Be interested to hear any thoughts about sessions (and I'm sure there are a ton of them) where a core of two or three musicians get paid.
Is this a good thing because it means the session happens every week?
Does this mean the pub will expect them to 'entertain' the punters?
What about all the other poor sods who turn up every week for nix?
Sometimes they are expected to "entertain", sometimes not.
The others turn up because they know there is music every week, and they are welcome. You can get them a few pints, a Christmas box, or just play along with them. They do not mind, otherwise they would not turn up.
It means that if the "unpaid" musicians don't keep the session going then the paid group will play some spectacular tunes to justify their suzerainty and prevent the session from being disbanded.
'Cause punters need quality sessions and barkeeps know to plan ahead.
Seems you both expect the core to be paid. I'm sure this wasn't always so. Wouldn't it detract from the spirit of a session to have the barkeep say oh we think you should play stuff to keep the punters happy. Sing a few songs after all that's whatyou're being paid to do!
I know a session thats been going near 9 years now with a group of core paid musos - the only thing the bar people ever say is "can I get you another pint"?
At the sessions I've beem at with paid musicians, those musicians have usually made a point of at least buying all the other musicians a drink so on a busy night really haven't made much out of it and the landlord has had most of the money back!
It all depends on the pub and the musicians. What works in one place may be a disaster in another. To make a generalisation for all situations is futile. And being a non payed musician doesn't make anyone morally superior than those who get paid. Being paid makes you turn up and keep the session going, while others are able to come and go as they please, safe in the knowledge that the next time they make it out the session will still be on.
And speaking personally, if the pub owner starts to dictate what's being played, then they don't understand what a session is all about, and it's time to find a new pub.
Is there anyone out there who fronts a session and doesn't get paid? Must be a rarer breed than I thought. Oh and by the way not suggesting that the unpaid musician is morally more supperior just interested to know. As for bb's 9 year "can I get you another pint" marathon.... ** must be a mighty sesh.
Unpaid hosts are volunteer sessions -- and they're great, but they usually have a limited lifespan. If a publican wants a session in his or her pub they know they should support it by paying a core to show up, and they shouldn't expect a staged show. If a publican wants a session they usually understand what one is and won’t interfere with it.
Our paid session has been going for 20 years now. We buy each other drinks like we would any other time. It's a social event and the people that come to play appreciate the paid core for being there. You need a solid core of strong players to provide an anchor otherwise people who show up for the craic might end up musically disappointed.
We just get unlimited free drinks. No-one gets money and we don't have leaders. On some nights there could be eight or nine of us. We're not completely closed to visitors but we're a bit careful whom we let join the fray. The landlord is happy for visitors to enjoy the free drinks as long as they play a substantial part in the session but we always clear this with him first. We're all very happy with this arrangement and we've been going strong for ten years or more with a bit of evolution along the way of course.
The last time this was discussed, there was a wee bit of friction between Ptarmigan and myself.
Basically, I have no problem with two or three core musicians being paid to run a session or being there to ensure something happens. They can do what they like with the money, e.g buy drinks for the other musicians, share it out, or keep it all to themselves if the wish. I don't really mind even the in most extreme cases when they let everyone else do all the work and, maybe, only play a couple of tunes all night. Sometimes, this can be preferable to a "This is my night" attitude where they'll rigidly dictate the entire the proceedings and nobody else can make a contribution. However, it all depends and it's best not to generalise.
On the other hand, if a group of friends or otherwise wish to get together for a tune either a "one off" or if they've found an ideal pub for a regular session and ask to play there, then they shouldn't necessarily expect payment. Of course, if the session goes really well, the management could do the decent thing and give them something or the players could try some negotiation for payment in the future.
What I really don't like is "planting" a group of musicians who are often "hand picked" in a pub, paying them, and calling the event a session. This is becoming much more common these days. Sometimes, visiting musicians are welcome to join but it often feels very uncomfortable. Also, in these situations, there always seems to be an expectation(by the management, punters, even the musicians themselves) that they should "perform"......much more so than in your average session.
I'd suggest that the bottom line is if the management of a pub or any other venue *expect" or *encourage* music in their premises, then they should be prepared to pay for it. This is a little different from *welcoming"* or *tolerating* the music but some might disagree and I admit that the distinction can sometimes get a bit blurred.
Free drinks for all players, unlimited, is our deal at the Blythe. I used to do paid sessions but couldn't be bothered with the hassle of organising players, as it always ended up me who did the organising. I think it's mostly an ego trip anyway. I can afford not to bother now.
And for the money you get? about £25-40 for an evenings work? big deal. The big downside is that quite often the only people who turn up ARE the paid ones, as there's a certain amount of resentment from non-paid players, and quite rightly so.
40 pounds!?? Geez - you dont get that here! Having said that I like it when there are paid core sessioners - as someone mentioned before you dont have to turn up knowing full well that the session is kicking on and will be there when youre next able to get there. I'd like 40 pounds too to be honest
"The big downside is that quite often the only people who turn up ARE the paid ones"
Yes, I've noticed that too sometimes but not in all cases. I'm not sure if it's all down to resentment either but visiting musicians might get the impression that it's a private affair especially if those paid feel under pressure to "perform"
I think it all depends on the attitude of the hosts. If they are fairly generous and welcoming, e.g. buying a few drinks or "putting the money behind the bar" (as in Sandy Bells) then it's much more likely that others will join them on the night.
Our folk club gets a hundred euro or so from the Pub plus a free drink each on session nights plus hot snacks.
Allows us to pay for guest musicians every now and again.
---
One of my all-time favourite sessions is Baily's Corner in Tralee, where I lived for about eight months. Gary O'Donnell, the landlord, or one of his excellent staff, would ensure that no musician had an empty glass in front of them at any time. I don't know if anybody was paid there, never saw money changing hands. Don't care either way, I played with some fantastic musicians there,
... and Paul de Grae put up with me for five months before asking me to play alternate tunes so he could play a bit more!
That's because you don't have pounds any more bb, but $'s.
Seriously though, that may be a bit out of date, now. Regular paid sessions would deffo get you £20-£30, and occasionally more, £35-£45.
I agree John, the private affair syndrome. I've gone along to other peoples' paid sessions and you get the feeling sometimes you should tread lightly. But they, as I would, generally welcome extra help, and it gives the impression of being a real open session (though it isn't really.)
All sessions are different. The landlord knows about running a pub, musicians know about sessions, so the wise landlord leaves it up to the musicians.
Unpaid musicians go alonmg because they know that the music will be on. I attend many sessions on that basis, and do not begrudge the paid musicians. Likewise the unpaid musicians do not begrudge me on a Sunday night.
As for being exclusive, I wish. If anyone turns up with a banjo on a Sunday our banjo player immediately gives way, and proceeds to talk to people for the rest of the night. He claims to be in charge of the ambient side of the session.
Our local session existed for about 10 years as a volunteer session. The owners at our first venue did not provide anything free (except a drink at the Christmas party or on St. Pat's), and obviously no pay. When the pub closed after the first 5 years, we had a lot of trouble finding a place that was open to having a session at all, and moved about 3 times to different places.
Finally a new pub opened, part of a small chain, and they already had an established policy of a tab and payment for the session from their other locations. As the de facto session organizer, I suddenly had to decide how to handle the situation...
I decided to try this:
1 free drink per musician, and 2 paid session leaders each week to split the money. This has worked out pretty well, with about 6 rotating leaders, depending on who is available. The rest of the tab covers a few plates of snacks for the musicians.
Every 2 months or so I send out an email to find out who is available and when, and try to schedule everyone at least once a month. So far, it's worked pretty well.
Oh, and I forgot to add, the session has more participation than it did before we moved to this place, and no complaints so far. People seem to appreciate having a certain amount of "leadership"....
Our session has two paid leaders, a banjo player and a piper. I'd say it's a good thing. I suspect the session would die out if they weren't always there.And lots of people show up, not just the paid leaders. And I especially like it, because if one of the leaders can't be there, they've started naming me thier substitute, and I get the money!
As a fellow member of BBliss 'outfit' i can indeed confirm that the banjo player will walk off and talk to anyone in the bar if another banjo comes through the door. He'll talk for twice as long if the accomplice is a GAA member.
As for the topic in hand, i agree with bliss, but then as a i get paid i would!
But like him, i do not begrudge anyone who gets paid at a session that i'm visiting.
I view it as kind of natural selection, those who get paid at a particular session tend to provide the core of it. Sessions i'll visit will have players better than me who i want to learn from and therefore they are more essential to the session than me.
Few ideas to kick around. If we get our session up - find a pub ! There are about five of us who can form the core but two of us won't be there that much. I travel a lot. So does one of the others and we've been trying to suss out a few sessions around the place NZ, Aust, couple is US and beyond but can never work out the payment bit. We've also had a few bad experiences like the one where there were heaps of songs (and some bad ones too) and not many tunes so we want to try to avoid attracting that kind of environment.
If you have to pay people to keep a session going, then is it really a session? Isn't a session a group of people who get together for the tunes and the company?
Yes mehere:
If you have to pay people to keep a session going, then
it is really a session. Even though a session is a group
of people who get together for the tunes and the company,
the tunes and the company could be less than par for the
punters. If I had played in a session before about five
years' worth of playing ... Thankfully I had to report
directly to that school teacher fiddler lady so she could
keep me on track and in line with session format rules
why, without her we could have gone out of control.
To pay or not to pay!
To pay or not to pay!
Be interested to hear any thoughts about sessions (and I'm sure there are a ton of them) where a core of two or three musicians get paid.
Is this a good thing because it means the session happens every week?
Does this mean the pub will expect them to 'entertain' the punters?
What about all the other poor sods who turn up every week for nix?
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by dos
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Yes, it means there will always be music.
Sometimes they are expected to "entertain", sometimes not.
The others turn up because they know there is music every week, and they are welcome. You can get them a few pints, a Christmas box, or just play along with them. They do not mind, otherwise they would not turn up.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by bodhran bliss
It means that if the "unpaid" musicians don't keep the session going then the paid group will play some spectacular tunes to justify their suzerainty and prevent the session from being disbanded.
'Cause punters need quality sessions and barkeeps know to plan ahead.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by dogmageek
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Seems you both expect the core to be paid. I'm sure this wasn't always so. Wouldn't it detract from the spirit of a session to have the barkeep say oh we think you should play stuff to keep the punters happy. Sing a few songs after all that's whatyou're being paid to do!
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by dos
Re: To pay or not to pay!
I know a session thats been going near 9 years now with a group of core paid musos - the only thing the bar people ever say is "can I get you another pint"?
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by shoddy fiddle player
Re: To pay or not to pay!
At the sessions I've beem at with paid musicians, those musicians have usually made a point of at least buying all the other musicians a drink so on a busy night really haven't made much out of it and the landlord has had most of the money back!
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Tarrantella
Re: To pay or not to pay!
It all depends on the pub and the musicians. What works in one place may be a disaster in another. To make a generalisation for all situations is futile. And being a non payed musician doesn't make anyone morally superior than those who get paid. Being paid makes you turn up and keep the session going, while others are able to come and go as they please, safe in the knowledge that the next time they make it out the session will still be on.
And speaking personally, if the pub owner starts to dictate what's being played, then they don't understand what a session is all about, and it's time to find a new pub.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by woops
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Is there anyone out there who fronts a session and doesn't get paid? Must be a rarer breed than I thought. Oh and by the way not suggesting that the unpaid musician is morally more supperior just interested to know. As for bb's 9 year "can I get you another pint" marathon.... ** must be a mighty sesh.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by dos
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Well - its the only one I know of that hasnt almost ended on several occasions.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by shoddy fiddle player
Re: To pay or not to pay!
all the dosh (except the odd taxi fair) goes behind the bar.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Unpaid hosts are volunteer sessions -- and they're great, but they usually have a limited lifespan. If a publican wants a session in his or her pub they know they should support it by paying a core to show up, and they shouldn't expect a staged show. If a publican wants a session they usually understand what one is and won’t interfere with it.
Our paid session has been going for 20 years now. We buy each other drinks like we would any other time. It's a social event and the people that come to play appreciate the paid core for being there. You need a solid core of strong players to provide an anchor otherwise people who show up for the craic might end up musically disappointed.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: To pay or not to pay!
We just get unlimited free drinks. No-one gets money and we don't have leaders. On some nights there could be eight or nine of us. We're not completely closed to visitors but we're a bit careful whom we let join the fray. The landlord is happy for visitors to enjoy the free drinks as long as they play a substantial part in the session but we always clear this with him first. We're all very happy with this arrangement and we've been going strong for ten years or more with a bit of evolution along the way of course.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: To pay or not to pay!
The last time this was discussed, there was a wee bit of friction between Ptarmigan and myself.
Basically, I have no problem with two or three core musicians being paid to run a session or being there to ensure something happens. They can do what they like with the money, e.g buy drinks for the other musicians, share it out, or keep it all to themselves if the wish. I don't really mind even the in most extreme cases when they let everyone else do all the work and, maybe, only play a couple of tunes all night. Sometimes, this can be preferable to a "This is my night" attitude where they'll rigidly dictate the entire the proceedings and nobody else can make a contribution. However, it all depends and it's best not to generalise.
On the other hand, if a group of friends or otherwise wish to get together for a tune either a "one off" or if they've found an ideal pub for a regular session and ask to play there, then they shouldn't necessarily expect payment. Of course, if the session goes really well, the management could do the decent thing and give them something or the players could try some negotiation for payment in the future.
What I really don't like is "planting" a group of musicians who are often "hand picked" in a pub, paying them, and calling the event a session. This is becoming much more common these days. Sometimes, visiting musicians are welcome to join but it often feels very uncomfortable. Also, in these situations, there always seems to be an expectation(by the management, punters, even the musicians themselves) that they should "perform"......much more so than in your average session.
I'd suggest that the bottom line is if the management of a pub or any other venue *expect" or *encourage* music in their premises, then they should be prepared to pay for it. This is a little different from *welcoming"* or *tolerating* the music but some might disagree and I admit that the distinction can sometimes get a bit blurred.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Johannes J
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Free drinks for all players, unlimited, is our deal at the Blythe. I used to do paid sessions but couldn't be bothered with the hassle of organising players, as it always ended up me who did the organising. I think it's mostly an ego trip anyway. I can afford not to bother now.
And for the money you get? about £25-40 for an evenings work? big deal. The big downside is that quite often the only people who turn up ARE the paid ones, as there's a certain amount of resentment from non-paid players, and quite rightly so.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: To pay or not to pay!
40 pounds!?? Geez - you dont get that here! Having said that I like it when there are paid core sessioners - as someone mentioned before you dont have to turn up knowing full well that the session is kicking on and will be there when youre next able to get there. I'd like 40 pounds too to be honest
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by shoddy fiddle player
Re: To pay or not to pay!
"The big downside is that quite often the only people who turn up ARE the paid ones"
Yes, I've noticed that too sometimes but not in all cases. I'm not sure if it's all down to resentment either but visiting musicians might get the impression that it's a private affair especially if those paid feel under pressure to "perform"
I think it all depends on the attitude of the hosts. If they are fairly generous and welcoming, e.g. buying a few drinks or "putting the money behind the bar" (as in Sandy Bells) then it's much more likely that others will join them on the night.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Johannes J
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Our folk club gets a hundred euro or so from the Pub plus a free drink each on session nights plus hot snacks.
Allows us to pay for guest musicians every now and again.
---
One of my all-time favourite sessions is Baily's Corner in Tralee, where I lived for about eight months. Gary O'Donnell, the landlord, or one of his excellent staff, would ensure that no musician had an empty glass in front of them at any time. I don't know if anybody was paid there, never saw money changing hands. Don't care either way, I played with some fantastic musicians there,
... and Paul de Grae put up with me for five months before asking me to play alternate tunes so he could play a bit more!
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by RockyRoader
Re: To pay or not to pay!
That's because you don't have pounds any more bb, but $'s.
Seriously though, that may be a bit out of date, now. Regular paid sessions would deffo get you £20-£30, and occasionally more, £35-£45.
I agree John, the private affair syndrome. I've gone along to other peoples' paid sessions and you get the feeling sometimes you should tread lightly. But they, as I would, generally welcome extra help, and it gives the impression of being a real open session (though it isn't really.)
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: To pay or not to pay!
All sessions are different. The landlord knows about running a pub, musicians know about sessions, so the wise landlord leaves it up to the musicians.
Unpaid musicians go alonmg because they know that the music will be on. I attend many sessions on that basis, and do not begrudge the paid musicians. Likewise the unpaid musicians do not begrudge me on a Sunday night.
As for being exclusive, I wish. If anyone turns up with a banjo on a Sunday our banjo player immediately gives way, and proceeds to talk to people for the rest of the night. He claims to be in charge of the ambient side of the session.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Our local session existed for about 10 years as a volunteer session. The owners at our first venue did not provide anything free (except a drink at the Christmas party or on St. Pat's), and obviously no pay. When the pub closed after the first 5 years, we had a lot of trouble finding a place that was open to having a session at all, and moved about 3 times to different places.
Finally a new pub opened, part of a small chain, and they already had an established policy of a tab and payment for the session from their other locations. As the de facto session organizer, I suddenly had to decide how to handle the situation...
I decided to try this:
1 free drink per musician, and 2 paid session leaders each week to split the money. This has worked out pretty well, with about 6 rotating leaders, depending on who is available. The rest of the tab covers a few plates of snacks for the musicians.
Every 2 months or so I send out an email to find out who is available and when, and try to schedule everyone at least once a month. So far, it's worked pretty well.
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by azfiddle
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Oh, and I forgot to add, the session has more participation than it did before we moved to this place, and no complaints so far. People seem to appreciate having a certain amount of "leadership"....
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by azfiddle
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Our session has two paid leaders, a banjo player and a piper. I'd say it's a good thing. I suspect the session would die out if they weren't always there.And lots of people show up, not just the paid leaders. And I especially like it, because if one of the leaders can't be there, they've started naming me thier substitute, and I get the money!
# Posted on April 24th 2007 by seisflutes
Re: To pay or not to pay!
"suzerainty"
Dogmageek - I haven't been eating my dictionary recently. What does that word mean?
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by ragaman
Re: To pay or not to pay!
...and how do you pronounce it?
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by ragaman
Re: To pay or not to pay!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzerainty
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: To pay or not to pay!
As a fellow member of BBliss 'outfit' i can indeed confirm that the banjo player will walk off and talk to anyone in the bar if another banjo comes through the door. He'll talk for twice as long if the accomplice is a GAA member.
As for the topic in hand, i agree with bliss, but then as a i get paid i would!
But like him, i do not begrudge anyone who gets paid at a session that i'm visiting.
I view it as kind of natural selection, those who get paid at a particular session tend to provide the core of it. Sessions i'll visit will have players better than me who i want to learn from and therefore they are more essential to the session than me.
Q.E.D.
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by jfiddlerh
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Few ideas to kick around. If we get our session up - find a pub
! There are about five of us who can form the core but two of us won't be there that much. I travel a lot. So does one of the others and we've been trying to suss out a few sessions around the place NZ, Aust, couple is US and beyond but can never work out the payment bit. We've also had a few bad experiences like the one where there were heaps of songs (and some bad ones too) and not many tunes so we want to try to avoid attracting that kind of environment.
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by dos
Re: To pay or not to pay!
If you have to pay people to keep a session going, then is it really a session? Isn't a session a group of people who get together for the tunes and the company?
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by mehere
Re: To pay or not to pay!
Or is that a whole new can of worms?
# Posted on April 25th 2007 by mehere
Yes mehere:
If you have to pay people to keep a session going, then
it is really a session. Even though a session is a group
of people who get together for the tunes and the company,
the tunes and the company could be less than par for the
punters. If I had played in a session before about five
years' worth of playing ... Thankfully I had to report
directly to that school teacher fiddler lady so she could
keep me on track and in line with session format rules
why, without her we could have gone out of control.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by dogmageek