off the stage of La Scala in mid-performance - one fist lifted towards a booing, whistling audience.
What followed during Sunday's performance of Franco Zeffirelli's production of Aida is thought to be without precedent in the tempestuous history of the celebrated Milan opera house.
As the Hungarian mezzo-soprano Ildiko Komlosi gamely launched into what was intended to be a duet - singing the line "Such unwonted joy in your glance!" to a conspicuously absent Alagna - the stage manager grabbed the tenor's understudy and propelled him on to the boards dressed in jeans.
"I thought to myself, 'OK, now you sing,'" said Antonello Polombi afterwards. And, ignoring cries of "shame" and "this is La Scala!", sing he did - so beautifully that he won the loudest applause as the public clapped and cheered for nine minutes after the curtain fell.
As the artistic director of La Scala, Stephane Lissner, inveighed yesterday against a "blatant lack of respect for the audience and the theatre", it was announced that the 43-year-old Alagna would not be returning to sing Ramades today. The Italian news agency Ansa said the theatre was considering whether to demand compensation from the French-born singer.
His performance on the opening night last week of Zeffirelli's spectacular staging drew the only catcalls from an otherwise delighted audience. The Italian critics too questioned his suitability for the role.
At the weekend, the tenor hit back, insisting he had been "bravissimo" and adding: "Too bad for those who didn't understand." He said he would do the remaining performances of Aida and then "I shall not be coming back to La Scala again. It's not a theatre. It's an arena."
Many a performer has no doubt thought the same. La Scala's notoriously demanding loggionisti (the opera aficionados who occupy La Scala's cheaper seats) have, over the years, whistled and booed the likes of Pavarotti and Katia Ricciarelli.
But few performers have had the courage - perhaps recklessness - to make their views known before the end of a run.
"I heard a boo as soon as I went on stage - even before I began to sing", Alagna told the newspaper La Repubblica. His rendering of the aria "Celeste Aida" only made things worse. What La Stampa's critic termed a "rather laboured" B flat elicited howls of protest from the aggrieved loggionisti and Alagna was off. By pure chance, his understudy was within grabbing distance.
"In general, I stay in a room where I can follow the opera on closed-circuit TV," Palombi said. "But yesterday I went behind the scenes to savour the work better."
Dressed head to foot in black, in the midst of one of the most lavish sets prepared for a modern opera, Palombi said he felt "as if I were naked". As for Komlosi, the beleaguered Amneris, she said she felt her "blood pressure shoot up to 200".
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Ottery
Meanwhile, back at the Bothy ...
The so-called "fourth tenor-banjo", Phantomo Buttono, was yesterday facing the biggest crisis of his glittering career after storming off the stage of Brogans in mid-performance - one fist lifted towards a booing, whistling audience.
What followed during Sunday's performance is thought to be without precedent in the tempestuous history of the celebrated Ennis Grog-House.
As the Australian Box-twangler Dow 'Nox' Blanketboy gamely launched into what was intended to be a duet - Playing a hithero unthought of harmony part to the Kesh Jig to a conspicuously absent Buttono - the stage manager grabbed the tenor-banjoist's understudy and propelled him on to the boards dressed in jeans.
"I thought to myself, 'OK, now you play!,'" said Michello Gillato afterwards. And, ignoring cries of "shame" and "this is supposed to be a bloody session!", play he did - so beautifully that he won the loudest applause as the public clapped and cheered for nine minutes after the curtain fell on his head.
As the artistic director of Brogans, Shameless O'Toole, inveighed yesterday against a "blatant lack of respect for the audience and the music", it was announced that the 43-year-old Buttono would not be returning to plink the banjo today. The Irish news agency said the Gargle-Emporium was considering whether to demand compensation from the SanFrancisco based plucker.
At the weekend, the tenor-banjo-man hit back, insisting he had been "bravissimo" and adding: "Too bad for those who didn't understand." He said he would do the remaining performances of The Moving Cloud in all keys and then "I shall not be coming back to Brogans again. It's not a pub. It's an arena."
.......
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes indeed, Saint, for a lot of musicans sessions will be thier only chance to perform. Alas.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I just read this up there somewhere:
"Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them."
Can someone please explain to me what this means? Ta.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Maybe some musicans will never except a session as a performance because they don t have control over who they are playing with and to be seen performing with (in thier opinion) lesser musicans is beneath them."
That was Saint. I think what was being implied was that there are some players who would only play in sessions with others of their standard, i.e. in a closed session, by invitation only.
I've heard through the grapevine that there may be one such in my area, but I don't know where or when it is, or even with any certainty who goes to it.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm sure there are closed sessions like that. But what the Hollyoaks Omnibus does that have to do with performances?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh I see. Saint is talking about snobs who wouldn't like people to think that they are in some sort of band with musicians who they see as crap, so they go to a session on condition that it only means displaying a loose association with these musicians. Yes, I'm sure there are people like that.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
blimey, there are some eedjits in this world, but is it possible to be such a t wat that you wouldn't mind playing with someone, on the condition that it's not perceived that you are performing with them. Bloody hell.
Totally turns it on it's head. Where actually what defines performance is when the punter's perception becomes relevant to the musician, you get some t wat so paranoid about his perception that he needs the "cover" of his own perceived non-performance before he can play. I really can't believe such a sicko can exist
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sounds a rather un-Saintly attitude to this music. Especially for a bodhran "player"!
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, it's not really that much of a stretch of the imagination. It seems there are plenty people (like e.g. Bodhran Bliss) who always perform in sessions. So all it takes is for a "performer" like that to be a bit of a snob and not want to play with someone, and by definition they will not want to be performing with them. It's weird to us, yes, but I'm sure there are plenty out there. Just look at the spectrum of types we've seen even within the few people who have contributed to this thread. We have true showoffs, performers in denial, non-performing communist sharers and clueless idiots who don't know what they're talking about. Judging by this post I fit into the last category. Altho' I have an excuse because I've just come back from a session and it's 2.30am, and I played through 50 reels back to back with Bridie this afternoon
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Here's a twist (I can't resist this)---what if you have a certain bodhran player who is performing at a session but none of the punters perceives the session as a performance? Like a session is supposed to be? He's not then performing, is he?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
How about this .All the musicans that wont except sessions as performances have also performed outside of sessions,on stage etc.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Translation required, please?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My new bodhrán is made from horse skin. All of you are welcome to play it with a whip as you seem pretty accomplished.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
good for the crack, then, is it?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Can't play it at my place - wouldn't want to disturb the neigh-bours.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Great craic, Danny!
Neighbours? I would have expected a more cavalier attitude from you!
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Especially for a bodhran "player"
Can you explain key maniac lad
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
All quiet on the U.S. front - they've argued until they've gone hoarse ...
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well I'm off to the pub soon.
"Got a pony in my pocket, suitcase in the van..."
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Conan, my neighbours reined me in, and now I have to keep the noise down to a whisper.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The neighbours don t like the performance
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You'd be ok in a session as long as you hide it.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No problem. In my view "players" are persons who make notes with their preferred yoke, ie they play it. You don't play a bodhran, you hit it rhythmically, to provide a beat for players, whether or not they are performing.
(Unless you include these new fangled tuneable bodhrans, invented to bolster the egos of bodhranistas who previously weren't able to get notes out of them.)
BTW, I play, or hit, the goatskin myself, and am not too bad when in practice, so don't feel you have to get defensive over this.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I can imagine Conan is champing at the bit trying to think of something amusing to say.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hey guys, are you not deviating from the Mane topic here?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You're flogging a dead horse now.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by iain beag
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yeah me too, I don't want to stirrup any more trouble.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Time to pony up at the bar for a new round...
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, this thread has managed to Stirrup a lot of passion.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
snap, nox!
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Danny can't you think of any mare of yer ain?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A lot of people seem to have thought that Will's argument fell at the first hurdle.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I did think that one up independently - but you obviously Jockeyed for a position and got in there first.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I hold my hands up, lads, (all 15 of them). You've saddled us with the dilemma that if you want this thread to go on furlong you'll have to be first past this post.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good - this thread has finally become more Stable.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A fetlock of good that's gonna do.
I'll get my silks.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Me too. Off out to drink some red rum.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hay, guys, we have to keep this thread going now, to get over the 600-posts hurdle.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dear Noxious,
Your post is the only one I have read today. I do not need to read other threads to know what is under discussion. It is constantly above me as I type;
"Does anyone like bodhrans?"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dear Noxious,
I have just read your next post. When someone resorts to ridicule and attempted insult, I realise that I have obviously made a salient point. I say attempted insult because I have debated with experts, your efforts are a complete giveaway.
Think about it. You are asking me to read to other threads to find out if playing a tune is different from performing a tune. I already know the answer, as do 99.9% of the world's population.
It is just my misfortune that the other 0.1% posts on this site.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hay, who keeps trotting out all this stuff ?
It´s odds on this thread is gonna be deleted.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by murfbox
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Can't you spell? It says "**Dose** anyone like bodhrans?"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm not interested in your blinkered approach, Blisster.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, Noxious, I apologise. I didn't realise you were Australian.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Alas, Bliss has come up lame, thrown a shoe, gone colicky. Would be a shame to see his horse get disqualified from the race....
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
5 posts to go, lads..........
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Don't you post when you ride a horse? It's been a while, I don't remember. Posting along...
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No i cant spell in english nor do i want to improve and the site would be in irish only for the great performances by your ancestors. well done
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What's that got to do with horses?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"And coming around the final turn it's Kennedy in the lead by a length, with Key Maniac Lad, Whoosis, and Bodhran Bliss close behind. Noxious Blanket is making a move on the outside, but is it in time?"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Me!
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Me!.........................(help)
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Oh, we've had a terrible accident in the backfield as Saint veers into another horse and the riders are down. But that won't affect the finish as the leaders thunder into the home stretch...."
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
post # 602
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
sorry lad were your ancestors not horses
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Is this overdose yet? Hasn't the victim died? Good, now where's my skinner's knife, I want to make a bodhran or two from the carcass, a belly drum and a butt drum ~ & thebones for tippers and bones to rattle...
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by ceolachan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And it's Key Maniac by a nose.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've just come back from a session and it's 2.30am, and I played through 50 reels back to back with Bridie this afternoon
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Noxious Blanket
It seems there are plenty people (like e.g. Bodhran Bliss) who always perform in sessions. Also posted by Noxious.
Thought I would try this old cut and paste lark. Now totally confused.
Noxious says in the first one he performed 50 reels at a session.
He then says there are always SOME people who perform at sessions, and gives me as an example.
To be honest, at many sessions if you were not playing at a session they would ask you to sit somewhere else. I admit I always play at sessions I am at as a player, what the hell else would you do. Eat cookies all night?
Unless Noxious, after 5 days, still can't see that the words playing/performing mean the same thing, at a session.
I blame the parents.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Ladies and gentlemen, that was the closest finish I can remember. Key Maniac Lad took it by a nose whisker at the tape, and the stands have emptied to swarm the sweating stallion as the winner's wreath is place over his neck...."
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"But it's not a pretty sight back on the final turn, as rescuers try to sort horses and jockeys. Looks like some body parts aregetting mixed up on the ambulance cart. And that poor lame horse is still kicking. Oh the humanity!"
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's a bit strong Saint, but justified.
Whoosis has pulled up, who could blame him, Noxious is unable to answer Jack, some fifty posts ago, and it all appears to be settled. As in most discussions, no winners or losers, because that is not what discussion is about. As long as the facts are established and the truth emerges. Any one out performing tonight, enjoy yourself. Play well.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh No!
It seems that Phantomo Buttono never made it out of the starting cage, having tangled up with a straw man and tripped over a strategically placed Ad Hominem. A fugitive from the Dental-Floss fields of Montana has been arrested by the session police, and it looks like the entire race will have to be re-run ....
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
San Francisco. Head straight North, turn right, Montana. It is a possibility.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I might be movin' to Montana soon
Just to raise me up a crop of
Dental Floss
Raisin' it up
Waxen it down
In a little white box
That I can sell uptown
By myself I wouldn't
Have no boss,
But I'd be raisin' my lonely
Dental Floss
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Sunnybear
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wow... Frank Zappa emerges as the winner.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I didn't think there could be a winner in a philosophical discussion.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Sunnybear
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Who is your favorite bodhran player and why?
over 600 posts and not one full answer, one or two names mentioned but no one could tell me what they liked about his/her playing
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
There is alot of bluffers or performers (what ever you prefer) on this site.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
computer says no....
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Apart from bliss i think the rest of ye just carry a bodhran around to look good when at a session .In my opinion its just a big act (or performance)
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It's just a feckin drum for feck's sake.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
erm........has Starting Ogre metamorphosed yet again?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
To you it s just a drum to musicans its the heart beat of itm.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You're either with us, or you're with the performerists.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PB is a gig a performance
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My favourite bodhran player is Conan, because he makes me look great.
Not that I am not great anyway, it's just......aaarrrggghhh.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What do you mean by "gig"?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
as in playing a gig.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What kind of gig?
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, what a silly question. This type of course:
http://www.carriagemart.com/Gig-2306.asp
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No silly questions only silly answers.
as in gig guide or upcoming gigs
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That would be a bumpy performance.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Why don't you put something in your bio, Saint, so we know who we're talking to? Then I for one might be able to take you a bit more seriously.
# Posted on December 12th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh dear, I don't think you realise Key how much you actually upset Saint earlier. Saint is obviously an Irish speaker, English would be his second language, just like the Italians, French, Germans and Americans who post here. And you pointed out his spelling mistake, or his mis-type. I doubt if you fully understood his reply.
I did. He is not happy.
Now Key, you and me, no problems, you are a genuine Sarf Londoner I believe, interested in Irish music, and good for a laugh. And 99 times out of a 100 your post about the spelling would hgave been taken as a joke. But to an Irish speaker, who believes the entire country should and would have been speaking Irish but for historical events, well it is a serious matter.
And Saint, anybody can make a harmless enough mistake. Look at you and me. And Rossa was born in Rosscarberry, just of the main Square.
Bliss the diplomat.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Glasgow, Key, living in Sarf London. Sorry, but at least being from Glasgow you might realise what I am trying to say, think of the Old Firm mentality.
And don't be having anymore "Blissful" sessions. Have "Blissless" ones instead.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If that's the case, full apologies are in order. Sorry from me to saint. There ye go.
But a wee bit in the bio does help iron out these misunderstandings, just as you saw when you looked at mine BB.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I just re-read and missed the first time your comment about English being 2nd language to Americans - very drole, bliss.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You have to be quick.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry i missed out a few hours and thank you bliss . I had to do a few things in the real world.PB i checked out the Tipsy House site and sessions are advertised as gigs . Can you explain?
No hard feelings KM lad I will do my best to forget the last 800 years of tourture.
P.S.
Bliss sorry for even thinking that you could make a mistake .I m still learning.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It beHOOVES you to read my posts more closely, Blisster. Do you really think playing 50 reels with someone in their kitchen with only the 2 of you present consitutes a session? (I dunno, maybe it does for a bodhran player).
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
At least we Americans know the proper spelling of "droll". Do you Glaswegians even know the etymology? It's actually an abbreviation for an ornament played on a bodhran. The full term is......
wait for it....
drum roll please....
"drum roll".
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Geez... I haven't updated that page since I broke my finger.
Anyway, we do a few different kind of gigs. We do weddings, set dances. ceili dances, contra dances, concerts, partys, pubs, floating Paddy's Day luncheons, corporate extraviganza events, street fairs, festivals and... sessions.
I go to sessions just about every Sunday and Tuesday at our local. Once a month my pals and I are the "hosts." What that means is that it's our turn to show up at the start, arrange the chairs and tables, and play till it ends. It's also our turn to take the steering wheel. Here in SF we all take turns doing this and it allows for a lot of variety because each "host" has their own favorite tunes and session style.
So to answer your question: the sessions we host and the ones I go to regularly are not gigs I consider to be "performances," but the other gigs are.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
To be fair its a nice site and the word performance is everywhere one it.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yea... I used it 5 whole times... it's freakin everywhere!
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hey Saint - you don't have a monopoly on the "torture". Leaving aside my Irish forebears, most of my people come from the far north Highlands of Scotland - Sutherlandshire, real Mackay country. Those people were victims of the Highland Clearances.
I could go on saying Scotland has been repeatedly shagged by England through successive generations, and even suggest even I have ended up in London due to forced economic migration.
England through her vassals played a big part in the Slave Trade - 2 of those vassals being Ireland and Scotland, hence the numerous Irish surnames on the island of Monserrat...or that the English 19th century capitalists didn't act too kindly to their own English working class, sending children down mines and up chimneys, etc, but I don't wear that stuff as a label. I just get on with my life and try and help folk or lighten things up where I can.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Droll comes from the French word "drole" (with a circumflex) Maybe Danny knows more about the etymology than you think Gary
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
C'est vrai, Conán, merci beaucoup.
Yes, I do fly work, but what have insects got to do with this discussion?
Ooops, sorry that's entomology..........
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We're halfway from 600 to 700 posts fellas. This could be a Guinness book record setting thread. Or perhaps an excuse to drink a Guinness... or not... it's early yet... maybe when we reach 700.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"what have insects got to do with this discussion?"
why, many of the arguments 'fly' in the face of reason.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ach, you're just nit-picking, Mark.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This thread is really starting to bug me.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, no, earwig go again. Why can't people just bee themselves, rather than trying to sting everyone else?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss: "Playing a tune is no different from performing a tune. 99.9% of the world's population agree. It is just my misfortune that the other 0.1% posts on this site."
OK, I have no qualms about being one in a thousand. But just to check. Lets have a poll.
Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists? Just straight answers. Yes or no. There's enough prevarication already
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
maybe
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I looked up "drole" on Google and found this:
Sponsored Links
Drole For Less
Looking for Drole?
Buy direct from sellers and save.
www.eBay.com
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
1. Drôle de guerre, La
Name given to the waiting period between the declaration of war between France and Germany on 3 September 1939 and the German offensive of May 1940 (cf. the English term ‘Phoney War’).
(From The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French in Literature)
2. drôle adjectif
( bizarre ) funny, odd; c'est un ~ de type he's odd; c'est ~ de faire/que it's odd to do/that; ce qui est or ce qu'il y a de ~ c'est que the funny thing is that; faire (tout) ~ à quelqu'un to give somebody a funny feeling; faire une ~ de tête to make ...
(From The Concise Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (French-English) in Bilingual Dictionaries)
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, you asked a different , slanted, as you know, question.
In your one person toilet, the only person on the moon, stranded alone on a Desert Island, if you play a tune, you perform it. The simple, as you keep telling us anyway, act of playing a reel, is to perform a reel.
Now to perform has other meanings and contexts. Sean Keane sitting playing the fiddle with the Chieftains is not "performing" such as Nollaig Casey "jigging around" playing. They are performing the tune, but only one is performing an act or "presentation".
And Noxious, do not display your ignorance. Look at the thread on "History of Sessions".
Of course two people playing music in the kitchen is a session. It is a real, true, traditional session. They only moved to pubs in London because they all lived in bedsitters.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Michael, or anyone else, if you were stranded on a Desert Island, what 5 instruments would you like to have with you?
And yes, you could use a large bodhran as a boat to escape on.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
the fiddle would make a good paddle..............
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael writes: "Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists?"
That hasn't been the question as far as my comment that started this behemoth debate goes. From where you’re sitting in the session, even if it’s in a public place, you don’t feel that what you’re doing is a performance, i.e. presentation of a piece of music (tunes) with only the audience’s consumption and enjoyment as your purpose for doing so. I never argued against that. But from the audience perspective, they wouldn’t understand that unless you either pointed it out to them, or they somehow eventually come to that conclusion on their own. Until they become educated about sessions and how sessions are likely to be something different than what they appear to be, they will continue to reference the mainstream definition for what you’re doing.
Now last night, for example, we had a roaring session at the pub. I can’t tell you how many punters were there because I never looked. There were at least 10 of us I think, all friends, and all just enjoying the gathering that included conversation, drink and tunes. It felt more like a party than what any punters would have assumed. But I do recall outbreaks of clapping from the punters. Sometimes it would overwhelm us for a moment and we’d look around at each other with surprise, and maybe someone would smile at the punters who were clapping, not because we were thanking them, but more because we were acknowledging the positive feedback. But it had no affect on the party and didn’t change in the slightest anything about the way we played, drank or carried on. We would just continue on as if no one else was in the room. Eventually practically no one else WAS in the room… and we still played on.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh.
My.
God.
Bliss finally got it!!!
(Or at least it looks like he got it, if I'm not losing the meaning in his jumbled syntax.)
He writes: "Now to perform has other meanings and contexts. Sean Keane sitting playing the fiddle with the Chieftains is not "performing" such as Nollaig Casey "jigging around" playing. They are performing the tune, but only one is performing an act or "presentation"."
Congrats Mr. Bliss--in fewer than 700 posts, too!
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Please Whoosis, take my advice. To save face you would be better saying nothing.
Read the 663 posts, and let me know who has been in denial.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, we had a roaring session here last night, too. And we all had a good chuckle over the notion that our handful of neighbors hunkered over their shot glasses at the bar (one staring at his grey reflection in the mirror, two deep in conversation, and a few more at the far end watching sports on a muted telly) could possibly be mistaken--even in their own minds--for an audience.
The idea struck everyone present (including at least three people with three decades or more each of experience playing this music stateside and in Ireland) as hilarious.
The setting and experience was vastly different in every regard (including the punters' apparent mindsets, judging from their behavior and body language) from the gig I played earlier in the evening. *No one* mistook our session for a "performance" of any sort.
If that's possible here, it's possible elsewhere, and perhaps even more common than you realize.
Despite the funny pokes people take at this debate, I've found that this thread has helped clarify my understanding of how totally unlike a performance a session can be. Thanks for that.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL. "Denial." Both Bliss and Jack keep accusing me of being in denial. And that's not ad hominem?
Okay, okay. Guilty as charged. The fact that I posted again makes it all too clear that I've been in denial about how blind you are to reason, and to the lapses of reason and understanding in your own posts. I now see the light--you will never understand.
As they say, "ignorance is bliss."
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nope, hasn't gotten it yet. Still equates "perform" with "play" (the fluter *played* a tune = the fluter *performed* a tune). What differentiates them is whether either one is also associated with "presentation".
And as for the desert island scenario, a set of uillean pipes (drones removed) would make a nifty flotation device...
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As Jack knows, I'm with him, to an extent, on this...probably nearer the Nox hypothesis in that it depends on what pub or what setting you're playing. But what you are doing is performing, or some bliddy name for it, I don't care about all this pseudo-semantics, and I don't think it matters ---- all that bit, definitions and so on, is made-up stuff, just words in a Germanic language to describe a real phenomenon.
Right, hoping that bit's out the way....let me ask the detractors - what about a miked up session? I've done enough of those. They are sessions where either each main player plays straight into a mike, or there's a mike somewhere overhead, grabbing the sound of everyone playing. It doesn't matter which. The function is obviously to amplify the music so that non-playing patrons (politically correct term for punters) can hear it. But the format of the event is most definitely that of a session, ie no predetermined tune list as you would have in a gig (although someone may have a tune list to look at), breaks in between tunes where conversation and drinking occurs, one or two people may start a set and others join in as they recognise the tune....and so on. What's that if not a session?
Anyway, there has been a lot of hair splitting been going on. And to answer the original question, yes I do like tasteful bodhran playing, but not too loud and a max of 2 per session.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Our session doesn't resemble a concert in any way, but there were punters there last night that gave every indication they believed they were witnessing a public performance of some sort. But I'm sure they knew it wasn't a "concert" -- I think they understood at least that much.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy writes: "Nope, hasn't gotten it yet. Still equates "perform" with "play" (the fluter *played* a tune = the fluter *performed* a tune). What differentiates them is whether either one is also associated with "presentation"."
You're talking about the sessioner's perspective -- that's not in dispuute (at least by me.) Unsuspecting punters won't understand this when they come into the pub and hear the music. They'll assume you are "performing" i.e. playing a piece of music (tune) in the presence of people who might enjoy listening (audience.)
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Phantom (Jack?), what can I say to you to persuade you that the average "unsuspecting punter" does *not* necessarity assume you are "performing"? Why do you make that assumption, anyway? Because they clap for you? What if they know perfectly well that you're just there playing with the other musicians and they clap because they're polite? Some people feel like they're being rude if they're right next to someone who creates a bit of music and they don't express a bit of appreciation somehow. It doesn't mean they're ignorant of the nature of the situation.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well I don't know what sessions are like in SF Montana or NYC but in N. London there are or were pubs you'd go to very specifically to play or hear sessions. The Fiddler's Elbow in Kentish Town did most definitely fall into this category (don't know what it's like now). So there wouldn't be many "unsuspecting punters" there. In fact, many other musicians would come along to listen to good players playing IN SESSION.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Both Bliss and Jack keep accusing me of being in denial."
Maybe Bliss did, but I certainly did not. Please show me where I said YOU were in denial? (And remember: you said I "keep accusing you" so you'll have to find more than one to substantiate your claim. But you won't even find one.)
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good questions Danny, but I think Nox, Gill, what!? and I answered them up above. The problem with using mikes is that it makes it that much more likely that the musicians will play "to" the crowd, and that the crowd will respond like an audience.
That's great if that's how someone wants their session to work.
But some of us prefer (at least in our sessions, and not necessarily every single night) to reduce or eliminate the performer/audience divide for the following reasons:
1. "Audiences" tend to clap, which can interfere with the spontaneous flow of tunes.
2. "Audiences" sometimes make tune and song requests, including stuff that isn't remotely typical session fare. This tends to snowball if you do the requests, or conversely can p*ss people off if you ignore them. (We'd end up playing Country Western or Classic 50s Rock all night here if we honored requests).
3. Less experienced musicians can be intimidated when they're expected to entertain listeners. We prefer to nurture the younger generation and newcomers to the music.
4. More experienced musicians can sometimes fall into "performing" for the "audience," rather than just enjoying a sociable evening of tunes and craic. This can lead to ego clashes, spotlight hogs, and clinging to timeworn sets. All of which sours the spontaneity and social grace of a session.
In short, some of us prefer sessions that don't split the people in the room into performers and audience. We see othe group as a single community, much as I've heard the old kitchen sessions described by past generations. This doesn't preclude the occasional party piece, nor does it mean every night works out this way. But I can't understand why some people here are so threatened by the notion of a non-performance session, especially when that mindset is so deeply rooted in this particular musical tradition.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The sessions in NYC are the same, Key Maniac. The session bars are known for their music and attract people because of it.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy writes: "what can I say to you to persuade you that the average "unsuspecting punter" does *not* necessarity assume you are "performing"?"
So that's your position -- the average punter understands how sessions aren't necessarily informal performances? Im sorry, but the evidence doesn't support that based on what I've witnessed and the conversations I've had with punters over the last 20 years of playing in sessions. My guess that the punters who understand something like that are an extreme minority. That said, I don't think it's impossible to find a pub here and there that might have well informed and experienced punters in abundance -- but that would still be rare.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I agree with your *preference*, and your right to have one, ie smaller intimate sessions with just a few sympathetic players and next to no audience/punters/nonplayers.
But that's different from the reality in some pubs where sessions are miked up and they are quasi-performances - or whatever, with people coming in purely to listen.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sigh. Okay. We don't have to agree, it's fine. Tell you what I'll do though---I go to sessions on a regular basis and I'm still a punter (not for long, though!), so for the next few weeks I'll ask an unscientific sample (meaning >2000 people) of the punters I meet how they view the proceedings, and I'll get back to you with the results. I'm sure this thread will still be going strong by then. Fair enough?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "But I can't understand why some people here are so threatened by the notion of a non-performance session, especially when that mindset is so deeply rooted in this particular musical tradition."
Who are you referring to that is "so threatened"?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, here's a suggestion for your survey: ask the punters if they enjoyed the performance tonight. If they say "What performance?" then you'll know you’ve found your edified punter. Then travel to sessions all around the world asking this question. Come back when you've tallied your findings and report to us.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nope, can't do it that way, it's a loaded question. I don't want to mention the word performance at all, at least not in the opening question. It's a dilemma, though---what's the best way to bring up the subject? Maybe "how would you describe the music here? It's free, and the musicians don't get paid, so what would you call it?" Something like that. What do you think?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And we all had a good chuckle over the notion that our handful of neighbors hunkered over their shot glasses at the bar (one staring at his grey reflection in the mirror, two deep in conversation, and a few more at the far end watching sports on a muted telly) could possibly be mistaken--even in their own minds--for an audience. Posts Whoosis.
Listen to their discussion. Probably goes along the lines of;
"Every bloody week, those tossers are in here giving their performance, and we have to sit and watch muted mud wrestling on TV. I wish they would perform at home".
Now you may not agree with this Whoosis. So ask yourself this;
"Why was the TV MUTED?"
Answer. Because you and your mates were PERFORMING.
Or are you going to tell me the TV is always MUTED?
The defence rests, your honour.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss, no matter how highly you think of yourself, your limited imagination does not set the horizons for my world.
Actually, in this pub, the tv IS always muted. It's on ESPN (sports), so there's no need for audio. If we're not sessioning there, they play canned music over the p.a. system.
And when we play in other pubs, we like the telly muted so we can hear ourselves, not so the punters can hear us.
Kennedy, the problem here isn't finding out what punters think. It's that Jack already knows what punters think.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Danny, I agree. There are plenty of sessions with mikes, and lots more without mikes that clearly cater to the people listening.
As I've said many times, I have no problem with that, if that's how the musicians want their session to work.
I've certainly played in such sessions over the years, and they've given me some basis for comparison when I enjoy a session that isn't a performance.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
685 posts by my reckoning..........
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
686 by mine
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Danny's track here raises an interesting historical note. Sessions have become a largely urban phenomenon. But the music has predominantly rural roots. I suspect the urban milieu has a lot to do with the occurrence of sessions that are more perfomance-oriented, and some non-musicians perceiving them that way.
In small villages and farming communities, everybody knows each other. Back in the days before radio and phonographs, the music was something for a community to gather around, neighbor with neighbor, rather than one group of people entertaining another group of (mostly) strangers.
Urban life changes all that.
But there are still hundreds of sessions in small communities in Ireland and around the world where *everybody* (musicians and punters alike) knows each other, not just by name, but by job, family tree, and other personal details. This creates a far more intimate, communal atmostphere at the local session.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
In short, the point of a non-performance session is to bring the ethos and mindset of a small, cozy house session to a public place so other family and friends can also participate.
As Barry Foy writes in his Field Guide to the Irish Music Session:
"What is as session?"
"A session is a gathering of Irish traditional musicians for the purpose of celebrating their common interest in the music by playing together in a relaxed informal setting...as an elaborate excuse for getting out of the house and spending an evening with friends over a few pints of beer"
"More like a concert or recital, then...."
"Wrong again. Although a few solo performances make for a well-rounded evening ,the general aim of a session is to get the maximum number of musicans playing together on the maximum number of tunes. In the same way a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig.... Those kinds of things fall into the category of *show biz,*fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions, which run on different principles altogether. The session is where the music lives and breathes, where it does its homework, where it flexes its muscles and idly picks its nose. If a musician has a mind to package Irish music for maximum marketability, or polish it to a dazzling sheen, or encase it in amber like some kind of prehistoric gnat, as session is neither the time nor the place to do it."
The only place here I would disagree with Mr. Foy is that some session do in fact operate along some of the concepts he deplores. I say, if that's how the members of those sessions want it, leave them be.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Incidentally, I like how Foy differentiates between a few "solo performances," which certainly can provide a nice interlude in an otherwise non-performance session. No problems with that. And he's very clear on how his notion of a session differs from entertaining an audience.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, I disagree -- I don't think it's a "loaded question." I don't think there's any better way to cut to the chase. If a punter understands the subtleties of a session the way you claim he does, then he will recognize the flaw in that question right away.
Besides that, unless you just wanted to find out about the punters in your session's pub you'd have to travel all around the globe with this survey to answer the query on this thread. This discussion isn't only about your session the same way it isn't only about Will's session.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Perhaps my difficulty is that I have never been to what Whoosis calls "a performance related session", and didn't think such a thing existed. I just perform the tunes and songs and mind my own business, being the quiet unassuming chap that I am.
Or perhaps Whoosis is talking hydraulics.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Kennedy, the problem here isn't finding out what punters think. It's that Jack already knows what punters think."
I never claimed to know what they think, I have said I'm basing what I believe is true on my experiences. I think you're basically doing the same thing, Will. The difference between yourself and I is that I'm not trying to find any possible way to deride you. I don't understand why you continue to do this sort of thing. I would prefer to be friendly with you, but you're not making it very easy with this and other similar snide remarks.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack continues to wrongly suggest that Kennedy and myself think this is only about our local session. None of us have ever even implied that.
I have to wonder why Jack fabricates meanings that aren't in our posts while ignoring the subtantive meanings that *are* there. I hope he doesn't think that's how people resolve their disagreements....
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"I never claimed to know what they think"
Come on, Jack, you did too. You've been very consistent in saying that you think they think sessions are "informal performances". You want me to go back through this gigantic thread and search for your exact words?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Foy's description of a session isn't being disputed here; I think we all agree with it for the most part. The perception from the average punter ‘s perception however isn't going to necessarily benefit from that description unless it's printed and handed out at pubs all around the world. They would have to have Punter Support meetings and discuss the intricate details regarding what is or isn't a performance as it relates to sessions. TV documentaries on the Discovery Channel and Special Reports on all the major news outlets might help. Perhaps they could run it on the tickertape that scrolls across the bottom of the screen when the news is on. Then we might begin to see a world where the average punter will walk into a pub where a session is in progress and he can say to himself, “This isn’t any kind of performance whatsoever.”
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The only differences between my snide remarks and Jack's snide remarks that I can see is that I say what I mean rather than saying it in thin innuendo, and Jack's rarely have any basis in reality.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Maybe that's why Foy wrote the book.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just for you, Jack:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
"loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase..."
This is why "Did you enjoy the performance tonight" is a loaded question. It implies that the music was a performance because it phrases it that way. Anyone who either did not understand or didn't really care about the question would tend to accept my phrasing and treat it as the yes-or-no question it appears to be and tell me "yes" or "no". To get them to dispute the question requires a lot of work on their part. It's just not good survey practice.
I spent too many years working in politics, I think...
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Bliss certainly still seems to be disputing that not all sessions are performances.
Hmmm...Jack's comments still give me that impression too.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy writes: "You've been very consistent in saying that you think they think"
What I "think they think"? How are you interpreting the word "think" here exactly?
My understanding of what they think is based on what my experience has been. What are your understandings based on?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just for the record, the tunes I had in my friend's kitchen the other day - that was *not* a session. We were practising. That is, we were playing tunes together and sometimes stopping halfway through and repeating bits until we got them right. Bliss, I run a session of my own every week so don't tell me I'm ignorant about what a session is.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've just noticed something. Whoosis says the TV is ALWAYS muted. That's the best ever.
So everyone in Montana is weird. That's not where that "Duelling banjos", Deliverance, film was set, is it?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I don't have to develop an understanding of what they think. I am one of *them*.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Strikes me as presumptious for anyone to assume they know what punters are really thinking, let alone asserting that the actual thoughts would be "lookit here, a bunch of performers presenting music to an audience" (that being Jack's treasured dictionary definition).
Yes, no doubt some people do need to be direclty informed about the differences between a session and a performance (plenty of evidence for that even here, on a web site devoted to sessions). But to presume that the vast majority of people cannot suss out what a session is by observing, listening, and reflecting on the differences says a lot about the IQ of punters in San Francisco. Or maybe Jack's premise doesn't accurate reflect what punter's think.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wow, Noxious was #700. Congratulations, Noxious!
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"How are you interpreting the word 'think' here?"
Ha ha ha ha...where have I heard reasoning like this before?
"It depends on what your definition of "is" is...."
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Hmmm...Jack's comments still give me that impression too."
What, that "not all sessions are performances"? I've been saying that ever since the original thread. My position is based on what the punter is likely to be thinking.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Bliss certainly still seems to be disputing that not all sessions are performances. posts Whoosis.
My head must be going, or their is something with the structure of the setence but "not all sessions are performances" threw me. No more pipes for me.
All sessions are performances, unless the session is "muted" as well.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss, I'm guessing that to you, *everyone* else is weird, not just here in Montana.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good Jack, you read into my post the exact opposite of what it meant.
That's progress....
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And thank you to Bliss for promptly reminding Jack of what it is he agrees with.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Regardless of what the SF punters think, the point is that Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions, which means that he is also denying the existence of punters who are able to understand what a session is as the musicians do. Therefore he is drawing a clear line between "musicians who understand" and "punters who do not". This implies strongly that he believes himself to be above the punters. Rather like bodhran bliss who thinks he's above everybody. So then logically you'd think that there's no point in arguing with someone with an attitude like that, because they're never going to listen to you or make an effort to understand your position. I gave up on the performance argument long ago. In fact I'm bored sh*tless about it. Isn't it time to lay this one to rest?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Here it is again, way back on that day of infamy, Dec. 7.
Jack copied Bliss:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
And then Jack wrote:
"Or how much they try to deny it."
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hahaha... yep... sounds familiar all right. But the point is, as Kennedy pointed out, I'm epressing what I "think" -- something everyone else does as well. Why Kennedy singles me out for "thinking" something and trying to build a case against my position based on that is something I don't think I understand.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yep, Nox, yer right. Besides, this epic thread loads too slow....
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions"
Will... why do you keep doing this? It's not true and I never said this no matter how many times you repeat it.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Whoosis, I will be at your session in January. I am moving to Montana to become rich.
I am opening an ear muff factory. People in Montana do not appear to listen to anything, not TV, music, nothing. Sounds as though I have a ready market.
And when I have sold everyone ear muffs what then, I hear you ask?
Thought of that. I will go down the mobile phone line. Ear muffs that have a camera, ear muffs which can download silence, ear muffs you can get the internet on, muted of course.
See yoou soon, Will.
And Noxious. What you were doing in the kitchen sounds exactly like Whoosis's session.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, there's nothing wrong with you for thinking what you think. I just think your understanding of what punters think is mistaken. I've been trying to tell you why I think so, and maybe get you to concede that maybe I might be right. And you've been trying to get me to concede that maybe you might be right. It's a discussion. A civilized debate. You have more experience as a musician than I will ever have and I respect you for that.
I really wish I had gone to some of the sessions when I lived in California, I bet they're different out there than here on the East Coast. I remember going to a festival in Sebastopol and there were long-haired long-bearded men in kilts and tie-dyed t-shirts doing hippie-type dances and smoking pot around the music tents. It really was a hoot!
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No bliss. I'm sure Will doesn't play 50 reels back to back, once or twice through each, stopping sometimes to repeat a single bar over and over again. Seriously, have you ever actually been to a session before because I'm starting to wonder.
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, in the quote of mine you posted notice the use of the word "THEY." Notice it doesn't say "WILL." I'm not talking about you, the topic isn't about you or your session. I'm talking about people in general all around the world who refuse to accept that the average punter is likely to think sessions are some sort of informal performance. I never said anywhere that people can't have non-performance sessions. I'm talking about the average piunter's perspective... not yours, not Michael's, not even my own. I'm talking about the P-U-N-T-E-R. I also never said there are no punters that understand this aspect of what a sessions is or isn't. Is that clear yet?
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
One last time. I promise.
Here it is again, way back on that day of infamy, Dec. 7.
Jack copied Bliss:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
And then Jack wrote:
"Or how much they try to deny it."
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy, regardless of how much respect you have for Jack as a musician, he will not respect you as a punter because he thinks you can't possibly understand what a session is (even though you've shown on this thread that you do - go figure!).
# Posted on December 13th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Kennedy writes: "and maybe get you to concede that maybe I might be right"
I'm not going to "concede" anything unless you can present evidence to convince me. I admit that my position is speculative, but I do happen to have a lot of evidence that supports it.
Regarding the kilted, fluffy-hat pewter cup on belt crowd at the Sebastopal fesival -- I never quite got all that. I actually try to see those bands when they play locally away from the festival while they're in town for it. I avoid the festival except on the occasion that Josephine Marsh enlists me as her body guard.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will! Jack is not listening to you! Give it up! It's okay, you've expressed yourself perfectly clearly and everybody else reading will understand you!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And I've said here quite clearly, several times, that I'm one of those people who gives punters more credit for their observational powers and intelligence than you do, Jack. I think the average punter does know the difference between a session and a performance. So "they" does include me. When you deride "them," you're deriding me.
And if you can't see that, then you're also deluding yourself.
So get off your misplaced air of superiority and consider just for a millisecond that someone else here might have an ounce of validity in a perspective that differs from yours.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We already know you're a stirrer, Obnoxious Blanket, so can you give it a rest please?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"I'm not going to "concede" anything unless you can present evidence to convince me"
Kennedy *is* the evidence. Kennedy is a punter. Why don't you show some respect and listen to what Kennedy says and take it on board.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now, I'm not trying to disagree with Will just for the sake of it, honest. But but you made an assumption back up a few posts which is wrong to my knowledge. The comparison of urban to rural sessions is fallacious, I can't mind whether you were referencing Barry Foy or what. In my experience rural sessions in Ireland, and also one I've attended at The Eels Foot in Suffolk, the rural part of England I frequent, are VERY performance oriented, particularly when it is the turn of the next octogenarian to sing some almost-forgotten song, or a couple of players to do their own thaing as a duet, maybe a concertina and a fiddle playing some English tunes. I may have said before it may not be exactly my cup of tea but it is very touching to see genuine rural people enjoying themselves through their playing. But as each, or many of these, contributions are given as a display of local talent, if you like, these are very much performances, warmly given and warmly accepted. So that urban/rural division does not exist (in my experience - check out what I wrote on here about the Eel's Foot Years before this discussion.)
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well then we finally arrived, haven't we. The essence of our disagreement is NOT whether it's possible to have a "non-performance" session -- we agree on this point, nor is it that it's not possible for punters to understand or concept, which we also agree. And we agree about what a session is to us. The real disagreemant is about what we believe the average punter's perspective is when they come into a pub where a session is in progress.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I hope nobody gets the wrong impression about the Sebastopol festival---I LOVE that festival! You go for a long weekend, get there on a Thursday, take a day to drive around the Russian River wine country and go wine tasting, then have a whole weekend of fabulous music, with dinners at the great restaurants in town with all the local wine and desserts made from the local Pink Lady apples---there are very few ways I'd rather spend my time!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, sorry Obnoxious Blanket, I apologize. I had no Idea that Kennedy is the official spokesman for the world's punters. I concede now of course.
You're joking... right?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Some punters are going to think it's a performance and some are not. Why is it so hard for you to admit that some might not? Is it because you'd rather they *did* view it as a performance? How would you feel if all the punters at your session ignored your playing? Is *that* where the problem is?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PS if you're gonna call me "Obnoxious Blanket", can I call you "The Phantom Cretin"?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, this thread is turning out to be quite a performance! I'm outta here!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hopefully if we insult each other Jeremy will delete the thread and we can all have some peace.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But before I go (honest) - The Eels Foot write-up:
http://www.thesession.org/sessions/display/783
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Obnoxious Blanket writes: "Some punters are going to think it's a performance and some are not. Why is it so hard for you to admit that some might not?"
Now you're doing it too. My position has never been that there are no punters who understand that a session might not be a performance, and I've said it directly and clearly many times on this thread. If you can find anywhere on this thread where I said what you claim, (keeping my comments in contex please) then I will eat my beret.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'll stop calling you "obnoxious Blanket" if you'll stop creating Straw Man arguments against me and stirring up trouble the way you do.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So let's recap:
PB: "The essence of our disagreement is NOT whether it's possible to have a "non-performance" session -- we agree on this point, nor is it that it's not possible for punters to understand or concept, which we also agree. And we agree about what a session is to us. The real disagreemant is about what we believe the average punter's perspective is when they come into a pub where a session is in progress."
Spot on, Phantom Cretin, we've finally reached an agreement. I'm sure Will will be happy that you've finally come round to our point of view and realised that the above is what we've been trying to persuade you of all along, i.e. that sessions exist that are very different to the one you have in SF, and that these sessions (like Will's) are NOT performances in the minds of both the musicians and punters, given that the musicians and punters present all understand what is going on.
I'm not particularly interested in the question of an "average punter's perspective". That's something you can't measure without a proper study with good data from a number of sources. I don't think Will would claim to be able to say what an "average punter" would be thinking either. So sorry, you'll have to find someone else to argue with you on that one.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've had this point of view long before I ever became a member here, Mark.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Here it is again, way back on that day of infamy, Dec. 7.
Jack copied Bliss:
"Blissters wrote: "And musicians playing in public become a public performance, no matter how they try to hide it."
And then Jack wrote:
"Or how much they try to deny it."
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
How many times do we need to cut & paste that before you finally realise that you've been expressing your point of view in a way that communicates the opposite to what you actually believe? I'm quite happy to cut & paste it again if need be.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "I don't think Will would claim to be able to say what an "average punter" would be thinking either."
Will writes: "I think the average punter does know the difference between a session and a performance."
Uh... are you guys reading each other's posts?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Spot on Nox.
Danny, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all rural sessions are one one ilk, and all urban another, or that rural people don't also enjoy performances. In fact, the things you describe sound very much like the party pieces common at many sessions. But my understanding is that these are interludes, not how the session runs all evening.
So I was just wondering out loud about the historical differences in rural and urban cultures, particularly in Ireland (partly thinking here of the scenes in John Keane's novel The Bodhran Maker), and the possible influences that may have had on sessions. I didn't mean to sound like it was a rock solid theory.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark, what I was saying there, if you put it in context, is that no matter what you think you're doing in a session the average unsuspecting punter is likely to think it's some sort of informal performance. I've already explained this more than once. Are you even following the thread?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "I think the average punter does know the difference between a session and a performance."
There's a difference between "thinking" and "knowing", Jack.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what an average punter is, let alone what he or she is thinking.
What I was saying there is that I disagree with your assertion that most punter's don't know the difference.
Go ahead and call me on it. I don't have a clue what most punters think. Nor does it matter to the substance of what Nox, Gill, David, Kennedy, Benhall, and myself have said here.
How 'bout this: the fact that us Irish trad musicians DON'T call our gatherings "performances" and we DO call them "sessions" argues that there might just be a reason for that. Why use a different word, with different connotations, if "performance" was a perfect fit?
My hunch is that for many of us, "performance" isn't a perfect fit, not is "informal performance." We mean something different when we say "session."
If Jack objects to our choice of words, and our sense of the term, I can't really understand why he spends so much time at a site called thesession.org trying to persuade its members that they're not at sessions (in our sense of the word) at all, but "performances."
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Okay Jack, so you think the average punter is likely to think a session is some sort of informal performance. Will thinks the average punter is likely to know the difference between a session and a performance.
So the feck what!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark, when did I claim that I knew beyond any doubt exactly what punters are thinking more than anyone else has?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I didn't say you did. I acknowledge, Jack, that you said that you "think" your average punter blah blah blah. But you pulled me up because I said that I didn't think Will would claim to be able to say what the average punter thinks. Well, Will can say what he "thinks", but he doesn't claim to know for sure, so that's why there's no point in arguing about it without some sort of study with good data and proper evidence, and it's why you'll have to find someone else with whom to argue that particular point.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Anyway, thanks for finally coming round to our point of view, Jack. I know you want to argue some more, but there's nothing to argue about anymore. I hope this thread gets left as a reference, so if this subject comes up again, we can prove that we all agree. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'd like to see my point here addressed, so I'm repeating it:
How 'bout this: the fact that us Irish trad musicians DON'T call our gatherings "performances" and we DO call them "sessions" argues that there might just be a reason for that. Why use a different word, with different connotations, if "performance" was a perfect fit?
My hunch is that for many of us, "performance" isn't a perfect fit, not is "informal performance." We mean something different when we say "session."
Mind you, I'm no saying that other people who think of what they do as performing can't use the "session" word. I don't care.
I just want to be able to call what I like to do a "session," and not be ridiculed or told me and those of like mind are in "denial" every time I want to talk here about the differences between the sorts of sessions I enjoy and "performances."
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Blood sugar must be low--lordy my grammar went to hell there. *grin*
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
May I address your point, Will?
You are correct.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "If Jack objects to our choice of words, and our sense of the term, I can't really understand why he spends so much time at a site called thesession.org trying to persuade its members that they're not at sessions (in our sense of the word) at all, but "performances.""
Where do you get off telling me what I'm here to do? Saying that I'm here to "persuade" session.org members that "they're not at sessions." I have done no such thing. I have wasted most of my time on this thread fighting off your Straw Man arguments. The audacity to presume what my purpose is for joining this site is ludicrous. The irony here is that this is coming from a man who admonished me for presuming what his session was like -- even though I never did.
My position on this thread has been consistant. The average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is. How many times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We acknowledge (again!) that YOU THINK THAT the average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is.
And I repeat: so the feck what!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "Will can say what he "thinks", but he doesn't claim to know for sure"
And I never claimed I know for sure either... what's your point?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Um, my point was simply that Will doesn't claim to know for sure. I wasn't talking about you. This is not all about you, Jack.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"...it is very touching to see genuine rural people enjoying themselves through their playing."
Danny, tell me someone else got hold of your keyboard! Sounds like an Oxford don reporting on the charming habits of the great unwashed, not the social activist we've come to know and love.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
:>)
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "And I repeat: so the feck what!"
This has been my point as well. The majority of this thread has been having my position misrepresented by you and others so you can argue against it, (Straw Man) and me trying to present and defend my actual position during all the confusion. What you and other have been doing is using a logical fallacy to attack me. Why? That's anyone's guess, but I have no idea. Had it not been for your use of the Straw Man argument we would have arrived at the crux of our actual disagreement about 680 posts ago. If there's anything to be gained from this thread its how derisive and useless Straw Man arguments are. I hope we can continue on this website without ever resorting to that, (or the ad hominem as well,) on future threads. Is that possible?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"crux of our actual disagreement"
We have shown that we are actually in total actual agreement, and that it was actually your way of expressing your opinion that made it seem to us as though you held the exact opposite view. But you know, it's kinda not our fault that you weren't able to express your views effectively and show clearly that you were in actual agreement with us. It looked to me for a long time that you were actually disagreeing.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hmmm. First I was going to say that I never implied this was the only reason you come to this site. Obviously, you've engaged in other conversations, posted tunes, etc. So yet another straw man from the scarecrow himself.
But then I got to thinking. Let's see, you've "wasted most of [our] time" on three threads totalling over 1,500 posts because you're so intent on being "right" that you continue to say, over and over and over again, "The average unsuspecting punter is likely to think the session is some sort of informal performance regardless of what we think it is."
(Sorry, am I quoting you correctly here? I don't want to have to come back to this and 'substantiate' any 'accusations' I may make of your behavior. Though it seems you've added a number of equivocations to your original concept. Now they're "unsuspecting" punters, and they're only "likely" to think that it's "some sort" of informal performance. Seems we're not so sure of ourselves as we once were.)
And yet you've never direclty answered any of the clear, rational counter-arguments I've offered, nor those from Michael, Nox, and David. In fact, you've either attacked our points with irrational red herrings (the bit about the loggers on LSD who denied cutting down the tree they felled, or that bit about the flyer explaining the invisible musicians--if that really was, as you yourself said, the "only" way you could think of educating punters, then you're worse off than I thought), taken our words out of context and twisted them, and repeatedly ignored well-reasoned, salient points that challenge your ideas.
So maybe that is why you're here. And maybe that's why you didn't get along so well over at IRTRAD either. And why you recently got chewed out over in the tunes section for disparaging a respected member here for how he submits tunes. And why, even after he explained precisely why your words offended him, you offered no apology, just a lame excuse. Well, not even a lame excuse. You simply denied comparing his dinxters to dirty words, even though that's exactly what your earlier post did.
Could this be the reason your here?
You tell us.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Right then, enough of what we think punters think. What do we think? Who would concur that such a thing as non-performance music exists? Just straight answers. Yes or no. There's enough prevarication already.
I'll have to do your voting for you. You change it if you disagree, or add if I've missed you out.:
The Phantom Button - yes
Noxious Blanket - yes
Whoosis - yes
Kennedy - yes
bb -yes
Key Maniac Lad - maybe
Bodhran Bliss - no
Saint -no
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry, Will, I didn't make a Straw Man argument, I have been consistent about my position, I have tried my best to defend it, and I have avoided getting into an exchange of insults with you. I also get along just fine at IRTRAD, so I have no idea what you're on about with something that has nothing to do with this site, and dragging whatever you can from other threads or tune submissions that you believe will support you defamation of me will ultimately say more about you than it will about me.
As for me, I'm satisfied now that to any subjective observers my position is clear and I have successful defeated your attempts at misrepresenting my positions. This has been made clear now in several private emails as well. I'm happy to end my involvement here with this thread; you can carry on if you wish.
If you want to discuss any other issues that come up on this site without the derogatory innuendo, and you're willing to accept my positions as I state them, then I look forward to any future discussions.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I meant "objective observers." Sorry
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL. Same ol Jack. Avoiding reality for the sake of being "right" to the end. Nobody here has defamed you--you did that all by yourself.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well I disagree, but we'll just have to leave it up to each individual to determine it for themselves... won't we?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes indeedy.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've just spent an hour reading this and I tell you what. If you take out the repatitions, the whole thread is actually only about 150 posts. And there are instances of contradictions, but, heck, the vast majority of these I could atribute to the refining of opinions. And there are instances of both button and whoosis using withering scarcasm, so there are no saints.
With respect to the Button, he never did say that ALL punters thought sessions were performances, only the average punter. And he has always maintained that what they thought didn't effect his music.
Though with respect to Will, I did find it very difficult to discover that reality, as Button's tone really is inflametry.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael said "there are no saints".
What about saint?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Straw men, eh.
I'm tempted to suggest that the next person who decides to argue the question of whether or not sessions are, or are perceived to be, performances, be given a first hand acquaintance with a wicker man.
Or a bundle of birch twigs, take your pick.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by sara g
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
All sessions are performances. Unlike newcomers like Noxious I have played at sessions since the 1960's, I even helped to revive "The Favourite" in London. All sessions are performances, you perform the tunes.
Now I have played in places that not one solitary person was interested, but it was still a performance. I mentioned a place in Dublin 5 days ago, I think it was called the Fisherman, people travelled for miles to go to the session in it, and not one of them listened to the performance. But there excuse for being there was because there were musicians performing.
The musicians, myself included, never paid a blind bit of notice to anyone but ourselves, and played for our own enjoyment for hours. A real session, people playing half a tune asking others if they knew it, then maybe a couple of them playing the same half, a bit like Noxious's kitchen, great crack, a load of banter and tunes.
Still a performance, as far as those uninterested people who had travelled miles to be there were concerned.
And we did perform the tunes.
Obviously Noxious you are too inexperienced to have experienced kitchen sessions. And yet you have, but don't see it.
Over the last twenty years the best "sessions" I have had were three of us, every Wednesday in a kitchen, two guitar singer songwriters, and me with mandolin and blues harp, occasional whistle, singing songs, practising songs, smoking blow, those two drinking, more blow, more songs, lets write a few songs, half songs, try this ending again. Absolutely brilliant. But still performing.
And Noxious, you are practising in the kitchen, because when you go to a session to perform, you don't want to look bad in front of the uninterested punters.
Next.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, I want a bottle of whatever he's drinking....
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Must be that blow.
I've experienced lots of nice kitchen sessions, Blisster. In fact the most recent one was Sunday night.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Right, Bliss, here you go. Climb on in, it's much more comfy than it looks. Would you mind holding my golden sickle for a minute while I strike a light?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by sara g
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
(I'm not counting yesterday, when I was practising in someone's kitchen with 2 other people, learning a tune phrase by phrase).
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Whoosis, I drink pints of blackcurrant juice. I remember starting a digging match nearly in the Fisherman in Dublin because the barman tried to charge me a pound for it. The punters didn't even notice that.
Thank you Noxious, never try to defend the indefensible, first rule of discussions.
Whoosis mentioned somewhere "An air of Superiority", implying a "I must be right all the time" attitude. Only a person with an "Air of superiority" would even think of using that expression.
And your chief supporter seems to exude the same condition.
We call this the session.org because a session is where we go to perform.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZ
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No staying power the Aussies.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The question I have after all this is: Has this been more of an argument or a debate, do you think?
I understand the two words are somewhat synonymous, at least in everyday usage. But they also have a subtle difference, and once I ask the question “which is it?,” any intelligent person should assume automatically I’m talking about the subtle differences -- not the similarities -- between the terms.
So is this debate or argument?
I submit it’s argument. Here’s my reasoning: Debate, as differentiated from argument, implies a more-or-less public forum the purpose of which is not to have the participants sway each other’s opinions so much as to put their opinions before a neutral body – a group of legislators, judges, audience, etc. – and perhaps sway the opinion of that neutral body. An argument, on the other hand, implies a battle of words in which the participants’ main purpose is to persuade, convince, cajole the opposition. There can be witnesses to an argument, but their involvement as witnesses is irrelevant (providing the police don’t get involved!), and the only way they become relevant is by becoming a participant.
Does that seem like a fair distinction?
This thread is clearly in a public place. Anybody can wander in here, listen or not listen as he or she chooses. It doesn’t seem to matter to the participants.
I’d call this an argument.
Now I’ve been knocking around this site for a few years, so I guess I know what the purpose of the site is. But let’s assume I just stumbled in here, say like poor ol’ Starting Over did a little while ago, with no real knowledge of what you guys and this site are all about.
I would submit that, as an uninformed bystander, I might, for a moment, read this thread and assume the participants were trying, by way of debate, to teach me something. But I don’t think it would take me a very long time to realize that my presence, the presence of anybody but the participants, is entirely irrelevant to the participants. I could chime in, if not with an argument, perhaps with an “attaboy, Bliss!” or a “go get ‘im, llig.” While that may or may not have a positive effect on the efforts of the participants, it still doesn’t change their intent, which is to persuade the opposition, and I think I and everybody who really have read this thread can instantly recognize that fact.
It’s clearly an argument, not a debate. That argument holds up, I think, against all arguments except the one that insists the words “debate” and “argument” are perfectly synonymous. And if someone refuses to accept that there may be subtle but necessary reasons why we have those two words instead of just one word, I admit that I’m powerless to argue, debate or really even communicate with a person like that.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ha, good man cuchulain
And can I add: anyone that insists the words “play” and “perform” are perfectly synonymous are merely arguing. And if someone refuses to accept that there may be subtle but necessary reasons why we have those two words instead of just one word, I admit that I’m powerless to argue, debate or really even communicate with a person like that.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I never argue, hear me, never, so don't say I do. Hear me? Never.
I discuss and debate. And I have obviously made loads of new friends during this thread. Some others are arguing.
And after 5 days of trying to decline/decipher the word "perform" you now want us to argue about "discussion and argue".
Are you looking for an argument?
Jack kind off agrees with me, as do a number of others, and discuss this. Many others, especially Kennedy who I have not encountered before disagrees with me, but has entered some great posts as a discussion, and has won my attention, and strikes me as someone you could have a great nights talking with. (without having to perform
Noxious and Will also agree with me, but because they are arguing, and arguments mean winners and losers, they are not going to admit it.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah ... juicy fruit
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I forgot about you Michael, but you are just doing what I do.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Just to make myself clear, I'm not in any way implying that argument is inferior to debate or vice versa.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Anyone recollect a phrase along the lines of "heads need to be banged together" being used?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The term Christmas is offensive to non Christians, and is a prime example of the decadent western world trying to dominate and brow beat all opposition.
A bit like this discussion. Close to 800 posts.
What a performance, a marathon session.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Do I get a prize for having just ploughed through this whole thread on my lunch break? Nox, you should get that snore seen to, it's so loud. The way it stopped suddenly suggests a bit of Obstructive sleep apnoea
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Donough
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
start talking about religion and we won't make 1,000
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Harsh Blister - but dont get snarky and call Dow a newcomer - he cant help it that he is waaayyyy younger than you. Dont worry - in another 40 or 50 years time he will get there!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The core problem is not whether this is an argument or a debate, nor whether you perform at sessions or not, nor whether non-playing patrons think you do or not, nor EVEN whether you like bodhrans or not.
It's this.
Some of you are spending far too much time on line.
Go for a run/walk/cycle ride.
Watch dumb telly for a while.
Read a book - I'm currently devouring JG Ballard's The Empire of the Sun and The Kindness of Women.
........or even, dare I suggest it,
Go and do some musical practice.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've learnt 10 tunes this week, Danny, how many have you learnt?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Or have you been too busy watching dumb telly
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Pretty good, Mark, but as you know, I don't need to learn any because I know everything.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
To be honest I have hardly played a note because of a virus. But I *have* learned a fair bit of computer stuff as I'm doing the ECDL. So in between spreadsheets and MS Access details I ve been coming on here to watch the fireworks.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I take it you mean an illness as opposed to a computer virus?
I've been learning tunes *because* I've been down with a virus
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
It's a shame that you've learned so many tunes, but won't perform any of them......
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
.... Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound ...
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Surely Shakespeare really meant "merely performers" ?
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by murfbox
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
“The thing about performance, even if it's only an illusion, is that it is a celebration of the fact that we do contain within ourselves infinite possibilities.”
Sydney Smith
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"If (Irish traditional) music be the food of love, perform on...."
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by murfbox
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Correct bb, every year people get older. However in forty or fifty tears Noxious will still not get there, as I will be forty or fifty years older.
I notice Noxious says he "runs his own session". What does that mean? How can you run an impromptu non-performance for nobody? It should just happen, unless you are running some sort of performance.
And in forty or fifty years he may know what a session is, there is always that to look forward to.
I am now off to perform my ablutions. Not showing off or anything, just having a crap. But still performing.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
At work we have a Performance Management Framework scheme, to measure an employees performance. Now these are office workers, and they are not measuring showning off, back flips, or anything like that, they are simply measuring the work you do, your performance. Fill in a spreadsheet, that is your performance.
Play a tune in a pub.........
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This isn't going to make the thousand post mark, is it? I can feel it fizzling out. We should have tried it with a thread with a correctly spelled title.....
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
God your so thick. At work you perform for your pay. Too right your employee should be able to measure the work you do.
Like a judge in a music competition, measuring your performance.
The whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself. I know I'm talking to a brick wall, but someone else may be listening. My views are, after all, in the majority
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Correctly spelt title. I think, just to start another argument/discussion.
Don't worry, Noxious will be back on soon. He can't resist.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Does anyone like bodhrans
Don't know if the spelling correction will help Ottery, but to help you push this on towards the 1,000 mark, here's my twopence worth:
).
"What style of bodhran playing do you like, and why?
On stage, many of the above mentioned stars of the Bodhran world have their place for sure, but that sort of playing for me, doesn't belong in a session, but I'm sure, at least I would hope, that they all have the sense & wit to tone down their playing when playing in the small, cozy environment of a session.
It may well be that some of their admirers don't have the sense to know when to 'turn it on' & when to 'turn it off', hence some of the 'bad press' that ye olde Bod-u-ran gets!
In any case Saint, the finest Bodhran player I've ever played with in a session, is one Mickey McIlwaine (sp?) who lives in Cookstown (sorry Paul & Bliss
No pyrotechnics, back flips or somersaults, just 'in tune' & lovely 'steady as a rock' playing, using a seemingly but no doubt deceptively very simple style which just seems to flow quietly along with the music ...very, very tasteful!
I believe he used to play a lot with Jim McKillop.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Who said it won't make the thousand mark? Ptarmigan's just turned up. More like 2000.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I am glad you mentioned Jim. Here is a man who in no way could be described as a performer, yet he performs tunes to a high standard.
The best bodhran player I knew was a man called Vinnie back in Manchester in the 1970,s, much the same as your bloke Ptarmigan, nice and effortless.
The best player I saw, and see every time I shave, is ................
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
AHA!
Michael, you said:
"The whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself."
But apparently it's alright to measure others?
I was looking for something else and came across this comment you made on another thread:
"Actually, I try to work it the other way round. Where every one is welcome. Until they prove themselves beyond redemption. Then they get either frozen out or told to shut up"
That should be good for another half dozen posts ....
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But I'm off to the pub!
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Quite agree Ottery. If it was not a performance would it matter if there were 36 bodhran players at a session? Would Michael object, would Noxious say "this is great fun in an informal setting".
Somehow I think not. I do not ask Whoosis, he wouldn't hear them.
# Posted on December 14th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Quantum Physics as in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle might apply. "The very act of observing a phenomenon (by punters) inevitably alters that phenomenon in some way."
Of course, apparently Heisenberg was an incompetent Nazi:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2062844
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now you've done it grego--trying to get this thread deleted by invoking the "n" word?
That would be a shame--this thread holds no small amount of well-reasoned exploration of what makes a great session (and no shortage of laughs too).
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yikes, did I say n@zi. Sorry, meant to say "Nasty"
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sherlock Holmes (The Copper Beeches) on "punters", or in this case the public.
"What do the public, the great unobservant public, who could hardly tell a weaver by his tooth or a compositor by his left thumb, care about the finer shades of analysis and deduction".
A bit dismissive to say the least. But Sherlock was noted for his egotism, selfishness and his conceit, although he himself denied all three. he had "an air of superiority about him.
Are any of you posting here really Sherlock Holmes? Not pointing the finger at anyone.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And i thought the music belonged to the people, how wrong i've beeen..............might make a thousand yet.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by iain beag
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I wish I had started my schooling here:
http://www.lrsd.org/schoolindex.cfm?sccode=52
so I could think back fondly on Watson, my dear elementary.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What?!!? is saying that all sessions are performances.
He's also saying that it's impossible for musicians to play in public without performing.
And that you can't perform unless you eat the night before.
He insists that all musicians force each other to perform at sessions.
~~~
Don't ask me to substantiate any of this because I've learned well from certain members here that you can make up outrageous statements about what other people say and not expect to be held accountable or prove any of it.
I would like to add that David is being very sarcastic and condescending. He has also lowered the discussion to a schoolyard argument. Don't ask me to explain because it's not based in facts, but as I've learned from certain posters here -- that's ok too.
So if you call me on this of course I'll just keep repeating the fabricated statements over and over until I actually start believing them myself, but don't worry... as many times as you ask me to stop saying it, or ask me to point to the quote that would support my accusation -- I can just ignore you. Ha!
I hope you all find this sort of thing as liberating as I have. Now we are free to misquote and insult each other's intelligence without any recourse. Isn't it great?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You've always misquoted and insulted people's intelligence, so where does this liberating change come in exactly?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So are we going to have an armistice on this for Christmas or is that also too politically incorrect. Then in the New Year we can start off with "Dose anyone like Concertinas". Whereupon the discussion can become a performance for the waring parties.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Donough
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Not too many answers to the easy questions I posed earlier, and indeed all week. How does one run a non-performance?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Okay guys, this really has gone too far. Jack clearly doesn't realize that it's his own behavior he's describing. And he's obviously very upset over this and is taking it very personally.
That's a shame because we're all here for the love of the music. It's not about winning an argument, or singling out one person's pattern of ugly rhetoric (after all, that's Jeremy's call). It IS about sharing our passion for this music and the whole social tradition that goes with it. If someone doesn't like Jack's behavior, and Jeremy lets it stand, then they can ignore it and not respond to it any more, or they can spend their time elsewhere.
If I've learned anything from this thread, It's that the debate certainly isn't worth stooping to his level over.
Ease up, and let's get back to tunes and craic.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
These straw men seem to be multiplying. They must be breeding. But if they are, where are all the straw women?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David you are like sooo pathetic. You blatantly use ad hominem tactics and insult Jack outright, and then deny it in your next post as if nothing ever happened, even though your words are right there above, in black and a very pale dull yellow colour. God I wish you'd all just stop being insulting to Jack. Just because aliens don't shed tears doesn't mean they can't feel pain or sorrow.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Go on, David, waste another day. You know you want to. ::evil guffaw::
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes,
I did say the whole trick with non-performance music is not to be measured. To not even measure yourself. Avoid comparing yourself.
Thank you for pointing out my inconsistency. I should not have said, "the whole point is not to be measured" because, and this goes to the root of it, you have no control over who wants to or is measuring you. The trick is to not let it effect you. I should have simply said that you should not measure yourself.
I was wrong, I said something illogical and contradictory, someone pointed it out, and I recant.
Anyone else like a shot at that?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Only 837 posts? what's wrong with you people? No stamina? No appetite for a good argument? No stomach for a fight?
Wimps, the lot of ye.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nox writes; "You've always misquoted and insulted people's intelligence"
Time to play your hand, Mark. I know you won't find anything to back this up because it isn't here. I already asked you for your evidence and you have ignored me. On the other hand, I've already extracted from this thread where you have done this to me. I will be glad to show you either here or in private... the choice is yours.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah...sorry lads, I thought this was the room for an argument.
It's just that this is giving me the
I have watched this thread grow (out of proportion) for quite some time now. Perhaps online communities function like hippie socialistic communes. Everyone starts with a patch of grass (pardon the pun) but everything is shared - knowledge, wealth and experience.And everyone works towards an agreed upon goal. Then after a couple of years the rot sets in, and it becomes about how it was you who smoked the last of my stash of banana leaf, and ignore that bastard only stirs everyone else up and three years ago you were cool...but you've changed man, you've changed!!! and then the real violence starts. Shouldn't you all be running about banging bodhrans and singing about the age of old hairyarse?
Or maybe we should take the approach of lynch the guy who started it all...What style of bodhran playing do you like and why?
I think Colm Murphy is the king because he adds to the music in a dynamic way,Ringo is solid and keeps it simple and John joe dose his own thing but he still holds a beat.
# Posted on December 6th 2006 by saint
Only kidding saint, but If I wanted to judge how healthy an online community is I would just have to trawl through this bog to get a good idea.
(No offense to the word from on high
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Greenwiggle
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael,
I take my hat off to you - you are a rare thing on this board, someone for whom the truth is more important than showing that you are right(!)
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Sorry guys but this thread is over as per "Godwin's Law" with grego mentioning the nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by farmer barleymow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
no, that's when some one acuses some one of being a nazi
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Right you are llig, you may continue.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by farmer barleymow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Okay guys, this really has gone too far. Jack clearly doesn't realize that it's his own behavior he's describing."
Time to play your hand too, Will. Both bb and Ben said they read this thread and couldn't find anything to support your claim that I was "sarcastic" and "condescending."
bb writes: “But I really dont see that Jack has said anything more offensive than anyone else on this thread.”
bb continues: “Will - we are all adults here (sort of) And hopefully we can all work this out ourselves - asking for Jeremey to step in is just another form of killing that old favourite of your land 'Freedom of speech' - If you think it is offensive, thats ok - because sometimes things are said that are offensive in every day life- on the telly, by politicians, by musicians etc etc - we have to learn to deal with it ourselves. You cant have someone come in and stop people talking - then we turn this site into a dictatorship. And that is just stupid.”
~~~
Ben Hall writes: “However, I don't get why Whoosis is so relentlessly attacking PB. It seems to me he keeps accusing PB of things he himself is actually the instigator of. For instance, to someone who has not participated so far in this discussion, it's failry clear if you read all the posts that PB has been trying to argue calmly, but is constantly accused of sarcasm - that I can't find anywhere in his posts - of being insulting - which, again I can't find; and the last one took the biscuit. Whoosis accused PB of being the one to suggest bringing Jeremy in. Now, I *have* read every post on this thread. If I've missed it, I apologise, but to me the first time it was suggested was in these words: "I'm disappointed that Jeremy and others let this sort of behavior go unchallenged." - Whoosis. If I've missed an earlier post of PB's suggesting this, then please point it out, and I'll apologise for my error.”
~~~
Then Will, you respond without any actual quotes to support your claims, and instead offer your spin and add a few more fabrications
Will writes: “Benhall, Jack's the one who suggested I give my "evidence" to Jeremy. I didn't call on Jeremy, only said that I was disappointed he hadn't weighed in yet.
And I'm not just talking about my session here, but many sessions I've been to with a similar bent. And the way the old codgers thought about playing the music.
The bit where Jack says I'm refuting the dictionary to support my argument, calling it "Brilliant!" is where I see Jack resorting to his rhetoric of degradation. He either deliberately ignored the substance of my post there, or didn't bother trying to understand it. And then he dredges up his old tactics of saying that people who think sessions aren't performances are in denial, and then we get the surreal bit about the flyers to punters.
Jack's not discussing the ideas here on their merits, he's belittling people for disagreeing with him, and then playing innocent and even victimized.”
~~~
But Ben Hall isn’t buying it and replies: “And, I'm sorry Will, but I think you're being disingenuous. If you didn't intend to provoke Jack by bringing Jeremy into the discussion, then I don't know why you did it. In the circumstances, I thought Jack's response was reasonable. He didn't call on Jeremy's assistance - you did, at the very least by implication.”
~~~
I have also asked you repeatedly to show me where I said the things you claimed I said. All were ignored. The only thing you came up with was a lame attempt to convince us that when I say "they" that I'm referring to you specifically.
So it’s go-time now Will, show us your hand. Here's a few quotes of yours to help jog your memory and get you started:
"Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions"
“Jack, I'm tempted to let you off the hook, but I can't. Your reasoning is flawed, and whenever someone reveals that flawed reasoning, instead of re-examining your position or posting a reasoned explanation of it to move the conversation forward, you resort to cheap sarcasm, ridicule, and patronizing language. I'm calling it as I see it.”
“It's not what Jack wants a session to be that I've argued against here, but his insistence that my session and others can't be anything but a performance.”
“And I really don't care whether Jack gets this or not. But it does strike me as rude and insensitive that he persists in telling people here that their sessions must be performances”
“And Jack if you don't get it, I can't be any more clear. You're behavior here is rude and offensive and disengenuous.”
“Jack get's it in his bonnet to ridicule anyone who thinks sessions can also NOT be performances.”
"Jack is denying the existence of non-performance sessions"
“Jack and Bliss continue to insist that "all sessions are performances" in the sense that we cannot possibly play purely for our own enjoyment while other people go about their own business in the same room (whether reading, watching telly, talking, or perchance even listening to the music), without it becoming a "performance to an audience."”
~~~
Remember, Will, actual quotes... no spin. Make sure I'm directing what I say directly at you personally, as you claimed.
As for me, I'm of to bed after playing for a lovely set dance. It was definately a performance for us, unlike our sessions. But I suspect the punters are not likely to have fully grasped that concept.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh... and as for you David... I realize your comments weren't directed at me, I just couldn't resist the chance for some good satire. Cheers.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mornington Crescent!
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Ottery
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I agree with you Jack. I think Will should be punished in some way. I mean, what he's done is horrifying. He's irreversibly blackened your name across the whole wide world, and now if you try and go to a session in Ireland, the UK, Europe, Canada Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and even other parts of the US, people will whisper about you behind your back, and they'll say "you must be watchful for he is the dark one", and nobody - even your own band mates - will ever want to play tunes with you again, for fear that they may be seen as performing.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh.
Is that it then?
What'll we talk about now?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We should talk about how to punish Will for what he's done. I think he should be locked in a soundproof room for a week and subjected to out-of-tune morris tunes played at high db levels on a piano accordion.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What we want to keep this thread going until the end of time - or until Jeremy's server falls over (whichever comes first) - is a parliamentary debater who is skilled in waffling on for hours on any subject under the sun until a parliamentary bill is "talked out".
Come to think of it, we have at least three gentleman on this discussion who already appear to be so qualified.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
They have something like that in the US Senate called the fillibuster. Any Senator can get up and take an unlimited amount of time to delay the start of a vote. Some of them have raised it to an art form, reading long passages of books, meandering on extemporaneously, you name it. I forget the record, but I know that a few have gone on for longer than 8 hours.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I like bodhráns.
I might even eat a whole one.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The mind of the musician
The mind of the musician: nature or nurture?
The mind of the musician is capable of synthesizing internal music that is heard almost exactly as performed music is heard. It is capable of responding emotionally to musical experience in a manner shared by other musicians. All musicians agree that major keys are bright and minor keys sombre. All respond emotionally in much the same way to pentatonic modes (music using only the black keys on a keyboard). Many keyboard musicians share subtle emotional responses in common to different keys, although equal temperament tuning is supposed to make the intervals between all semitones the same. The latter capacity also seems to have survived several changes in the frequency of the standard pitchfor music (see also The chromatic mind). Many musicians have 'perfect pitch' the ability to name with complete accuracy any note played. Musical physiologists believe that this capacity is possible because such people have an internal standard of pitch a reliable memory of a single note, such as A (440 hertz) to which other notes are related.
Musicians can not only perform known music internally, creating ideal performances that they might not be able to match on the concert platform, they can also perform new imagined music, both as an almost unwilled improvization and in a controlled and carefully structured manner. The ability to convert printed music to internally heard sound is remarkable. A musician will pick up a score of a string quartet and will at once 'hear' the music. In the same way, the creative musician can translate what he or she hears in the mind into a complex score. Many composers do not compose on an instrument, but in their head, writing their composition down without having to play it first.
Musical memory is another extraordinary feature of the mind of the musician. It is a commonplace of musical biography to read of pianists learning a new piece from the music while travelling in a train and giving a creditable public performance without the music, on arrival. The German conductor von Bulow even memorized the whole score of a symphony by Stanford in the course of a train journey and was then able to conduct the work without score. Menuhin reports a remarkable instance of musical memory by the Romanian violinist and composer Georges Enesco (18811955). Enesco and Ravel were trying out a new violin sonata that Ravel had just written. After going through it once, Enesco suggested that they play it again just to be sure that everything was right. To Ravel's amazement, Enesco dosed the violin part and played the whole work entirely from memory. LisA's favourite pupil, Karl Tausig (184171) is said, by the age of 29, to have memorized every important work in the whole pianoforte and harpsichord literature as it then existed.
The question of musical taste is a difficult one. In general, taste is related to the overall standard of musicality and grows with musical education and experience. It is, of course, variable. Some executive musicians of extraordinary skills are capable of displaying lapses of taste that horrify the discriminating. On the other hand, taste which includes originality and unpredictability is generally deemed to be the most important element in determining artistic quality both in performance and in composition. Today, a very high standard of technical performance is expected of all professional musicians and, to a large extent, the factors that distinguish the great from the merely competent are those indefinable elements we mean when we talk of taste.
The kind of music for which a musician is best known does not necessarily correspond to his or her ideal of taste. Economic factors may detemdne the direction of a musical career. There are even cases on record in which a high level of taste can be inhibitory. Musicality, as we shall see, runs in families. When one highly musical family was studied it was found that there was one member who, in the opinion of the others, was quite devoid of musical talent. On investigation, however, this man was found to have all the elements of musical ability present to an unparalleled degree significantly greater than those of his very famous brother. It turned out that he was intensely musical but that the level of his taste was so high that nearly all the music he heard sounded banal and boring to him and he could not bear either to perform or to hear it.
Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason. It does not seem to be necessary to be particularly intelligent in order to he a capable musician; indeed, some mentally retarded people show high musical sensitivity and even talent. For these reasons it has occasionally been suggested that musicians are commonly short on intelligence. This is a typical case of arguing from the particular to the general and it is as wrong as such arguments usually are. There is no evidence that musicians, as a class, are any less bright or more bright, for that matter than a comparable group of nonmusidans. The distribution of intelligence seems to be the same in musical populations as in general populations. It has to be said, however, that musicians in the highest class are commonly supremely intelligent people. Professional distinction in music demand the same high levels of intelligence as distinction in any other profession.
It seems possible that obsessivecompulsive neurosis (or perhaps just plain superstition) is commoner in performing musicians than in the generality of mankind. There are numerous tales of the eccentric antics of instrumental players, singers and conductors arising from this particular idiosyncrasy. The pianist V1adimir Pachmann could never get his piano stool at the right height. It is on record that he asked whether anyone in the audience had a train ticket he could borrow. Other pianists will sit staring at the audience until the silence is absolute and no one dare breathe. Shura Cherkassky must always step on to the stage with his right foot first, and his ~ice time is measured exactly to the second. Ludano Pavarotti has to find a bent nail in the floorboards before beginning a concert. The conductor
Artur Rodzinski always had a loaded gun in his pocket when at work on the rostrum.
Professional musical performers differ from ordinary mortals in more ways than the purely psychological. If they are to be successful they require certain innate physical abilities some of which are rare outside the world of music. Carl Seashore, the doyen of musical psychology and physiology, once put together a battery of tests called the 'Seashore Measures of Musical Talent'. These include such things as the ability accurately to discriminate pitch and interval, to maintain strict tempo, to analyse rhythmical patterns, to appreciate subtle differences in loudness, to distinguish differences in timbre (such as the difference between the same note played on a clarinet and on an oboe), and to understand phrasing in a succession of notes. What may surprise many people is that one of the important standard measurements of musical capacity is the ability to move the fingers very quickly. People with a naturally slow tapping rate less than about seven taps per second, averaged over a 5 second period can improve to some extent with practice, but will never become virtuoso performers. Seashore says that the tapping rate, in association with steadiness, precision and endurance, deserves to be rated highly in the selection of young musicians for training. Few people can achieve more than 12 taps per second.
One aspect of the musical mind that seems incomprehensible to nonmusicians is the ability to dissociate musical activity from everyday thought and to engage in both simultaneously. A competent sightreader can give an adequate performance while thinking about something quite different. This is not to suggest that a brilliant performance is possible if the leader of a string quartet is having fantasies about the beautiful girl in the front row. But that it should be possible to do this at all is remarkable and tells us something about the nature of musical execution and how it differs from other mental activity. Edvard Grieg showed the manuscript of his piano concerto to Franz Liszt for the first time. Many guests were present and Liszt asked Crieg to play it. Grieg demurred, though, saying he had never
practised it. Liszt went to the piano and read off the work at sight, giving a remarkable performance. Astonishingly, in the course of this, at a time when his interpretation was at its finest, he started to talk to the guests about the work, indicating to one or to the other which parts he especially liked.
So how does the mind of the musician come about? There have been great arguments about whether musical capacity is inherited or the result of environmental influences, and these arguments still go on. Unfortunately, the same evidence can be used by both sides. There are numerous historical examples of musical families in which the talent appears in generation after generation. But a musical family necessarily provides an intensely musical environment to which new children are exposed. So the process could operate in. either way or both.
There is, however, a good deal of evidence to show that genetics is important in determining musicality. Take, for instance, the case of Mozart, who is regarded by many as the greatest musician of all time. Mozart certainly came from a musical family, but his talents were apparent at such an early age that they could hardly have been wholly the result of this environment. It must be remembered that the full expression of musical ability cannot occur before the neurological development of the individual allows it or before considerable musical education has occurred, so the very early years may show little of the potential. We have unique information in this context in the case of Mozart because, when he was eight years old, his musical powers were formally studied in London by the lawyer, antiquary and amateur scientist the Honourable Daines Barrington (17271800). This careful man sent a report to the Royal Society entitled 'An account of a very remarkable musician'. By the time Barrington studied Mozart the musician was already performing regularly in public, and it was in the course of one of the overseas tours in which his talents were being exploited by his father, Leopold Mozart, that Barrington met him. Barrington's report contains documentary evidence of Mozart's age, and records the boy's prowess at playing at sight from a previously unseen fivepart score. It seems that the boy was a better sightreader than his experienced father. The report also records Mozart's skills at improvization in various styles. There is a remarkable insight into the mind of the true musician, in that on being asked to improvise an angry piece, Mozart became so emotionally involved that, in the course of the performance, he was worked up to a frenzy, rose to his feet and beat the harpsichord like a mad person. Although his little fingers could only stretch to a fifth, he played with amazing skill and musical understanding, especially in his own compositions. In particular, he was able to modulate freely from one key to another an indication of remarkable musical maturity in one so young. From other evidence we know that Mozart was playing and composing at the age of four and that his musical memory was phenomenal. After hearing Allegri's Miserere in the Sistine Chapel, Mozart went home and wrote out the entire score from memory. This was a major work in nine parts scored for two choirs.
It is inconceivable that Mozart's musical abilities could have arisen and at such an early age from purely environmental influences. Most of the qualities that enabled him to become a musician of such stature and to develop into such a great composer must have been innate and hence of genetic origin. It is apparent, however~ that musical capacity is a complex entity: there can be no question of a single gene for musicality. This is an example of what geneticists call multifactorial inheritance, involving a number of different genes.
In Mozart's case, and in that of many other great musicians, we are dealing with an exceptionally rare combination of genetic factors that laid down the potential for high musicality. It is possible that, in the absence of a musical environment, explicit musical capacity might not have developed. But it seems likely that it does not require a highly musical environment to stimulate the musical interests and ambitions of people genetically endowed to this degree. If the underlying set of abilities is present, almost any exposure to music would prompt in the person concerned a powerful desire to hear and to make music. The greatest value of a musical environment is in its educational effect.
Much music will be heard, taste will be formed, and familiarity with the current stage of musical evolution quickly achieved. At this point, the way will be open for new and original creativity. This process can readily be followed in the careers of the great composers
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
KML, tell me you didn't just write all that but cut and pasted it from something you had "prepared earlier" like a cookery show! Still impressive though not sure what the relevance was. After this I really have to go to bed. THis thread is doing my head in and all I've done is read it and post once or twice.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Donough
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And did I miss something or what prompted Will to change back from being Whoosis??
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Donough
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Not overworked in the lab today, then, Danny?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
what?!!? prompted Will to change back from Whoosis??!? First base.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thanks for the article, Danny. I liked this bit: "Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason". Definitely relevant to this thread.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
KML, what are those numbers in the parentheses after the musicians' names? Are those their mobile phone numbers? Can we call them during a performance to find out what ringtones they use?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hi Guys - I originally submitted this article (*Not* written by me, no no no!) as the subject of a discussion a few years back, but got but one reply and that from an old mate of mine feeling sorry for me (boo-hoooo...). I quite liked the article when I read it, and as Marc O' Downox says it is relevant to this thread, so yes, i did copy and paste it - as a matter of fact I have been busy in the lab today (or rather sorting out other people's microscope and drosophila problems, my little role in the scheme of things) Trev, hence could only cut and paste stuff rather than write anything half-worthwhile. Here's the original thread:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/1641/comments
curiously, it has already attracted much more attention on this here mega-thread than it ever did on its own thread.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's because your name appeared as the submitter of the original thread, so we all knew to ignore it from the outset
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh, I see. So this time you thought, Oh this looks like an interesting post, I'll read that...then when you got to the end and saw my name beside it you automatically thought, what a load of old bollox from Danny again, I might have known........
....as you quoted, "Musicians live in a world of emotion and artistry, rather than in a world of reason"
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Actually, it has to be said, that IS a good quote and should be used any time you get bogged down in a debate on this site....
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, Jack, contrary to your humble image of our relationship, I am not your puppet.
Several of us have wasted plenty of time already pulling out your specific quotes and demonstrating the lapses in your logic and your use of disparaging innuendo and sarcasm. No need to dig through all that again--it's clearly of no use because you've never responded reasonably to us when we've provided specific quotes. (At the end of my comment here, I will pull out one quote about sessions, not in hopes that Jack will get it this time, but for the sake of anyone else earnestly trying to understand all this.)
Besides, being well-reasoned isn't a popularity contest. Citing bb and benhall proves nothing--except perhaps that at one point in time they too missed the disparaging innuendo in your comments, and perhaps did not follow the logic in my comments. Nothing against beebs and ben--they have every right to their opinions. But that doesn't mean that their opinions are well founded.
I could pull out quotes from Nox, David, and Michael, supporting my assessment of your behavior, and you could say the same thing--that thei'e opinions are just opinions, not fact, and that you think they're unsupported by the evidence.
It proves nothing either way.
And quoting beebs and benhall is yet another example, Jack, of how you present yourself as being logical and reasoned, and perhaps even well-intentioned--as in, "trying to move the conversation forward." But all it really amounts to is another unreasoned attempt to come out on top by disparaging some of us for our views.
So here's Jack's post where he later says he can't say it any clearer than this:
[BEGIN JACK'S POST]
"Now I understand that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners, but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code. Let's look again at the meaning as it appears in the dictionary.
per·form v
3. to present or enact an artistic work such as a piece of music (tune) or a play to an audience (punters)
Now I realize we aren't playing to the audience, but they're there, and some of them are listening, and that makes an audience.
audience
1. a group of people who are watching and listening to a show, concert, or other live performance (other meaning session)
Since the dictionary has already defined that to perform is the playing of tunes on an instrument, then the punters in the pub who are listening become the audience that makes the event a "performance.” These are just the facts according to anyone who doesn't know or understand the ITM sessioner's secret code. Sessioners avoid the term "performance" because they don't like the connotation, and I understand that, but the rest of the world still goes by the English language according to the dictionary when they try to perceive what's happening at the pub during a session."
[END OF JACK'S POST]
Let's be clear about this.
Jack says that he understands "that ITM sessioners have they're own language and words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have a different meaning among sessioners,
but punters aren't necessarily privy to the code."
The problem with this is that other than Jack and Bliss, it seems very few if any session musicians talk about "performing" at their sessions. The vast majority of us (if the thousands of posts on this site alone are any indication) speak of "playing" tunes, "playing" or "sitting in" at a session. We "play" Irish music, we "play" our chosen instruments. I for one have never said, nor ever heard any Irish trad musician say, "I perform fiddle," or "I'm going to the pub tonight to perform some tunes with my mates."
So what's "perform" got to do with it?
This matters because it turns out that punters use the same language as us musos. Five year old girls run up to us and ask us to "play" a slip jig so they can dance. A friend at the bar asks us to "play" his favorite reel. Even When I meet people at a business conference and we get around to talking about what we do for fun, people ask me what type of music I "play."
"Perform" in this context *never* comes up, except at this yella board, when Jack and Bliss are around.
And there's the rub. Even though Jack says he understands that most session musicians typically don't think of themselves "performing," and even though he says he understands the distinctions we make between a session and a performance, he persists in interrupting conversations here to remind us all that sessions are "public performances." Jack has at times based this on the banal dictionary sense of executing a skill in a public setting, and several of us have pointed out that such usage, though perhaps technically correct, does not fit the real-world context and so actually hinders genuine communication rather than helping it.
Jack's other basis for calling a session a "public performance" is that at least some of the punters see it as a "performance" and themselves as an "audience" being entertained.
It is undoubtedly true that some punters, at some sessions, do see things this way. Jack says their opinion is as equally valid as the musicians' opinion. David, Michael, and I pointed out that this is relativism, and it doesn't hold water. If one opinion is a misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation of reality, it CANNOT be as valid as an opinion accuratley based on reality. The (rather dramatic) analogy we gave was rape. If the woman says no and resists, but the man miscosntrues it as consensual, it really is rape, not consensual sex. As David said, "no means no, boys." This applies to sessions as well. If the musican's intent is to "play" music to celebrate the tunes, NOT to present the music to an audience, then the session does not become a performance just because a few punters misconstrue the situation.
Incidentally, Jack never responded substantively to this line of reasoning. He simply goes on repeating his same position, as though if he says it over and over, it will become credible.
We've also agreed that some sessions ARE performances, because the musicians want it that way. We've said repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with this if that's what the session players want. We all know of paid gigs that are advertised as sessions, and sessions where the musicians enjoy performing to the crowd. Which is great, if that's what you want to do. But if you don't like it that way, find another session more to your liking.
But we've also talked at length about how some sessions are NOT public performances, and explained in detail how they differ from any semblance of a "performance." In these cases, the musicians and punters alike share an understanding that they are all participants in a musical, social gathering. Some punters figure this out on their own by simply observing how musicians and non-musicians interact at a session and noticing that it's different than the interaction at even an "informal performance." Some punters ask questions and learn the distinctions that way. And some punters are diplomatically pulled aside and told, "You don't have to clap--the musicians aren't expecting it."
In short, there's a reason--well founded on generations of people getting together to celebrate this music and their sense of community--that what we do isn't widely called a "performance." The word "session" means something different, or we wouldn't use the word.
All of which makes Jack's point--that some sessions are public performances, at the very least in the eyes of some punters who don't understand the intent of the session musicians--moot. All the more so on a web site devoted to Irish sessions for people who enjoy sharing and celebrating the tunes.
And agreeing with Bliss that sessions are performances, period, no matter how much we try to hide or deny it, is disparaging.
And saying that my local session is not how I described it (that I was just trying to "make a point") despite never having been to my session is arrogant and condescending.
And suggesting that we hand out flyers telling punters to ignore the music coming from the invisibile musicians is either an attempt at sarcasm to belittle my views or the looniest attempt at rational public education I've ever seen.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You must feel very strongly about this, Will, as you've reverted to your original "handle". I wonder if Jack will do the same.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by John J.
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Perhaps, the others will follow suit too.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by John J.
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Actually, I was never entirely comfortable with the "whoosis" disguise. I took that screen name because I hoped it would allow certain people to think about my posts rather than who was posting it. Also, I was tired of seeing my real name abused and ridiculed on here. Having innuendo and sarcasm flung at "whoosis" helped deflect it a little.
I respect people's concerns for their privacy and their right to protect that privacy by using an alias for a screen name. Certain members here have very good cause for that.
But I also believe that aliases make it too easy for us to forget that real, feeling people are on the receiving ends of our posts. It dehumanizes the conversation, maybe just a wee bit, but given the digitized, lexical, long-distance nature of a web board like this, every wee bit takes us that much farther from the reality of flesh and bones people trying to understand each other.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Also, when fame or infamy doesn't preclude it, I find that using my real name helps create a sense of genuine, good-faith, reasoned communication (at least with people who are willing to do the same).
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hmmm.
Reading some of this pointless stuff just makes me thankful I spend quite a lot of my time doing something I consider worthwhile....ie being a key facilitator in a Neurodegenerative disease (eg Alzheimer's) research centre.
My time to be smug.
Tell you why. It's not so much that repeating the same slagging match over and over and over again is boring to read...no no, honestly it's really interesting (snigger).
It's just that I marvel at the energy and time expended on these marathon posts, all to do what? Slag off another musician, or defend yourself from such slagging.
It really does beg the question - have youse nothing better to do?
No doubt I'll either get slagged off, or totally blatantly contemptuously ignored for this post, or, most likely, patronised, but I can assure you, I just don't care.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "Several of us have wasted plenty of time already pulling out your specific quotes and demonstrating the lapses in your logic and your use of disparaging innuendo and sarcasm."
No one has found any specific quotes of mine that support your allegations, and the post where I got this quote only provided more spin. If you are serious about your allegations you have to provide the proof. I never said any of the things you claimed I did. I provided them for you in my last post; let’s see your proof. Otherwise your accusations are baseless and should be withdrawn.
All we've heard again in this post is more of your spin and errant lectures about "flawed logic." But I can tell you something about flawed logic: if you can't provide any specific quotes to support your claims -- your logic is definitely flawed.
As for my positions on sessions as performances: I have consistently pointed out that it's the PUNTERS who are likely to assume this... NOT YOU. I have always held the position that a session is whatever the people who started it want it to be. My comments about performances have been addressing the perspective of the average PUNTER that knows as much about sessions as you apparently know about logic. Punters by and large haven't given sessions much thought beyond that it's something musicians do in certain pubs they visit. They see people playing music in public -- it appears to them (not you, but to them -- the PUNTERS) to be some sort of performance. I never said all punters see it that way, I’ve never said they aren’t capable of seeing it, as you claimed I did without any proof, but I have said that I suspect most do. Got it?
~~~
Some of you might wonder why I bother to push this, but all I'm after is a little more honesty in our discussions. It's just that I don't think it contributes anything positive to a discussion board like this to misquote and misrepresent people's positions and then attack them personally for things they never said.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wait a bit, KLM, what are you saying? That you're proud of yourself for solving the world's alzheimer's problems instead of wasting time posting messages here that are designed solely to bolster your online image?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
(I only pose the question because I don't there's been quite enough vitriol on this thread).
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nope. I said thankful.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
oops -- KML. and, oops, "think there's been..."
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah. Still...
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ye-e-esss?
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Much as I agree with you that there's been maybe an excess of energy disposed of at this site, I think a lot of it has been because of matters of personal pride, for which there is no accounting. It's all good -- yours, theirs, mine...
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
At the risk of throwing gasoline on a smouldering mass of combustibles, here are my two cents.
I myself like sessions because the artifical barrier between "musicians" and "audience" often breaks down and even disappears. A person at the bar will pull out a pennywhistle and join in, a child will get up and step dance, an impromptu musical lesson will occur between tune sets, a musician will put down an instrument and say hello to an old friend, someone will start an old song and the entire pub will burst into song during the chorus. It is a fellowship built around music, but a fellowship without borders. To me, these are the magical moments that make a session special. Much of the above arguments draw lines between musicians and "punters" as if they were two different species, which to me misses the point. To me, the best sessions may have some structure, but are more notable for their inclusiveness than any other quality.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Al... contrary to how my position has been misrepresented on this thread, I never drew a hard line between the punters and the musicians. I think there are punters who understand what's going on and are compelled and welcomed to get involved if they like. Those punters are unique to the average punter and are likely to have had a lot more experience with sessions. But in that same pub there might also be punters who haven't been exposed as much, (or don't really care,) who might still think it's some sort of audience participation performance. It's no big deal to the musicians or those punters joining in, but you have to realize that there will likely be people in the room who see what's happening as a "performance." Does that mean you're "performing"? I don't think so. But for those punters a performance happened at the pub. Both the musician and the punter are correct based on each party’s own frame of references.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack, thanks for clarifying your position once again.
So you're saying:
"Some punters think it's a performance, so for them a performance happened in a pub, even though that doesn't mean you were performing."
And based on this "logic," you're saying *I'm* the one dragging this conversation down the tubes?
Jack, I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
And I'm sorry you don't understand the points myself, David, and Michael, and now Al, have made.
And I'm sorry that you think you DO understand those points, so you keep trying to convince us so, repeating the same tautology as though you're being logical.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nice to see Danny's in the holdiay spirit too.
On the off chance you're including me in your characterization, bear in mind you're not the only one here with a socially contributory job who's able to be productive at work and still participate here.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I wish I had a meaningful job. All I do is write boring technical manuals. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Reading the discussions here is a great distraction. It's even educational sometimes!
Coming home to my fiddle at night wakes up my spirit and lets me do something creative and fun. I gotta hurry up and go home...
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by kennedy
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, you need to ease up. I am certainly quilty of sarcasm, innuendo and satire, it's what I do.
But you are over the top. Example. You say that I talk about "performing at sessions" in my speech to friends or whatever. I have never ever talked about performing at a session in my life. Now you do not know me, much as PB has never been at your session, but I do not find your comment arrogant and condescending, I just think you are mistaken.
Now Noxious and I really insult each other, because we are the type of people with strong opinions, a sense of humour, and like to call a spade a spade. But when the discussion is over, well there is no animosity, just a good old argument/row/discussion. I am guessing that Noxious would agree with this, he knows I am winding him about inexperience and all that crap, and I know he is winding me. Some of the points cut to the bone, and we angrily reply, but Noxious and I are trying to provoke an angry reply from each other, to see who can make the other one "lose it". But two minutes later you realise it is a yellow web page, a bit of escapism. Now Noxious might really hate me, I hope not, but even if he does he is still amusing and likes a bit of crack.
You Will seem intent on winning an unwinnable argument, because we are all deliberately talking about the different meaning of the word perform.
For what it is worth, very little, this is my position.
To the average punter/regular, for every Kennedy there are 20 average punters, they see a group of musicians playing, those musicians are performing, a public performance, playing music in public.
Now the musicians know they are not "performing" in the sense of playing for the crowd, showing off, or anything else, but to perform can mean to play. I only introduced that earlier to prolong the discussion, because in one sense it is true.
But this whole nonsense is about "performing" to the punters, or playing for ourselves, and we usually do the latter. However the average person in the bar still thinks it is a performance, because they do not understand.
In N.Ireland I have met loads of people who object to sessions musicians "just playing for themselves". So they KNOW that the musicians are playing for their own gratification and enjoyment, but these moaners are average, not understanding punters, and still expect a performance, because they think that if you are playing in a pub you should, otherwise not play somewhere else. It is really that simple.
Michael, myself, Jack, Noxious, and most others know that what I have just said contains large elements of reality. They may not agree with all of it, they may deny agreeing with any of it, but they know what I am saying. You however Will, seem to believe that you have created a Utopian session or something. Maybe you have, which simply proves there is an exception to every rule.
Now when I came on here tonight after seriously arguing and twisting and spinning all day over the potential loss of 1,800 jobs where I work, I could not believe that we were now getting 10,000 word posts.
I was going to make serious fun out of that, but I have now written 10,000 words, just to say one thing.
Lighten up Will. And I mean that in a friendly manner. I am not for once being sarcastic.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Noxious, I honestly believe that you would attempt to strangle me if we met, but the sad news, for you, is that you would end up liking me. We both like arguing for the sake of it, and we both like informed discussion, and we both have a low threshold for listening to crap.
# Posted on December 15th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
LOL, Bliss are we not your friends here at the online yellow session? And do I really have to go back and fetch quotes of the innumberable times you've said something along the lines of:
"The mandolin bit was true, cut down on whistle and blues harp, but find myself increasingly given to playing the guitar and singing.
To put it bluntly, performing, at a session."
That's what I was refering to.
And my local isn't quite a Utopian session, but it's more like the old boys playing tunes in their kitchens than the scene you describe above. And many sessions I've been to are unlike performances to musicians and punters alike.
Besides, I realized many threads (not just posts--there's a long backhistory here) ago that it's impossible to win any argument with Jack. All I've been doing here is standing up for my experiences and values, which many other people tell me they share, when it comes to sessions having nothing to do with performing.
I'm not the one who's insisting another person's preferred session cannot happen, or they're in denial.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, this is difficult. That bit if you read carefully referred to our regular Sunday night in Barneys Bar. It is advertised in the paper as a Traditional session, but it is not.
We play tunes and that, some stuff sounds great at times, but we are being PAID as entertainers, so we sing well known Irish stuff, maybe a bit of blues/jazz/James taylor etc etc etc, and we even sing obscure lovely Irish stuff. In reality it is a paid gig, disguised as a session. So half is for us, half for the punters. I even admitted to performing the self penned blues number "All the women love me" which entails singing, blues harp, acting, dancing and innuendo. Some performance, and the punters love it. And that's just my bit on that number.
I told you all this 750 posts ago, and the object of the posting about the mandolin, blues harp, whistle, guitar and such was to wind up Michael. I was portraying myself as a multi-instrumental musician, not merely a goat whacker as Michael would say. But Michael is smart enough to know two things.
Firstly I am winding him up, and secondly, bar the blues harp, I am not very good on the others, although I am not bad at slow airs on the mandolin, couldn't play a jig or reel to save my life.
As I said, stop trying to win a wind up argument, lighten up. I am getting worried about your health. That may well sound condescending, but it is a genuine worry.
And old boys playing in the kitchen were performing for themselves and the neighbours. Think carefully of the 5 or 6 meanings to performing.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
No worries about my health. You are either winding me up with a smile on your face, or you're very much misinterpreting my state of mind.
Either way, you're wondering if I take this all too personally.
And that's the problem with wind ups, as with the one I cited above: no one can tell if you're winding up or making a serious point (or some of both).
So, you're last sentence above strikes me as another wind up, since we've been over why the sense of "perform" as "execute a skill" isn't germain to the discussion here.
As I said, no worries Bliss, your posts always make me smile.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "And I'm sorry you don't understand the points myself, David, and Michael, and now Al, have made. And I'm sorry that you think you DO understand those points, so you keep trying to convince us so, repeating the same tautology as though you're being logical."
Not exactly... I never contested your points, but I have contested your baseless accusations against me and the misquotes and misrepresentations. My position on the whole session/performance issue has never changed.
My participation in these threads has basically consisted of myself trying to fend off the misrepresentations of my position, asking for substantiation of baseless claims about what I supposedly said, and defending myself from yours and other's personal attacks against me. I have never denied or doubted anything you claimed about your session, and I haven't denied or contested your understanding of what you consider a session to be or not be to you. The trouble started when I attempted to express my impression of what punters might be thinking when they come across a session, and then you began to put words in my mouth and interpret those words as my point. When I tried to point out that you had misquoted me etc., suddenly I was sarcastic, condescending and had flawed logic.
It's hard enough to discuss philosophical concepts like this without having to defend myself from being misrepresented and then argued against for things I didn't even say. All the while trying to express my actual points in all the confusion. Please think about this the next time we enter into any discussions or else we're doomed to just keep repeating the senseless discourse on this thread over and over.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Why is it nor Germain to here? It is critical. The punters think you are exercising a skill, as they do not possess the skill. That's why they think it is a performance.
And the last two posts were not wind ups. They were the serious ones.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The above is in answer to Will.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh... and Will, I just re read Al's last post and the one I followed with. You said that I “don't understand the points myself (Will), David, and Michael, and now Al, have made”. When I read my post that follows his I'm failing to see where I'm “not understanding” his points, as you claim. Could you please elucidate?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, Button wrote:
"There will likely be people in the room who see what's happening as a performance. Does that mean you're performing? I don't think so.
I don't care whether he implied or said otherwise earlier.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Musicians: We don't think we are performing.
Punters: Look at those musicians performing over there.
Now isn't that easy.
If you want complicated, what is a performance?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Right, Michael. It doesn't mean you're performing, but the punter might go away thinking he saw a performance regardless. The question becomes: was there a performance at the pub that night? Well... it depends on who you ask.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael doesn't talk to punters.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My apologies if this has been covered (it probably has, sorry... and around and round we go).
Perception does not reality make.
What/s colder – the steel frame of your desk or the wooden desk top? The truth is of course that both steel frame and wooden desktop are at room temperature. The steel merely conducts heat from your hand more efficiently, and so feels colder.
Just because a punter thinks a performance took place doesn’t mean one did. He could be mistaken.
What I don’t understand, though, is how you could hold back from performing just a little bit. This music is infectious, most of it was designed to be danced to, and it’s supposed to hit the listener in some reptilian part of the brain that, if the player is doing it right, makes the pulse quicken and the foot tap. Like farting in an elevator—you might do it for yourself, but you’ve got to be aware that it will affect other people.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by fidkid
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
sh*t I just read back a little more carefully and realized yes all af my last post has been covered. I'll slink back to my corner now.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by fidkid
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's okay, fidkid. At leat you're reading the posts and comprehending them.
Yes, the music affects other people, but that doesn't make it a performance, any more than farting in an elevator is a "performance" (unless you can play the Star Spangled Banner that way).
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack wrote:
"Right, Michael. It doesn't mean you're performing, but the punter might go away thinking he saw a performance regardless. The question becomes: was there a performance at the pub that night? Well... it depends on who you ask."
So PLEASE ANSWER THIS JACK, instead of ignoring the reasoned point that's already been made several times here (and not just by me):
If a woman says no and resists, but the man goes ahead and has sex with her imagining in his mind that it's consenual, is it rape or not?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
900!
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hooray.
What's the difference really? Some members here have over 10,000 posts (and no I'm not one of them)
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Er, take your time, Jack. I'm off to a holiday party.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm not sure the rapist analogy works, because the rapist, by definition, effects the raped. Where as what we've been saying is that the audience does not effect the musician.
However, the esoteric question stands as, was there a preformance? The scenario boils down to: some punters think they heard a performance, but the musicians didn't give one. I think it's straight forward to say the punters were mistaken. The fact remains, however, that the punters left thinking there was a performance. Does it matter that they were mistaken? I don't care.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, I've got KML sussed. I only writes stuff like that when he wants to wind someone up. Like "you lot are wasting your time do something useful and be a topclass scientist like me" and "go and play with some famous musicians like me" and "think of all the starving children in Africa while all you can talk about is music".
Bodhran Bliss, you're the worst. You include a few words of Nox windup in almost every single one of your posts, and even though I know it's a windup, and every single molecule in my body tries to ignore you, sometimes you write it in such a way that I have to respond. It's infuriating, but I guess I'll have to live with it grr
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
llig: "I think it's straight forward to say the punters were mistaken. The fact remains, however, that the punters left thinking there was a performance."
Maybe they get this mistaken impression from the tw@tty musicians who *do* actually perform (you know the ones - the 18 year old fiddler who does a 15-part setting of the Mason's Apron at lightning speed and then spends the rest of the evening playing solo Flook "tracks"). So perhaps we should be blaming these musicians rather than the punters.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And as I said Noxious, sometimes you have the same effect on me. But that is where experience comes in, (no wind up) as my job is discussing and negotiating, with livlihoods at stake, and modestly I must admit that I am good at it. Therefore I have to show restraint when confronting management, with every instinct thinking "you ar##hole".
Michael thank you for commenting on the rape scenario, otherwise I would have had to respond and it would not have been a pretty sight. Jack and I have stated 20 times that the punters could be mistaken, and 20 times that on occasions the musicians could be mistaken.
As for farting and the Star Spangled whatever, is it because it is a tune that it is a performance?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: OverDose and far beyond whether or not anyone likes bodhrans
OUCH! ~ When the analogies get this strong something is definitely wrong...don't you think? Besides, and I know I'm stepping in not completely informed, as you lost me ages ago and I've just dropped back in because 'rape' is being used in the conversation... BUT, what about the publican and their interpretation of things? After all, and you've had this argument going off and on for years now, aren't we there, wherever our session is taking place, but by the grace of the owner of the building or business ~ the proprietor? Shouldn't they be considered in all this? What if they think it is a performance, and you are just there because that's what they were wanting ~ to rope in the punters and get people thirsty and buying drink?
And please, let's try to keep away from bad and inflammatory analogies... I know I'm stepping on eggs ~ I judged the analogy of 'rape', but that word makes me wince, especially out of context, and I think this is way out of context...
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by ceolachan
One of the regular weekly sessions here is advertised in the pub's window and they put out a sandwich board on the sidewalk for further advertisement on the day the session takes place... I have seen this before, it isn't uncommon... Does that make it a performance, by virtue of the means of promotion? Again, the promoter is the publican, the proprietor...
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by ceolachan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Don't get involved, 'c', you're making a mistake! Anyway, you should be in bed.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
bodhran bliss, if your job involves discussing and negotiating, why is it you are totally unable to form a convincing argument on this thread? Are you just crap at your job?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What I want to know is (and I wondered this at the time of the post): have I misunderstood this, because how is it possible to be accosted by a willy waggler from both sides? Did the offender keep running from one urinal to another?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
When is, or is not, playing music in a pub session a performance? I think we'll only get a definitive (and useful) answer if a judge in court is ever required to consider the matter. Possible scenarios in which the matter could arise in a legal context may come to mind.
The judge may well have a mountain of evidence to consider - perhaps including points raised in this discussion.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ceolachan, I admit that there may be the odd publican who runs a pub for his own enjoyment and gratification, but to most publicans all sessions are performances, designed to attract people and thereby money, to the pub. At the risk of sounding arrogant and condescending, to Will, they do not advertise "Private non-performance session -every Wednesday at whenever the musicians decide to amuse themselves".
And Noxious, it should by now be obvious that I use this site to practice outrageous statements, and see if people believe them, or take them seriously.
The only completely honest to God thing I have EVER posted here is that I am the best bodhran player in the world. (assuming that there may be others as good, none better, it is merely a matter of personal taste, and we all know Ptarmigan has no taste).
Why does the cricket start later GMT when it is in Perth?
Come on you Aussies.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
fidkid writes: "Just because a punter thinks a performance took place doesn’t mean one did. He could be mistaken."
He's not mistaken in that a "performance," or as the dictionary puts it, "a presentation of an artistic work to an audience for example, a play or piece of music" did take place as far as he could tell. Other punters would agree as would most people he related the story to. But the musicians went away confident that they weren’t performing even though they played tunes in a public place where punters might have been listening. Other musicians would likely agree, as would anyone they explained it to.
So who's who's wrong? My hunch is neither. The punters aren't concerned about what the musicians thought they were doing anymore than the musicians were concerned about what the punters thought they were doing. But does that matter? Of course not, the event fit the criteria for both of their definitions.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Shane Warne refers to himself, quite often, as "The Bliss of cricket".
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "If a woman says no and resists, but the man goes ahead and has sex with her imagining in his mind that it's consenual, is it rape or not?"
I think I already answered this... sort of. It was after you brought up "intent."
Jack writes: "Hey, this could be good allegory. If the actions of one man causes another man to die, whether it's determined to be murder or involuntary manslaughter -- someone's going to be doing some hard time."
~~~
Will writes: "So PLEASE ANSWER THIS JACK, instead of ignoring the reasoned point that's already been made several times here (and not just by me):"
Is this really necessary? Haven't we gained anything at all from what happened on this thread?
I haven't ignored any reasoned points on this thread. If I asked you to substantiate this you would no doubt ignore it as you’ve done elsewhere on this thread. Is the fact that I pointed this out and substantiated it the real reason you’re posting this bit? Do you really think this is going to promote goodwill and mutual understanding?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"the event fit the criteria for both of their definitions."
So how do you stop the punters being so upset when they get told to feck off after requesting the Fields of Athenry from the musicians?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David writes: "Jack - I've already tried stirring up the black and white to make a nice shade of grey, but you misconstrued my motives. "
You've lost me... I have no idea what you're on about here.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We all agree that some punters think it's a performance and some don't, but where we differ is that Jack thinks that the fact that some punters go away thinking it's a performance means that it's been a performance. So there you go. That's where we differ. We've found that out now. What are you trying to do? Sway people to your side so that everyone agrees? It's not going to happen people! There's nothing left to talk about. Apart from cricket. Tell you what annoys me. Why is it that Pommie batsmen (who presumably train regularly during the week) can only stand in front of a wicket for a couple of runs before being bowled or caught out in a real game? Is it just that they're crap and don't practise enough, or is it that they lack moral fibre? I want answers.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
For those, like me, whose bedtime reading isn't always the works of the philosopher Jacques Derrida, you'll find what you need to know in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida
My experience in the past, as part of my job, of reading and analysing High Court judgments was that they were usually well-written, extremely well thought-out, and pragmatic in the sense that they were directed at finding real practical solutions for difficult commercial problems (if the problems weren't difficult they probably wouldn't have reached the HC).
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Phantom, it's pretty obvious what David was on about. He wanted to show that he was willing to find some common ground with you, but you spat it back in his face, and still continue to do so by simply refusing to make an effort to understand him and listen to what he's saying.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dear What?!!, Due to the fact that Mr Murdoch is a leech upon the World, and a power mad lunatic, you thought you could accuse me of offering support to him. Sorry, I follow the cricket on the computer, and I do not have Sky, "The Times" or "The Sun". The bas###d is not going to take over my mind.
I admit few from my background enjoy cricket, my father was interested in it, and I became addicted. My main sport is hurling, far removed. If you understand cricket, it offers a welcome burst of nerve tingling excitement after watching premiership football. To see those stars perform.
Jack has now repeated for the 21st time that punters and musicians can both be right in their interpretation of what happens at a session. Perhaps Will will get it this time.
However as there are usually more punters than musicians, certainly when I am playing, although something forewarns me that things may be different in Montana, and as democracy is modelled on the den of inequity or Mother of Parliaments that is the House of Commons, where majority rules and stuff the rest, the punters must be right. All sessions are performances.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
AND I do enjoy watching England getting thrashed.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And Noxious, in Montana the punters understand when you tell them to f### off.
We are fortunate at our Sunday night paid PERFORMANCE. Young punters began adding all sorts of obnoxious and insulting words to "The Fields...." that we are not allowed to perform it.
Oh happy days.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well if they're crap at their jobs then they should bloody well be sacked, like anyone else in any other field of work. I hate all this pandering to crap sportsmen. I mean god, even I could last out longer at the wicket than some of these so-called professional cricketers, even though I don't exercise properly, drink far too much, and spend too much time playing tunes.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Never understood cricket - a bat and ball game (and a minor religion perhaps?) where it is apparently possible for two sides with different scores to draw. Probably something to do with my spectacular lack of ball-and-eye coordination when I was at school. Although that never affected my rugby playing.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "We all agree that some punters think it's a performance and some don't, but where we differ is that Jack thinks that the fact that some punters go away thinking it's a performance means that it's been a performance."
Why do you stop there, Mark? I said it was a performance as far as the unsuspecting punter was concerned. It wasn't a performance as far as the sessioner was concerned -- but they're both right because the facts verified each of their criteria. Both things happened in the pub the night of the session. Neither was wrong. Why is this so hard to understand? Does the musician's perspective trump everyone else's? Maybe musicians should rule the world if that's the case.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yes, bliss, I think I finally do get it. Jack's point is this:
The punter's misunderstanding of what a session is remains valid because that misunderstanding doesn't disagree with at least one dictionary definition each of "performance" and "audience."
Never mind that many session musicians play primarily or even only for their own enjoyment.
Never mind that "performance" and "audience" are not the first words that come to mind (for many people) in association with sessions and drunks in a pub.
And never mind that this has nothing to do with how some sessions actually function in the real world, or the fact that session musicians chatting on a web site devoted to sessions might want to distinguish what they do from any sort of "presentation of music to an audience."
Never mind that we see sessions as a way of carrying on a core tenet of this musical tradition that's been passed down for generations--that it's about the tunes, not about the musician's virtuosity or ego, and building a sense of community, not "performer/audience."
Which leave me mystified why anyone--unless they were a clueless punter (which Jack clearly isn't)--would come onto this particular site and argue over several record-setting threads FOR calling sessions "performances" and punters "audiences."
Given Jack's position, I can see why he might not care what punter's think a session is.
But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David writes: "Jack - the goodwill was there."
Maybe I missed it then. Could you please point to what you're talking about?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
PB writes: "Why is this so hard to understand?"
It's not at all hard to understand. I just don't agree with it. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't agree. And now I don't care. Please understand this: I DON'T CARE ANYMORE. I just want to have a laugh again and talk about something different. I'm off out to have some tunes now so I expect you to know all the rules of cricket by the time I get back.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I have tried, so hard.
Will, it doesn't matter if EVERY musician plays for his own enjoyment, THE PUNTERS, most of them, SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
Ah to hell. Will, you talk of disparaging and most of it comes from you.
You are the most self centred, self opinionated, egotistical, air of superioritied, unbending, "I am always right" empty head that It has been my misfortune to encounter.
Now that is disparagement in all its glory. Now come back please with something highly original like "f### you Bliss" and I will forgive all, as at least it will show you might be human.
Should never have got Ponting out, Hussey is next in. He will still be batting long after this thread is forgotten.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will writes: "But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters."
Will, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I never said this, did this, or implied it, or suggested it in any way. Please point out where I disparaged you and the others talking about the great things that a session is. This is putting words in my mouth again -- why do you do this?.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Wow Bliss, if I'm all that to you, you must not get out much.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A suggestion Will. Make someone like Michael Flatley your role model, you may learn some humility.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This is what it has come to. Being lectured on humility by Bliss.
If that doesn't bring you to your senses, all IS lost.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Jack:
First, there's the bit where you insinuate that I said punters are irrelvant, when what I really said was their misunderstanding of sessions as performances is irrelevant to musicians (a point which you now seem to agree with). Two different things.
The next post you agree with bliss that those of us who think of sessions as not perfomances (which includes me even if you're not addressing me personally) are wrong, no matter how much we try to hide it, and you add "or deny it."
Then you flippantly suggest we hand out flyers telling punters to pretend the musos aren't there and to ignore the music. No hint of sarcasm there....
In your next post, you say:
"The funny thing to me, Will, is that you and I agree completely on the perspective of the session musician. Our only stumbling block is the difference regarding the punters perspective. I will never be comfortable going into an environment that includes non musicians and pretend that they aren't there, or to ignore them if they try to express appreciation for what we're doing. I don't want to grill them and find out if they understand the session from my perspective before I thank them, and I don't want to ignore them, but to them it's a performance. So what's the big deal? So what?"
Which clearly says that the difference between you and me is that you aren't comfortable ignoring punters or their appreciation, implying that I am comfortable ignoring them. Even though I've explained at length how far we go to include them as participants.
Further down the thread you wrote:
"Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point."
even though you've never been to my session and have no idea what it's like. So you're saying you know more about my own session than I do, and that I'm lying just to make a point.
Then you write: "I love it -- Will's refuting the dictionary to support his argument. Brilliant!"
Misrepresenting what I've said. And I suppose there's no hint at all of sarcasm in that "Brilliant!"
In short, by saying you're not "as quick to dismiss punters as irrelevant," not "so comfortable ignoring them," and you live among people, "not above them," you're implying that I do dismiss punters as irrelevant, worthy of being ignored, and feel I'm above them.
Then you accuse me of lying, and then you start the straw men and ad hominems by misrepresenting my comments about dictionary definitions and disparaging my reasoning with sarcasm.
How's that for a start?
At the most basic level, Jack, just the fact that you dragged up this session vs. performance debate yet again (you were first to mention it in this thread) suggests that you enjoy stirring the pot on this topic. You seem to agree that the punters' perception of sessions as performances doesn't have to matter to the musicians. Nearly all of us are session musicians here. And some of us have repeatedly given good reasons for supporting the concept and reality of non-performance sessions. So why keep bringing it up on this site?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David, I agree. Most of the time I don't think Jack means to sound nearly as disparaging as his words come across. I certainly hope that's the case, even in the examples I listed above.
And Jack, I can understand why you'd get defensive when people (not just me) "accuse" you of being disparaging, etc.
So let's change our approach here. In genuine good faith, earnestly, would it help if I said it this way?
Jack, some of the things you've said here SOUND disparaging, sarcastic, and condescending to me. Other people (short list is David and 'c' on the tune thread) have said they felt the same way. Perhaps what you are saying is fine. But HOW you're saying it is coming across different than you mean it to.
I'll admit to using sarcasm on this thread. And I readily confess to challenging the lapses in logic I've seen in several people's posts. At some point, the sarcasm crosses the line from good natured slagging (we did some of that early on) to nasty rhetoric (and several of us wallowed around in that a bit).
Jack, I'm willing to rid this conversation of the disparaging tone, sarcasm, etc., if you are.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Will, none of what you wrote provides anything to back up this quote: "But I cannot understand why it's been so important to him to disparage me and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance, when there is no division between musicians and punters."
Read your post again, you provided no evidence that supports your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance. Where did I say that?
Now I'll tell you one more time: "They" isn't "Will"... two different words. If you see yourself in it, that's your interpretation, but I didn't say, "Will is in denial." Got it?
Saying that I don't consider the punter's perception is "irrelevant" means just that. It doesn't mean I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
There was nothing flippant about my suggestion of handing out flyers; it was the only way I could imagine informing punters about the session that they were about to witness and how they should understand that it's not a performance. I suppose one could have them all go quiet so they could have it explained to them, but I seriously can't imagine doing either of these things. It still does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
When I said, "Sure, Will, but your session isn't always like that... maybe only when you want to make a point." I was basing that on your own description of your session and never implied that I knew what it was like. You obviously do, and you described it on this thread and others, and I referred to your descriptions. But we already covered all of this earlier in this thread. Why do you bring it up again? And besides, it still does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
I was truly amazed when you were refuting the dictionary. But that also does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
Will writes: "Then you accuse me of lying, and then you start the straw men and ad hominems by misrepresenting my comments about dictionary definitions and disparaging my reasoning with sarcasm. How's that for a start?"
Well... you WERE lying and arguing Straw Man and using ad hominem. But seriously Will, I really don’t see how what I said is misrepresented your view of the dictionary. But once again, this also does nothing to support your claim that I disparage you and others for wanting to talk here about the good things that happen when a session is NOT a performance.
I still can't believe you're continuing along this line. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Several times now I have proven that your accusations are baseless, and that you fabricated my position. Please stop -- it's not doing either of us, or the massage board any good.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
David writes: "I *was* trying to find some common ground. "
Ok, now I know what you're talking about. Yes, I could see what you were doing and I appreciated that, but I seized the opportunity to make a point using satire. But I thought I told you this when I said, "Oh... and as for you David... I realize your comments weren't directed at me, I just couldn't resist the chance for some good satire. Cheers."
Your posting and my satire opened the door for me to try to get at the thing about this thread that irritates me the most -- people putting words in my mouth and then ignoring me when I ask them to find the quote where I allegedly said it. This and the fabrications of my position along with the insults and derogatory innuendo is totally uncalled for. What's more, I can't understand why some of you are co-dependent with it. This sort of behavior has no business being on any discussion board... why is it tolerated here?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
#### 953 ###
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
954.
Amazing. If you add 5+4 you get 9.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Medication Time!
Really! - The Day Room is such a mess after all of this unhelpful squabbling. You know how it upsets the other patients.
You know, Bliss, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Nurse Grego, don't tell my mother! Please! Please!
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
(Still one of my favourite films.)
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If Mr. Harmon and Mr. Gilder don't want to take their medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that they can have it some other way. But I don't think that they would like it....
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Many a true word is spoken in.......
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
dose
1. a quantity of medicine prescribed to be taken at one time.
2. a substance, situation, or quantity of anything analogous to medicine, esp. of something disagreeable: Failing the exam was a hard dose to swallow.
3. an amount of sugar added in the production of champagne.
4. Physics.
a. Also called absorbed dose. the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed by a unit mass of matter, esp. living tissue: measured in gray or rad.
b. exposure dose.
5. Slang. a case of gonorrhea or syphilis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to administer in or apportion for doses.
7. to give a dose of medicine to.
8. to add sugar to (champagne) during production.
–verb (used without object)
9. to take a dose of medicine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dose
So, tell me, which 'dose' are we actually talking about here?
& has anyone here picked up 'No 5' from playing the Bodhran?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
England to win the cricket. No hint of sarcasm there.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've realised that when I start reading Will and Jack's long posts, I don't know whose writing it is anymore until I get to the end of the post. You're just stuck on repeat now asking each other for evidence and substantiation. I think it's time for you both to call it quits and agree to differ, or if you can't even do that, just agree that nobody needs to get the last word, because let's face it, we've almost hit post #1000 and it's all been said now. Both of you are talking to brick walls as far as trying to "sway" one another to your points of view or get the other to back down and admit they've made wrongful accusations or whatever. Anyway, so what if you don't get your evidence. I don't think anyone on the board cares anymore!
The only people left are the ones with very quick broadband indeed, and some time on their hands to read the thread, and it's sounding like a stuck record. Why don't you 2 talk about something else? You might find some common ground. Do you actually know anything about each other? Jack, have you read Will's book? Will, have you heard Jack's CD? Why don't you kiss and make up? Maybe you could even try and get the thread back on topic! Fancy that! We could talk about bodhrans for a change. I don't mind bodhrans, so long as there's only one of them being played in exactly the style I want to hear. I've never experienced that yet in a session, but I'm keeping an open mind until I do. So what about you two? Dose you like bodhrans?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
who's, who is... it's strange - I never do that when I'm writing by hand, only when I'm typing.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
oh no it is whose! I think I need an early night. It's a bit late to play tonight because I'll disturb the neighbours, but I might try and learn a new tune by hearing it in my head before I go to sleep. I've been inspired by that article Danny posted. Hear that, Danny? I find you inspirational
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Maybe you could even try and get the thread back on topic!"
Well Noxious, I have tried to get it back &/or try to get away from the squable, but you guys are all obsessed.
Why not just conduct a poll, any poll, on anything ..... & let's move on eh?
Vote now .............................
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'd quite like to hear what tunes people are learning at the moment. And we have to make it a rule that you're not allowed to mention anything to do with the above argument about the "P" word in your answer. I'm learning Donnelly's reel. I've heard it played a few times and have been wanting to learn it for months, but have deliberately put it off, so I could savour it just at the right moment. Dose
anyone else do that? My favourite bar is the one that goes |dF~F2 cFBF|. I've never heard that particular twist in any other tune, and it always leaps right out at me.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mr Button's assessment that two opposing realities can simultaneously exist with equal validity down the boozer is interesting science fiction, but ultimately pure hokum.
He sees it akin to two space ships travelling with no frame of reference. Spaceship A thinks it has overtaken spaceship B. But spaceship B thinks it was going in reverse and has overtaken a static spaceship A.
But sorry lads, The punters leaving the session are merely mistaken, that's all. It's not their fault of course (though any half intelligent punter assuming it was a performance should have suspected something was up when he saw half the musicians sat with there backs to him)
Though more important than all of this, is that it doesn't matter.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Michael, c'mere. Give me an example of a really nice tune that I can learn right now. Go on. I'm in the mood to learn a tune.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hmmmmmmm - who is being more realistic here?
“Most of the cultural conflict in the world occurs when certain individuals or groups try to impose their phenomenological realities or truths on other people or communities.”
“The schizophrenic is said to have hallucinations and delusions which concern people and events that are not real.”
Reality is only - “in the mind, ... a product of our ideas.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What - the 'reality' of the situation is, if a word is in the Dictionary, it exists, if it is not in there, then it doesn't exist!
By the way, in my day, the insult was: "you tube".
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now if the English cricket team were to get a piece of wood as a handle, attach a bodhran to it, they could send Collingwood out to stonewall at one end, and maybe Pieterson could score 300 at the other end for a famous victory.
What a performance that would be, although if there is no audience, thinking it all over, would it be a performance?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Of course it matters Michael, to certain people, 976 posts worth of it mattering.
And what if the punters are right?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"In the matter of breaking eggs they were also divided into parties: those that broke their eggs at the smaller end were in power and had banished their opponents who broke eggs at the bigger end. "
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by fidkid
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Bliss asked: "..... although if there is no audience, thinking it all over, would it be a performance?
Well Bliss, the way I see it, some ego type musicians out there are only happy when 'performing', be it in front of an audience or only their fellow sessioners, so I believe the answer is YES!
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Yer right Nox. You summed it up earlier. I, too, don't agree with Jack, and he doesn't understand my reasons, nor the fact that I do understand his argument--I just don't agree with it.
I'll leave it at that.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Performance .... - the actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time which constitute the work. It can happen anywhere, at any time, or for any length of time. Performance ... can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body and a relationship between performer and audience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Sometimes the dividing line between performer and audience may become blurred, as in the example of "participatory theatre" where audience members might get involved in the theatrical event."
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:performance&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"Many people equate performance with speed." Now where have I read that before?
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/PerformanceOverview/DevelopingForPerf/chapter_2_section_2.html
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
So I'm afraid, like it or not, a session is a performance, although many of those involved may not like to think of themselves as actually being performers - they are!
"I'll leave it at that."
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Oh dear, this latest relevation could well lead to another 980 posts.
A sesssion iws a performance.
A session is a perfoirmance.
A SESSION IS A PERFORMANCE.
In future the 16th December will be known as VP day, Victory for Performance, and celebrated world wide with session performances. The main session will take place in Will's pub in Montana, complete with muted TVs.
Mr Gill will don a clown outfit and lead a performing parade, complete with instruments, through the streets of Edinburgh.
Noxious will become a hermit, emerging every so often to curse and swear and shake his fist at performers.
What?!!! will retire, and wonder if the Aussies had not declared could they have scored more runs than posts on this thread.
Bliss will remain, as ever, quietly in the background.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Dear Abbey,
our banjo player carries the native American name "Tommy two tunes", because he never plays more than twice in any given evening. He keeps informing us that he is in charge of the "ambiance" section, and that interaction with the audience, slabbering to people all night long, is an integral part of any session. He would do well in Montana.
However, he is actually saying that this chatting to the audience is part of the session, and a major factor in the overall performance.
Should I tell him he is mistaken?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As you know Bliss, in the intimate atmosphere of a session pub like Tom's there is no way the musician's can put on their 'snob hats' & ignore the 'audience' as they shove past, push, & trip over us on the way past, to the bog.
), from their high stools!
But the fact is, some of the best nights in there are when 'the session' in an old Ceili sense of the word, includes almost everyone in the bar, while some slag us, comment on the music, joke with us & very often can even be coaxed to sing a song, or play their Bodhran (
So on the best nights the session actually does include all of the audience too & we are all performing for each others benefit in a sense, but not in a 'show offy look at me I'm the Dogs crap' sort of way, but in more of a - isn't it just great to simply be a part of such a great night!
So, I'd say - more power to "Tommy two tunes"'s elbow!
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
My God, someone talking sense on this topic. Where were you 900 posts ago?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dosing for bodhrans ~ & other new age occupations
Hey, I got a decent night's sleep last night, feel refreshed, and I don't even remember having been here...
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by ceolachan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hey Bliss, if I were you I wouldn't concern myself about the last 985, I'd be worrying more about the next 1015 - till we reach the 2,000 mark!
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mr. Gill writes: "Mr Button's assessment that two opposing realities can simultaneously exist with equal validity down the boozer is interesting science fiction, but ultimately pure hokum."
Please study the image on the link below.
http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy3203/Form/vase.gif
Now, please tell us whether it's two profiles facing each other, or a silhouette of a vase.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
If that didn't convince you, Mr. Gill, then please study the word below.
WOW
You probably think it says "wow," but you'd be wrong. What I actually did was write "mom" upside-down. But that's ok, how could you have possibly known that was my intent unless I explained that to you first? But you see, according to your logic -- you'd be wrong when you looked at that word and thought it said, "wow." It has all of the characteristics of the word "wow," so it must be wow. But that wasn't my intent you see.
So the question becomes, which one of us was right? My answer is of course -- we're both right.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Mark writes: "I've realised that when I start reading Will and Jack's long posts, I don't know whose writing it is anymore until I get to the end of the post."
Isn't that interesting. The irony is that I didn't know whether I was reading your post or Will's half the time either because you were just as prolific as Will with your ad hominem and fabrications of my position. If you would have tried to understand what I was actually saying instead of putting words in my mouth we might have finished this topic within the first 50 posts.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ok Mr. David the wise guy... I'll reframe the question just for you. What is it a picture of, two profiles facing each other, or a silhouette of a vase?
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
From what I've read, special relativity is more supportive of reality being absolute. I think a lot of people have taken the word "relative" and run with it, leading to a popular misconception that einstein's model supported multiple realities. A better quote of einstein would be "God does not play dice."--himself rejecting the notion that a particle could exist at two points simultaneously.
None of this matters because this strange argument (which i have wasted all morning reading) is about perceptions, not reality. The vase/face picture demonstrates that a given symbol can be perceived multiple ways (however, it was clearly composed with this intent). It does not indicate that most symbols are likely to be interpretted this way.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But that was my reason for posting that image -- the vase/face picture demonstrates that a given symbol can be perceived multiple ways. What you believe you see in that picture could be either of two things.
The "WOW" being intended as "mom" upside-down demonstrates that intent doesn't dictate the perception of other people until they've had it explained to them. Both of these examples are relevant to the debate that came up on this thread.
# Posted on December 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now, now, I don’t think what I said was unfounded at all. This week its Jack stirring the pot, last week it was MG, the week before, it was Dow and before that me, oh and Bodhran Bliss is in there somewhere as well. I have seen some really horrid things on this site, but for some reason what has really, really offended me, hasn’t offended say Will or Zeens or some other people. And vice versa - sometimes you guys get offended about things that I don’t necessarily find offensive. Just because I don’t find it offensive does not make my opinion less valid than the other opinions expressed on this thread. Also what I said about calling in Jeremy is true as well, and it worked, it was a heated argument, now it’s just a long and boring and totally snorish kind of thread. See. And we didn’t even need to call in teacher Jeremy.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I see the face/vase example as one extreme of a spectrum in which the other end might look like this:
http://www.ndesign-studio.com/images/resources/tutorials/3d-vase/3d-vase-final.jpg
No one will interpret that vase as a face. Or if they do, we would call their interpretation wrong.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Shoot, bb, I thought you were going to chime in on the duality of perceptions debate.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
very well, present company excluded what?!!?. shall i buy your mum some flowers?
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
silver bow - if you ask David he'll tell you neither is right since it's just a picture of a vase and not an actual vase..
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Although - On the other hand, everybody is starting to annoy me re this thread - I mean, can you change the position of a John Howard supporter to vote for Bob Brown? I dont think so - for those non Australian's on the Board if you were talking to a George W supporter - could you make him/her change his/her vote to vote to David Suzuki if he ran for government? I think not....and this is really getting nowhere - even the windups arent funny anymore. Can we please talk about something interesting like Bodhrans or hornpipes or piano accordions or anything other than this!!!!
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I've converted a few GW supporters.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But now that you bring it up, Beebs, this might be relevant after all. What is the War in Iraq; a "war against terrorism" or an illegal military invasion and occupation to control Iraq's resources?
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think Will was right all along. And still is.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Did you convert your George W supporters to vote for and environmentalist or to vote Democrat?
Anyhow - I just mean that I'm scouting this site looking at the other threads and there is no one there because you are all still over here slagging each other off about nothing. And I really really do want to talk about Hornpipes or something and so can we not go to another thread and all be friends again? (excpet you Bliss cause youre not invited!)
PS - Not ignoring your question on the war Jack - but I know better than to talk about politics on this site
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ok, beebs. This thread has gone beyond 1000 posts now BTW.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Thats part of my point, when you post it takes ages to get back on the thread cause its way too big. Lets go start a thread about 'Hornpipes vs reels -- which is better and why?'
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bb
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
"silver bow - if you ask David he'll tell you neither is right since it's just a picture of a vase and not an actual vase.."
I had a philosophy professor ask me once to sketch a triangle on the blackboard. Having done this, he told me I failed because it did not fit the strict definition of a triangle. We had first defined 'triangle' as a flat shape having 3 straight sides enclosing an area. My lines were not straight, and did not connect up at the ends. Upon correcting my triangle with a yardstick, he took out a magnifying glass and noted the area still was not enclosed due to spaces in the grain of the chalk. I gave up trying to correct my triangle, because I knew the argument could be taken to the molecular level. Instead I told him that I study engineering, and have created thousands upon thousands of triangles, and that my drawing was in fact a triangle.
All of this was leading in to a discussion on Plato's Forms of which I can remember little except that I am a 'conceptualist' rather than a 'platonist'. To me, elements exist in reality which we put together and give names. But the names are symbols we ahve assigned, rather than the object itself. What is vase? To me vase is not 5 pounds of porcelain arranged in a cylindrical configuration, but the idea of such. Vase is a symbol created by the human mind which we use to simplify our perception of reality (though this does not mean that vase or triangle are arbitrary definitions. There is a 'wrong' definition of vase).
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I do not like to namedrop but I once played/performed with Plato in Ballymena. He is s### hot on the viola.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
That's all well and fine, silver bow, but if a few musicians go into a pub and sit down around a table, get out their instruments and play tunes together whilst the patrons of the pub are in the room as well, and some are even enjoying the music; what is it? To the musicians it's a session, but unless the punters are edified on all of the subtle aspects of what a session is or isn't, to them it looks like some sort of performance.
Which one is correct if the event meets the criteria for each of their opposing definitions?
When you answer this please keep in mind the black & white face/vase graphic, and the "WOW" (intended as an upside-down "mom")
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
As the Inuit have many words for different shades of 'snow,' are there really many shades of 'performance?' The LA Philharmonic gives performances, but then so do little girls playing for their parents. Perhaps it is the all-inclusiveness of that word that causes the disagreement here.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
We did address the "shades" of what a performance could be already. Punters can distinguish the difference between what ever sort of informal performance they witnessed in the pub from a concert where everyone sat quietly and listened to a show on a stage; but they still are more likely to perceive the session as some sort of performance regardless, unless someone were to explain to them how it wasn't.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, I am not one to really debate the core issue of this thread. I have only been a part of one session (whoosis'), and only for a couple of months. I mostly got hooked in by the talk about the nature of reality, perception, etc. However, when I first saw the session (more as an observer than as a punter) I saw it as a bunch of musicians sitting in a corner, not too concerned with the other people in the bar (though not ignoring them entirely), and definately not looking as though they are getting paid or trying to promote themselves as an enterprise. Is that performance? Shrugs.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ta Raa! Well done guys, you made it past the 1,000. I'm sorry I missed it, but we've been down the pub playing & singing for the past couple of hours. Unfortunately, it was one of 'those' nights - for you see absolutely nobody was listening to one word or one note ................... so if nobody was listening, was it actually a performance at all?
2,000 here we come!
Ha Ha
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Ah... you're from Will's pub eh? Will has told us here on this thread that in the pub where his session is held, all the punters understand the distinction. I suppose you would be good evidence to support that. So now all we have to do is to ask the punters in all the other pubs around the world what they think and we'll have it sorted once and for all.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I should clarify that I am a player not a punter. I was saying what my first impression was, before I had ever played with them.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by polkageist
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Gotcha.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
You 'do' realise that I 'was' being sarcastic don't you Button?
I mean, let's face it, even if they weren't actually listening tonight, they could still hear us, so it's not like we were like some old Bear in the forest that Farts, but if nobody heard it fart well then, did it really fart at all?
Or was that a tree?
No, silly me, trees don't fart, they just creak a bit!
Och well, you know what I mean.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I'm worried in case the number of posts reaches the critical 1024.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I am not.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
See, What was critical abou.................aaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggghhh.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Could this be Bliss's last performance?
Find out next week in the next episode of "Dose anyone like bodhrans".
Not to be missed.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
And England are just taking command in the test.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Hello...........?
everyone gone?
I just stumbled in here....looks like everyone's packed up and gone. Must be the performance is over..........
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Tonight I went to the annual Christmas party where the community of Irish musicians and their friends and spouses in the area gather for food, drink, and music. A great time was had by all and the house was filled with friends and tunes. Some sat on the couch, and others stood nearby and listened to the music. Everyone else was carrying on chatting, eating and laughing. We were performing tunes on our instruments but none of us were "performing." And because the crowd was made up of mostly musicians and their spouses, I think it's safe to say that everyone understood and appreciated it as a non-performance event.
Now as much as I'd like the pub to be like that every time we have our session there -- it isn't. There are moments when the only people in the pub are musicians (the barman sings sean-nos) and I think you could say everyone in the pub gets it, but those moments are fleeting. But even though some people come into the pub and think we're performing, it doesn't matter to me once the tunes start up.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
But in your opinion, were they aware that you considered that they believed you may or may not have been performing?
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Well, what do *you* think he thinks they think he thinks they think, Danny?
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I know what *I* think you think he thinks they think he thinks they think ... but I think I might be wrong ...
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I don't think we have even started to get to the heart of this.
I hate bodhrans, it wouldn't be so bad if bodhran players would perform, but obviously they do not.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
The heart of what? You must define your terms before embarking on any debate.
And benhall, how can you think you may be wrong about this? Or rather if you think you may be wrong about this or anything, by definition therefore you believe that no matter what thought you have is incorrect including that said belief, so therefore by cancelling all that out you are right about everything. So you think. How arrogant!
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Not necessarily ... I could be lying ... or just thinking I am ...
On the other hand, I'm beginning to forget what I *was* thinking ...
And in any case, Danny, you're right - I don't really think I could be wrong - I'm too humble to believe that could ever happen!
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by ethical blend
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Boing! said Zebedee. It really is time to move on I think.
# Posted on December 17th 2006 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
What if you write "MOM" and the punters read it as "WOW"?
# Posted on December 18th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Now we are using relativity theory to prove our points? This discussion has gotten to be like an object spinning into a black hole, moving faster and faster as gravity draws it in. Any resemblance to the original object has been destroyed by tidal forces. I look forward to it passing the event horizon, never to be heard from again.
# Posted on December 18th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
End here. Us then. Finn, again! Take. Bussoftlhee, mememormee! Till thousendsthee. Lps. The keys to. Given! A way a lone a last a loved a long the
# Posted on December 19th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brngs us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
# Posted on December 19th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
hello im back over 1000 posts is it a record
# Posted on December 19th 2006 by Saint
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
A record only equalled by the England cricket team in recent memory.
I love GaryA, but assume he is putting on a bit of a performance.
# Posted on December 19th 2006 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
word
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
penultimate
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Does that mean "last pen"?
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
BANG BANG!
SHADDUP YOU LOT IN THERE! I'M TRYING TO SLEEP!
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Good night, so.
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
ok good night
# Posted on January 5th 2007 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
------------ THE END ---------------
# Posted on January 7th 2007 by grego
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Which end?
# Posted on January 7th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
This one has no end.
# Posted on January 25th 2007 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Certainly seems that way doesn't it? And I really thought we were over it too. *sigh*
# Posted on January 26th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
me too
# Posted on January 26th 2007 by Kheelch
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Actually I quite like bodhráns....
(The saga continues....)
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Joe CSS
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I think bodhrans are cool...
# Posted on February 25th 2007 by Ben314
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I thought someone said this was gone.
# Posted on January 5th 2008 by Kheelch
Posted on December 6th 2006 by Saint
Post #990 & counting
# Posted on January 5th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
Boy,has it been a year already?
# Posted on January 9th 2008 by Kheelch
Re: Does anyone like bodhráns
no
# Posted on April 8th 2008 by mehitabel23
I HATE BODHRANS
# Posted on April 8th 2008 by woD
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I love the bodhran and have been playing since 1992. I think it has a very special place in Irish music. Just some examples of stuff bodhran legend is made of, the Joe Cooley album, old Jack the brother can play a fine bodhran. The first eleven Cheiftains albums with the goat skin heros, Paeder Mercier( don't forget Ceoltori Chulann)[someone correct my spelling] and kevin Conneff. The Crooked Road - Ceoltoiri Laighean with Eamonn De Butlear on the drum (thats what you call a loud bodhran played in best possible intensity). Most of De Danann's stuff (Ringo and Murphy), the guy who backs Josie McDermott on Darby's farewell reel. Lunny on Stony Steps. Best Planxty album with bodhran, without a doubt is 'After the Break '(East at Glendart changed my life). The Mary Bergin Albums. Colm's stuff with Martin 'OConnor (Connaught Man's Rambles) and Jackie Daly & Seamus Creagh. Of course, this is only a needle in the haystack yet. anyway gggggtttthhhuuuunnnkkk!
# Posted on May 15th 2008 by Scots_Niall
Re: Dose anyone like bodhrans
I like them played well.
# Posted on May 27th 2010 by Dick Miles
Bodhran Bliss (Patrick McGinley) - RIP.
I hope it is a grand wake for McGliney. I love(d) his tenacity. Some of his best is right above ^
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/28621#comment608404
# Posted on October 15th 2011 by Batgirl has left the GPL ;)