In today's Guardian there's a crit of Folk Britannia in which it states: "folk...always seems to be music for the benefit of the players rather than the listeners."
I find that when listening to Irish music, with a few exceptions like Martin Hayes and Kevin Burke, my attention span is strictly limited - wheras I can fiddle away happily all day long.
Anyone else find this? (Please use both sides of the paper)
In my case it's a bit different - I can listen to the music all day long, but when I start to fiddle, the attention span of people around me gets strictly limited.
There used to be so many wannabees out there with electric guitars and drum kits, it seems like you could say that of Rock music too. And it seems like everybody who thinks they can hack a rhyme wants to be a hip-hop "artist".
I listen more than I play. That may not be true of most of the members of this site. But what is wrong with wanting to participate? What is wrong with a culture of music that draws people in, that encourages them to become a part of it?
Before Television there were a lot of people buying sheet music and playing it on a regular basis. Would it be so bad if more people spent time playing some music, of whatever kind?
I`ve always shared this view to a certain extent.probably due to the attitude of a lot of session players who are big into themselves and couldnt care who is listening.So is Diddly-dee for dancing to ,listening to, or ego-tripping to?Perhaps all three.
Listening gives me the itch to play, so I tend to stop listening and start fiddling before too long.
I have been thinking about the "not a spectator sport" criticism lately, though, and here's my theory:
I've heard that when you speak to your dog, the only word it recognizes is its name. No matter what you say, the dog hears only "mumble mumble mumble Trixie; mumble Trixie mumble mumble."
People who don't play music (in other words, most people) listen in much the same way--they only really hear certain bits of it (a flashy guitar riff, a dramatic drum flourish) and the rest is just "mumble mumble" to them. Diddley-dee is 100 percent "mumble mumble" to these people. They just don't hear it the way we do.
Good point, they notice when the guitar or bodhran comes in -- and the might even yelp... then it's back to mumble mumble mumble that you can tap your toes to.
I've wondered about the play vs. listen thing for a while now. I remember one night when we were playing for set dancers a couple of fellas I didn't know were sitting at a table and they had a couple of instrument cases. We were in the process of setting up and as soon as these fellas realized it wasn't a session they left. There was no session in town that night, but the idea of listening to someone else play seemed to repulse them. But then again -- maybe they heard us before.
I've also noticed a dearth of local ITM musicians at local gigs when different touring groups come through, or someone special plays at the local pub. For example -- we had a nice night of Kevin Burke playing solo and sharing stories recently. I thought it was great, but I looked around and couldn't find even one of what I knew were dozens of local fiddlers. Where were they all? Do they only come out anymore if they can play?
Sean Folsom wrote a bit recently on an uilleann pipes forum about Paddy Reynolds coming to SF in the 70s, and he offered to teach the local fiddlers all about ornamentation, variation, how the music can be made interesting to listen to. None of them were interested! So maybe Bay area fiddlers are just dullards? I think Paddy'd get a similiar reception most anywhere though. Like Burke apparently still is. Lots of people just want to get together and knock out their little tunes and that's that.
Solo Irish music can be really fascinating stuff, in a very below-the-radar kind of way. I think it's great of Kevin to just get up there with a fiddle, so you can hear every little thing that's going on. If you're not really into the stuff or didn't grow up with it I can see how you'd treat it more superficially perhaps.
"folk ... always seems to be music for the benefit of the players rather than the listeners." Yep. to a certain extent. Though there is that story telling aspect to the songs, which is about "telling".
But take the words away and yes, you have the purity of just playing for yourself and your fellow small group of musicians. And a wonderful thing it is too. Music with no performance. I love it.
"folk...always seems to be music for the benifit of the players rather than the listeners..."
Of course it is!!!....All music is. Music is an opening for a person to release one's emotions.
All music is for the musician(s). Ideally the musician is talented enough to successfully and meaningfully traverse his/her ideas from him/herself to the audience, and therefor enable the audience to appreciate the thoughts.
IMO – “folk” is a genuine misnomer, if you are translating it to mean “for the folks”, in general. The folks – in general – aren’t very bright. Let’s face it, if they were, there wouldn’t be the enormous demand for the type of twiddly-tripe that goes under the names of such things as: Pop; Pop-Rock; American Whining – oops sorry, “Country”; and someone mentioned Hip-Hop, which I’ve been trying to equate with something/anything even resembling any type of “music” – or poetry – or, actually, “anything” (even the stuff that sticks to the bottom of dumpsters and waste-bins) – for years.
Again, IMO – If we’re playing ITM, or any other type of “pure” music for others, we’re playing the wrong stuff. Three chords (or none), with just a smattering of guttural noises, amplified to deafening proportions, is all it takes to bring the masses to the edge of ecstasy.
I left a session in Doolin, last year, because I was offended by being surrounded by a bunch of punters – as you call them – who (most of them) were only there because their travel agents told them it was the thing to do.
Which brings me to wonder: Why have sessions in pubs (at least tourist-popular ones), at all. Surely pints can be poured at home. Does anyone besides me think that’s an interesting question? There must be some players who have the "need" to “perform”. Personally, I don’t even have the smallest desire to play “for” people – only “with” others who merely love the music.
As far as Paddy Reynolds, and “The Bay Area” people being dullards, goes. Most of us who don’t consider ourselves as being some of the “folks”, here in the rest of the USA, don’t even consider California as being part of the Real World. I would’ve driven 500 miles to learn from the likes of Paddy Reynolds – as long as it wasn’t to California.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone with my remarks, but then, that doesn’t seem to be a big issue here on the Session board.
"i believe many people trace the roots of "american country whining" to irish music; if you listen, it's still in there." and this is a proud boast??????
Actually, I would have to agree with you, that American Country does, in fact, have its roots in Irish Traditional Music. After the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, a lot of Irish and Scots Immigrants left Pennsylvania, and traveled south along the Appalachian Mountains to the southern regions, where they could safely apply their noble trade – making whiskey. Of course, their music went with them. The stuff called American “Country” did evolve from that music, through a venue that I/we call Old-Time, but, as it evolved, it took on a life of its own – called “commercial”.
Yes, it did, perhaps, evolve from the ITM that was carried along with the Irish running from yet another oppressive government, but it is not ITM. It is – IMO – just more commercial cr*p!, comforting the masses. IMO – Country music is – I already said that. Sorry.
.
There was a doco on TV a few months ago about Country Music, and a lot of it was really good, until they talked about the Nashville style. Nashville is whign-ey awful country music that we all know and hate. A lot of the rest of it is very good.
To get back to the original question........I think the critic intended that remark as a criticism, but I have no problem with it. A session isn't a performance, it's for the musicians. If you are sufficiently "into" the music, then welcome. If not, stay away, don't listen, sit at the other end of the bar and talk, fine by me. I'm sure he meant it for all folk, too.
And, most people ARE dullards, part of the crowd, easily swayed by popular culture. But it's a priviledge to know you folks.
And, yes I hate Nashville whine, but I could listen to old-timey country all night. Have you seen the New Deal String Band ?
"Nope, pop music isn't. "Popular" music?. That's quite simply about winning a popularity contest. It's mass entertainment."
Hate to tell you this, Michael, but not for all pop musicians. I recently worked with a girl who is struggling to build a career as a pop singer. She's doing it out of love and a strong need to make music in the genre she adores. She's genuinely inspired by pop music; she lives it, breathes it, thinks it, the whole nine yards. It was awful to see in a way; someone getting serious emotional nourishment from trite cr*p. It was also a revelation, though, because I'd always assumed that pop musicians are out to make a buck and nothing more. I guess some of them do actually get more out of it than just money and/or toxic amounts of admiration from teenagers.
But jeez am I glad I don't work with her anymore; i *hated* the music she thrived on, and it really made the work day harder to have to listen to the sugary paste that came out of her cd player.
As to "for the players" versus "for the listeners", that's an easy generalization to make and provides room for a defense of either side of the question with anecdotal evidence. I've heard it said of more than one genre, usually (although not always) by those who don't like whichever genre is under discussion. My response is, simply, what does it matter who it's for? The value of trad music doesn't hinge on the answer, except in the eyes of those who judge value on a purely theoretical basis.
Well... I'm not sure why dylandew thinks California is such a horrible place, but if anyone goes anywhere with an attitude like that -- the place they're visiting isn't going to care much for them either... but, back to the discussion.
I wasn't around SF in the 70s when Paddy Reynolds came through, but there might be other reasons the local fiddlers weren't so keen to be under his tutelage. The Impression I've heard is that Paddy was very pedantic and tended towards spoiling some of the fun with his correctness and insistence of how things should be. Everyone loved his playing, respected him and recognized he was a great musician etc., but his attitude was a bit brittle, apparently, and he put people off.
Kevin, true story... the first time I met Sean Folsom was 1969 when he walked up to us at a gig our rock band was doing and announced; “I’m an up and coming sax player, can I jam with your band?” We said, “uh… shhhure.” And then he proceeded to blow our minds – he was brilliant! After the gig we invited him back to our campsite nearby (In the horrible Sierra Nevada mountains) and the first thing he did was open the trunk of his car that was stuffed full of weird wind instruments we’d never before seen the likes of. He handed each one of us about 5 different ones, and put a few in his pocket, and proceeded to scale a nearby pine tree. He climbed up into the darkness and we were all standing around holding these weird flutes and looking at each other wondering what we just got ourselves into. Then… from out of the darkness… very strange whistle music began to play. This went on for several hours. Think back on this story next time you’re reading or listening to anything Sean has to say. hahahahaha
Eh, I've heard some good ones about Sean. That's up in the top 3 for sheer, what da ya call it, idiosyncracy?
Hey, California isin't horrible but the Sierra Nevadas are? They make for great landscape photography at least...
Doesn't playing involve listening as well? When I hear (some) good musicians, I want to play with them. And when I do, I listen to them as I play and it makes me play better.
DYLANDEW
"Folk" is NOT a misnomer,nor does it need any translating. It is music OF the people (folk); created in cultures and communities, for their own use. As soon as you talk about making/writing/producing music for the consumption of others, you have completely left the realm of what (I think)we are all doing at this site.
Whether it is called folk or traditional or indigenous or ethnic; it is homemade, not commercially made.
sara g. That is indeed a sad sad story, though not, I fear, an uncommon one. However, you use the phrase, "struggling to build a career". Is this not "simply about winning a popularity contest"?
Though I'm not sure this thread was supposed to be about the relative merits/origins of various musics.
Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
In today's Guardian there's a crit of Folk Britannia in which it states: "folk...always seems to be music for the benefit of the players rather than the listeners."
I find that when listening to Irish music, with a few exceptions like Martin Hayes and Kevin Burke, my attention span is strictly limited - wheras I can fiddle away happily all day long.
Anyone else find this? (Please use both sides of the paper)
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by MPM
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
In my case it's a bit different - I can listen to the music all day long, but when I start to fiddle, the attention span of people around me gets strictly limited.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by Janek
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
There used to be so many wannabees out there with electric guitars and drum kits, it seems like you could say that of Rock music too. And it seems like everybody who thinks they can hack a rhyme wants to be a hip-hop "artist".
I listen more than I play. That may not be true of most of the members of this site. But what is wrong with wanting to participate? What is wrong with a culture of music that draws people in, that encourages them to become a part of it?
Before Television there were a lot of people buying sheet music and playing it on a regular basis. Would it be so bad if more people spent time playing some music, of whatever kind?
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
I`ve always shared this view to a certain extent.probably due to the attitude of a lot of session players who are big into themselves and couldnt care who is listening.So is Diddly-dee for dancing to ,listening to, or ego-tripping to?Perhaps all three.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by cos
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Listening gives me the itch to play, so I tend to stop listening and start fiddling before too long.
I have been thinking about the "not a spectator sport" criticism lately, though, and here's my theory:
I've heard that when you speak to your dog, the only word it recognizes is its name. No matter what you say, the dog hears only "mumble mumble mumble Trixie; mumble Trixie mumble mumble."
People who don't play music (in other words, most people) listen in much the same way--they only really hear certain bits of it (a flashy guitar riff, a dramatic drum flourish) and the rest is just "mumble mumble" to them. Diddley-dee is 100 percent "mumble mumble" to these people. They just don't hear it the way we do.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by John Galt
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Good point, they notice when the guitar or bodhran comes in -- and the might even yelp... then it's back to mumble mumble mumble that you can tap your toes to.
I've wondered about the play vs. listen thing for a while now. I remember one night when we were playing for set dancers a couple of fellas I didn't know were sitting at a table and they had a couple of instrument cases. We were in the process of setting up and as soon as these fellas realized it wasn't a session they left. There was no session in town that night, but the idea of listening to someone else play seemed to repulse them. But then again -- maybe they heard us before.
I've also noticed a dearth of local ITM musicians at local gigs when different touring groups come through, or someone special plays at the local pub. For example -- we had a nice night of Kevin Burke playing solo and sharing stories recently. I thought it was great, but I looked around and couldn't find even one of what I knew were dozens of local fiddlers. Where were they all? Do they only come out anymore if they can play?
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Sean Folsom wrote a bit recently on an uilleann pipes forum about Paddy Reynolds coming to SF in the 70s, and he offered to teach the local fiddlers all about ornamentation, variation, how the music can be made interesting to listen to. None of them were interested! So maybe Bay area fiddlers are just dullards? I think Paddy'd get a similiar reception most anywhere though. Like Burke apparently still is. Lots of people just want to get together and knock out their little tunes and that's that.
Solo Irish music can be really fascinating stuff, in a very below-the-radar kind of way. I think it's great of Kevin to just get up there with a fiddle, so you can hear every little thing that's going on. If you're not really into the stuff or didn't grow up with it I can see how you'd treat it more superficially perhaps.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by KLR
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
"folk ... always seems to be music for the benefit of the players rather than the listeners." Yep. to a certain extent. Though there is that story telling aspect to the songs, which is about "telling".
But take the words away and yes, you have the purity of just playing for yourself and your fellow small group of musicians. And a wonderful thing it is too. Music with no performance. I love it.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by ...
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
"folk...always seems to be music for the benifit of the players rather than the listeners..."
Of course it is!!!....All music is. Music is an opening for a person to release one's emotions.
All music is for the musician(s). Ideally the musician is talented enough to successfully and meaningfully traverse his/her ideas from him/herself to the audience, and therefor enable the audience to appreciate the thoughts.
# Posted on February 11th 2006 by Pete D
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Nope, pop music isn't. "Popular" music?. That's quite simply about winning a popularity contest. It's mass entertainment.
And don't tell me that the jobbing 8th violinist in an orchestra experiences "music as an opening for them to release their emotions"
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by ...
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
IMO – “folk” is a genuine misnomer, if you are translating it to mean “for the folks”, in general. The folks – in general – aren’t very bright. Let’s face it, if they were, there wouldn’t be the enormous demand for the type of twiddly-tripe that goes under the names of such things as: Pop; Pop-Rock; American Whining – oops sorry, “Country”; and someone mentioned Hip-Hop, which I’ve been trying to equate with something/anything even resembling any type of “music” – or poetry – or, actually, “anything” (even the stuff that sticks to the bottom of dumpsters and waste-bins) – for years.
Again, IMO – If we’re playing ITM, or any other type of “pure” music for others, we’re playing the wrong stuff. Three chords (or none), with just a smattering of guttural noises, amplified to deafening proportions, is all it takes to bring the masses to the edge of ecstasy.
I left a session in Doolin, last year, because I was offended by being surrounded by a bunch of punters – as you call them – who (most of them) were only there because their travel agents told them it was the thing to do.
Which brings me to wonder: Why have sessions in pubs (at least tourist-popular ones), at all. Surely pints can be poured at home. Does anyone besides me think that’s an interesting question? There must be some players who have the "need" to “perform”. Personally, I don’t even have the smallest desire to play “for” people – only “with” others who merely love the music.
As far as Paddy Reynolds, and “The Bay Area” people being dullards, goes. Most of us who don’t consider ourselves as being some of the “folks”, here in the rest of the USA, don’t even consider California as being part of the Real World. I would’ve driven 500 miles to learn from the likes of Paddy Reynolds – as long as it wasn’t to California.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone with my remarks, but then, that doesn’t seem to be a big issue here on the Session board.
dew
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by dylandew
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
dylandrew, i believe many people trace the roots of "american country whining" to irish music; if you listen, it's still in there.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by full measure
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
"i believe many people trace the roots of "american country whining" to irish music; if you listen, it's still in there." and this is a proud boast??????
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by goldfrog
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
it wasn't a proud boast; it was a scholarly observation. what did you hear?
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by full measure
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Actually, I would have to agree with you, that American Country does, in fact, have its roots in Irish Traditional Music. After the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, a lot of Irish and Scots Immigrants left Pennsylvania, and traveled south along the Appalachian Mountains to the southern regions, where they could safely apply their noble trade – making whiskey. Of course, their music went with them. The stuff called American “Country” did evolve from that music, through a venue that I/we call Old-Time, but, as it evolved, it took on a life of its own – called “commercial”.
Yes, it did, perhaps, evolve from the ITM that was carried along with the Irish running from yet another oppressive government, but it is not ITM. It is – IMO – just more commercial cr*p!, comforting the masses. IMO – Country music is – I already said that. Sorry.
.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by dylandew
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
There was a doco on TV a few months ago about Country Music, and a lot of it was really good, until they talked about the Nashville style. Nashville is whign-ey awful country music that we all know and hate. A lot of the rest of it is very good.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by kjay_bc_box
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
To get back to the original question........I think the critic intended that remark as a criticism, but I have no problem with it. A session isn't a performance, it's for the musicians. If you are sufficiently "into" the music, then welcome. If not, stay away, don't listen, sit at the other end of the bar and talk, fine by me. I'm sure he meant it for all folk, too.
And, most people ARE dullards, part of the crowd, easily swayed by popular culture. But it's a priviledge to know you folks.
And, yes I hate Nashville whine, but I could listen to old-timey country all night. Have you seen the New Deal String Band ?
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
"Nope, pop music isn't. "Popular" music?. That's quite simply about winning a popularity contest. It's mass entertainment."
Hate to tell you this, Michael, but not for all pop musicians. I recently worked with a girl who is struggling to build a career as a pop singer. She's doing it out of love and a strong need to make music in the genre she adores. She's genuinely inspired by pop music; she lives it, breathes it, thinks it, the whole nine yards. It was awful to see in a way; someone getting serious emotional nourishment from trite cr*p. It was also a revelation, though, because I'd always assumed that pop musicians are out to make a buck and nothing more. I guess some of them do actually get more out of it than just money and/or toxic amounts of admiration from teenagers.
But jeez am I glad I don't work with her anymore; i *hated* the music she thrived on, and it really made the work day harder to have to listen to the sugary paste that came out of her cd player.
As to "for the players" versus "for the listeners", that's an easy generalization to make and provides room for a defense of either side of the question with anecdotal evidence. I've heard it said of more than one genre, usually (although not always) by those who don't like whichever genre is under discussion. My response is, simply, what does it matter who it's for? The value of trad music doesn't hinge on the answer, except in the eyes of those who judge value on a purely theoretical basis.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by sara g
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Oh, almost forgot --- I can listen all day, or play all day, or spend my time at a mix of the two; depends on my mood and my energy levels.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by sara g
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Well... I'm not sure why dylandew thinks California is such a horrible place, but if anyone goes anywhere with an attitude like that -- the place they're visiting isn't going to care much for them either... but, back to the discussion.
hahahahaha
I wasn't around SF in the 70s when Paddy Reynolds came through, but there might be other reasons the local fiddlers weren't so keen to be under his tutelage. The Impression I've heard is that Paddy was very pedantic and tended towards spoiling some of the fun with his correctness and insistence of how things should be. Everyone loved his playing, respected him and recognized he was a great musician etc., but his attitude was a bit brittle, apparently, and he put people off.
Kevin, true story... the first time I met Sean Folsom was 1969 when he walked up to us at a gig our rock band was doing and announced; “I’m an up and coming sax player, can I jam with your band?” We said, “uh… shhhure.” And then he proceeded to blow our minds – he was brilliant! After the gig we invited him back to our campsite nearby (In the horrible Sierra Nevada mountains) and the first thing he did was open the trunk of his car that was stuffed full of weird wind instruments we’d never before seen the likes of. He handed each one of us about 5 different ones, and put a few in his pocket, and proceeded to scale a nearby pine tree. He climbed up into the darkness and we were all standing around holding these weird flutes and looking at each other wondering what we just got ourselves into. Then… from out of the darkness… very strange whistle music began to play. This went on for several hours. Think back on this story next time you’re reading or listening to anything Sean has to say.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Bah... "celtic" music is for story tellers (ballads airs and laments) and for dancers (waltzes, polkas, jigs, reels, gavottes etc).
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by Tirno
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Eh, I've heard some good ones about Sean. That's up in the top 3 for sheer, what da ya call it, idiosyncracy?
Hey, California isin't horrible but the Sierra Nevadas are? They make for great landscape photography at least...
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by KLR
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
Doesn't playing involve listening as well? When I hear (some) good musicians, I want to play with them. And when I do, I listen to them as I play and it makes me play better.
# Posted on February 12th 2006 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
DYLANDEW
"Folk" is NOT a misnomer,nor does it need any translating. It is music OF the people (folk); created in cultures and communities, for their own use. As soon as you talk about making/writing/producing music for the consumption of others, you have completely left the realm of what (I think)we are all doing at this site.
Whether it is called folk or traditional or indigenous or ethnic; it is homemade, not commercially made.
# Posted on February 13th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Limited Listening vs Prolonged Playing
sara g. That is indeed a sad sad story, though not, I fear, an uncommon one. However, you use the phrase, "struggling to build a career". Is this not "simply about winning a popularity contest"?
Though I'm not sure this thread was supposed to be about the relative merits/origins of various musics.
I'm gonna move to a new thread ...
# Posted on February 13th 2006 by ...