First, this is not a windup. I can appreciate a windup, like "What to do?" (though for my taste that particular thread was a bit too obvious from the very start), and I have tried to start one or two two myself, such as "Software for putting tunes into sets".
I mention this because I know that "performance" is one of the keywords in the culture of the yellow board. It is not alone. The humour surrounding bodhrans, banjos, clarinets, shaky eggs, diminished and augmented chords, the boom-chuck rhythm and a few others is quite obvious to me, as are the reasons why many of us hate some of the above. (No, let's not worry here about which of the above are just traditional joke-fodder and which really are horrible.)
What I can't grasp is why "performance" is anathema to anybody here. Yes, I know that there have been many, many discussions about it in the past, but that the very reason why searching old discussions has not helped much. There is such a mass of opinion and argument, quibbling over the structure of sentences and definitions of words that I am lost. Although I have been a member here for several years, it's really only this year that I have joined in discussions much, and perhaps if I'd followed all that stuff from beginning to end I would grasp what it's about. But it's too late for that.
So can anybody tell me in a reasonably clear and simple way (and preferably a non-contentious way that people on both sides of the argument would accept) just what the issue is? Why is "performing" a problem for anybody who likes to play music? Isn't it just fun? Admittedly, the standard of my performance on my current instrument of choice has a lot of what we might politely call "room for improvement", but that's not really the point. Surely, whether we are sat at home with a couple of friends, in public in a pub at an open session with a larger audience who may be listening more or less closely, or actually up on a stage in front of people who've specifically paid to watch and listen - it is huge fun. Isn't it? If not, why are we interested in a performing art like music? We would be better off expressing our creativity by writing novels at a small table in a cafe or painting in a private studio.
I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything, nor am I asking to be persuaded. But I would like to know just what the issue about "performance" actually is.
If you don't see a Session as a performance (I Did say "if"), then performance would have to be pretty much not what a Session website is all about.
Some people feel that introducing money has a negative impact on the music.
Others feel that in the session context "Performance" = "grandstanding".
Those of us who play in gigs or on stage are "performing", just as classical musicians playing in an orchestral concert are also "performing".
What I'd like to know is, if I'm playing with a band accompanying set dancers (usually no audience other than those dancers "sitting out" or others actively involved in the event), am I "performing" within the meaning of the Act?
From what I gather, you are defining "performance" in this context as playing music in a venue for the express purpose of entertaining others.
Let's present two extremes. In one, the performer(s) simply present their music with seemingly little or no awareness that there is an audience to listen to them. The performers' assumption is that the audience has a considerable investment and interest in the music "as is," and therefore does not particularly care about, say, "stage presence" or arrangements with any degree of complexity.
At the other extreme would be performers who are quite conscious and aware of their overall presentation, from what they wear to what they say in between songs/tunes, and do arrange the music with a certain amount of forethought and deliberation.
There are, of course, many points along the spectrum between these two extremes, and that's what makes for so much animated chatter, at thesession.org and elsewhere. At what point does a performer's "awareness" of playing for the audience lead him/her to possibly compromise the music's character? Or is it really "compromise"? Is it perhaps simply innovation and inspiration?
I readily admit to being a "performer." I like trying out different ways of presenting songs or tunes in ways I think -- and hope -- are perhaps "creative," and perform these in the appropriate settings; and yeah, "appropriate settings" is the whole key here, isn't it?
But I also am very happy to play this music without any kind of affectation or self-consciousness. I think one kind of presentation helps to strengthen the other kind.
Dunno if any of this makes sense or goes to your point, but I sure enjoyed writing it.
You just know that if someone starts off a thread saying "this is not a windup", then it's going to be a windup. Don't think it'll work tho', unless you can get some newbies to argue about it.
I have run afoul of the "session is not performance" sentiment here myself in the past. You have raised an excellent question, one which I predict will be answered with sarcasm, lame attempts at humor, rants, ad hominem attacks, and hopefully a bit of useful information somewhere in the mix.
I personally don't see what the big deal is. "Playing" and "performing" are more or less synonymous to me, because, in terms of what I actually am doing when I am playing in my dining room, or when I am playing in a session, or when I am playing on a stage, there is very little difference. But the very idea that people in "the crowd", those who are not playing instruments in a session, might be thinking of the session musicians as some sort of free concert, as some sort of performance at least partially for the entertainment of those in the crowd, is something so dreadful, so hideous and awful to some here that the mere mention of such a possibility sends them into fits.
Now, if you continue along the path of "performance", sooner or later you do run into things that many "serious" musicians find tedious and downright odious -- having to play "Danny Boy" and "Fields of Athenry" over and over (or "Mustang Sally" for that matter), having spice up your style with drums and electric guitars, etc. So perhaps any step whatsoever in the direction of worrying about what the crowd thinks of your playing represents some sort of defeat of the musical purity of a session, where you are playing for your own enjoyment. But honestly, it's a safe bet that for decent musicians, playing that leads to your own enjoyment will also tend to be playing that is enjoyable for others to listen to as well, so like it or not, what you are doing is perfectly passable as a type of performance, even you don't like to be reminded of it.
In my mind, there is a difference, but both are just fine. Playing music with other people with little or no audience (people listening without playing) is certainly very enjoyable. However, so is getting on a stage and showing off (and getting paid for it!). IMO, some people take the "give the audience what it wants" approach a little too far, but that's their problem, not ours.
Dow: "You just know that if someone starts off a thread saying "this is not a windup", then it's going to be a windup."
Anyone is free to treat is as such if they want, of course, but I did not mean that way.
And Mark, I know full well that you are one of the people with vigorous views on this subject - my reading got me that far. What is the issue for you?
sts wrote: "..you are defining "performance" in this context as playing music in a venue for the express purpose of entertaining others." I'm not quite sure who you are addressing here. Quite likely the whole question does revolve around definition. I only understand the word in a general sense, something like "executing the playing". There is an implication that an audience is potentially present - what else is music for? Whether they have paid or not has very little to do with my own understanding of the word.
And crazy-fingerz suggested that: "... the very idea that people in "the crowd" ... might be thinking of the session musicians as some sort of free concert ... at least partially for the entertainment of those in the crowd" is objectionable to some. Can someone who holds that view (or at least a mild and reasonable version of it) say why?
So far I still only know that some people react negatively to the word "performance", but I still haven't grasped why.
Just accept that some people don't like the idea that a session might be considered a performance and others see it as one. Please do not let this thread sink into arguing that jaded question again. It is a mixture of semantics and attitudes rather than objective facts.
I always wonder when reading the 'Discussions' if one style of the Irish session is disappearing. In most, if not all, mention of individual sessions they are more or less public. I consider it a session when we play in someone's kitchen with only the musicians present. That is a bit off topic so I will get back to your question.
I have a great deal of respect for one musician who has spoken on this topic - Jerry Holland. He talks about Irish style sessions vs. Cape Breton as well as the performance aspect of playing. I highly recommend reading the interview on his website;
An Interview With Jerry Holland
Excerpts from Fiddler Magazine, Vol.6 No.4. http://www.jerryholland.com/press.htm
Donough, in a fitting plea not to let the discussion sink, suggested accepting that "some people don't like the idea that a session might be considered a performance". Not a bad idea, but the thing is, I don't know whether I agree with them or not because I just don't know what they mean by that. It is still not even slightly clear what the issue is about.
I'll take Boojum's question at face value and give my honest answer.
I've played gigs and concerts. I also play in small local pub and house sessions. In the first instance, I am always "performing," in the sense of actively, consciously entertaining an audience. In those situations, we pre-arrange our tunes into sets, we do a lot more songs, we all face the audience, and some of us talk and otherwise interact directly with the audience to keep them entertained between sets. For serious gigs, we usually rehearse at least a few times, and we make up a written set list. For big gigs, we'ved use a sound system in these settings, so we show up early to do a sound check. I'm not a big fan of playing trad music through speakers--it's less intimate than a purely acoustic setting, and I like hearing the actual instruments, rather than the soundwaves made by speakers. But sometimes it's the only way to reach a big audience.
Such performances are a rush, and I've enjoyed doing them. (I used to be a professional performer, both as a musician and as a juggler, earning a living at each, when I was younger.)
Sessions, for me, are different from performances, although some sessions certainly share a lot of qualities with performances as I described them above.
I prefer a session style that is not performance oriented at all. By this I mean that the musicians are playing simply for the sake of playing the tunes, not to impress or entertain anyone. In this kind of session, I play because I enjoy the physical act of re-creating the tunes, of feeling the breath come into them, of hearing them ricochet around the room. The tunes themselves are the center of attention, not the people playing them or listening to them.
For me, the distinctions between these two approaches to playing the music are important. A non-performance session lets us musicians:
- be more spontaneous, stringing tunes together on the fly, without pre-arranging sets.
- learn tunes on the fly.
- play with more abandon, which sometimes leads to clinkers and mistakes, but that doesn't matter--they become avenues for new ideas.
- lose ourselves in the music and "live inside the tune."
- play freely what we want to play, without worrying whether the "audience" is getting bored with the 12th reel in a row. Ditch the internal editor or music critic and just play what comes to mind.
- Put the instruments down and just visit, laugh, listen to stories, eat the cookies that someone brought, drink....
For me, these qualities make this type of session more fun and enjoyable. They also feel more inclusive, with no divide between "performer" and "audience." Everyone's a participant, part of the circle, even if they're sitting outside the actual circle of chairs.
In my experience, the more a session feels like a performance, the less likely these qualities will prevail. Performance oriented sessions tend to favor pre-determined sets, a limit on how long you can pause between sets before someone insists on more tunes or a song, and more "grandstanding" - people playing to impress. Which too often results in stale show-off tunes being played in overwrought well-rehearsed arrangements, the same exact way we heard them last time.
This is just my experience. YMMV.
I'm not particularly interested in participating in sessions that run to the performance end of the spectrum, but it doesn't bother me that some people like them that way. I think people who never get away from the sense of performing are missing some really fun aspects of this music, but that's their choice. I'm not riled by that.
What does get under my skin is the broken record of derisive, dismissive, and misrepresenting comments of some people (e.g., bliss's above) that suggest I am deluding myself, or that I am anti-performance in all situations. Too many previous threads on this topic hinged on someone's claim that "you MUST be performing if someone else in the room is being entertained by your playing." This simply misses the unselfconscious qualities of the sessions I've described above, and discounts even the possibility that I feel, think, and act very differently when I'm performing for an audience than I do when I'm playing for the tune, unaware and uncaring whether anyone else is listening or not.
I've been in both settings--on stage in front of a crowd, and lost amongst friends and neighbors in a long set where nothing else exists but the skirl and pulse of the tunes and the tang of porter in my mouth. If some people don't believe me, that's fine. But it gets old seeing them insist over and over that I shouldn't believe myself. It's none of their business. I'm certainly not telling them they can't perform at their sessions.
Suffice to say that some people don't feel like they are performing when they are playing in a session the way that they might feel when they are on stage at a gig. But whilst they are "not performing", the punter has come to the pub specially to listen to the Irish Music session which he loves. To him this is a performance.
The bottom line is whether in fact a session becomes a performance once there is one person there who views it as such. Indeed one could even argue that in his kitchen session Dow is performing to the other musicians - Not my opinion I hasten to add!
Donough, your points have been specifically addressed in previous threads. Not all punters see a session as a performance. Many (sometimes *all*) of the people who come to our session understand that it is *not* a performance. It's just a time in a pub where some people play music, some people talk, some people read, some people eat and drink, and we're all in it together. And I've experienced this in many other sessions.
Is it a performance to simply enjoy one another's company, while doing things we like to do?
I realize that this is a strange, almost impossible concept for people raised on the likes of "American Idol" and the celebrity worship that passes for culture these days. But it surprises me how many people here--on a web site dedicated to a musical tradition with its roots in ktichen dances, crossroad ceilis, lilting, and late nights around the fire simply playing tunes--how many people here have such a hard time even imagining such as thing as "music as community."
Over the years, I've noticed that the non-musicians in a "music as community" session behave very differently than an audience at a performance would. They visit with the musicians, sometimes sitting right with us. They're much more likely to join in on songs, or to tell a story or joke between tunes. Some bring treats for everyone to share. Some will start a song of their own. Some dance. They tend not to applaud.
There are all sorts of cues that our session isn't a performance:
- Some of us sit with our backs to the rest of the bar. We sit around our own table, just like every other group of people in the pub.
- We don't use a sound system. It's easy for people to find a place to sit where they can't hear us if they don't want to.
- We don't start at a hard-and-fast time. We take breaks to talk, get up and stretch, etc. Sometimes a musician or two will be eating while the rest of us are playing. Sometimes we're all chowing down on Gayle's homemade cookies.
- We don't treat anyone in the pub like an audience. We don't announce our tunes, we don't ask them to quit talking or making noise, we don't expect them to listen, or to pay us any attention at all.
- Sometimes the willowy tapstress gives one of us a neck massage while everyone else is playing.
- We don't do pre-arranged sets. We don't rehearse--and anyone who is paying attention can tell. Sometimes players go into different tunes at the turn. Sometimes only one person keeps playing at the turn until others hear what the new tune is and join in. Sometimes everything trainwrecks and we all laugh.
- Sometimes someone gets a wild hair and plays non-stop reels for 20 minutes or more.
- Sometimes we noodle through the start of a tune, or the B part, just to referesh our memories before starting it. Sometimes someone starts a tune while someone else is trying to start a different tune. Sometimes people learn tunes on the fly. Sometimes someone will shout out a request to keep playing a tune so they can get it. Sometimes we'll play a tune we've just learned and it's still a bit rough around the corners.
- Musicians sometimes wander in two hours after the first music was played. Sometimes musicians leave early. Different musicians show up on different nights. Musicians sometimes stand up in the middle of tunes and leave to go to the loo or visit a friend.
Given these cues, even most newcomers quickly realize that we're not a band, that we're not playing music "for" them, that there is no program or set routine, and there's not much sense in their having any expectations of "entertainment" from us. That said, some people enjoy the whole thing precisely because it's so laidback, casual, neighborly, and integrated, much like a potluck.
Heh, one more thought. In Boojum's first post, he asks, if we don't like performing, then "why are we interested in a performing art like music?"
It's a good question, but based on too narrow a premise.
That is, that music (and dance, too) is and *must * be a "performing art."
I understand that today, most of the music and dance we see and hear is presented as a performance. It's part of an attitude we've inherited from the formal Western ethos of Music with a capital M.
But this is a relatively recent development. For thousands of years, music and dance were community and private activities. For some of us, they still are.
Few music traditions remain as strongly rooted in this community-based approach as Irish trad, and the local session *can* be a powerful expression of that mindset if people want it to be. Indeed, a recent thread here was just lamenting the loss of this community feel in Ireland, and people here said that it still exists in some places. It also still exists at some sessions here in North America. And I imagine elsewhere--the UK, Oz, etc.
I enjoy helping to keep that spirit alive, partly as an antidote to our star-crazed pop culture, but mostly as a fun, positive way to bring my own friends and neighbors together once a week. It's wonderful to live in a place where people share a sense of community. A session is one small, simple, enjoyable way to foster that.
I'd go so far as to say that if you find yourself in a session playing a tune on your own that nobody else knows, if you get a clap at the end, then you've failed and should give up and go home before you embarrass yourself any more. If the reaction at the end is "that was a nice tune" with no clapping, then you've been successful in wordlessly communicating to your fellow musicians that your intention was not to perform the tune, but simply to share it.
That means you like performing, which I've noticed before, incidentally, and it probably means your perception of what was taking place at Kelly's session every week was quite different to the other musicians'.
I shouldn't have said you "failed and should go home" etc. I suppose it's just a different way of viewing things and I should live and let live. I'm just much more interested in sharing tunes than either performing them or watching someone else performing in a session. That's just me though.
There are lots of reasons to play music other than performance. Music can be self expression, self soothing, self energizing, or a way to communicate, bond, share, give solace, etc.
Music is played to woo, to frighten in war, to vent anger, to celebrate, to incite, to pass the time.
Yes I do, not that I'm particularly good at it. I would have thought that everybody's perception would differ to some extent. Was there some common perception I might have missed out on? It never struck me, but I don't know how to go about figuring that out. Don't most players like a bit of applause once in a while?
Possibly yes. I personally don't like applause from other musicians. If someone applauds my tune playing, I feel that I've failed in my effort to communicate my intention in playing the tune. I don't care if I get applause from punters or not. Most of them don't understand what a session is, and not do I expect them to. If they applaud I'd acknowledge it out of politeness, but I wouldn't seek it actively.
Well although I think I have a better idea now of what some people's issue with "performance" is, it's not one that I really feel. My experience in general has been that people in sessions and similar settings usually do a mix of things - playing tunes together is a big one of course, but some might do a song or two, there would be a solo (or near-solo, maybe a "duet") here and there, someone else might even do a recitation. The boundary between sessioning and performing seems to me totally soft. Everybody contributes something, maybe a lot, maybe a little, the quality may be high, or it may not. Some of the punters listen constructively and intelligently, some don't listen at all. And some applaud on occasion.
But I'm risking actually getting drawn into the discussion of whether it's a good thing or not. Really I just wanted to understand why anybody would have a problem with "performing", and I think I do now.
That's fine, but you need to understand that when you choose a tune you know nobody else knows, and you perform it for the enjoyment of performing it and getting applause, you are forcing everyone else at the session to conform to your ideal of performance. This doesn't work the other way round, because if you're not intending to perform, you're simply playing for playing's sake, and you're not forcing anything on anybody. Bear in mind that some people get a bit irritated when that "performance" ideal is forced on them in a session.
"when you choose a tune you know nobody else knows, and you perform it for the enjoyment of performing it and getting applause.."
Do you think that happens often? Were there people at Kelly's who's purpose was to get applause? I'm at risk of losing the thread again here.
By the way, is Kelly's beyond resurrection? Leaving aside a "perception of what was taking place", it was a great session, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses it.
I'll try to answer this without using the word performance (all right, I used it then, but I won't again), because it shouldn't be an argument about semantics. It's an argument about attitude, and there are no grey areas or overlap.
It's simply about what is relevant to you when you play, what influences your playing, what informs your choices - from what tune in what key right down to what speed, what variation and when, what volume etc, right down to the smallest of nuances.
If "how it will be perceived" influences in even the tiniest of ways any of your musical choices, then you are not playing for entirely yourself.
It's not easy, and as with many aspects of this music, there are inherent contradictions, but try to think of it more as a goal than an absolute state of nivarna.
Most importantly, it has nothing to do with how you are actually perceived. There could be any number of people actually listening to you and even appreciating it. But the trick is to blank this as irrelevant. (This is where the applause thing is just bloody annoying, it reminds you there are punters there and breaks the concentration. Unlike Dow, who is polite, I either blank it or if I'm week, show my annoyance.)
A conundrum arises when playing with others, you obviously have to let them into your head, and they must let you into theirs. But this can be solved satisfactorily by focusing purely on the music, not trying to impress, rather to simultaneously accommodate and influence.
Why is all this important? Well it's simply because if you find yourself in a situation where you are trying to play with people who are trying to impress, it's just a bloody useless waste of time
And the end of one of our sessions a while ago, someone came up and told me we should turn towards our "audience", open the circle into a semi-circle, and other such performance-like things, and would not countenance my explanationthat we were doing something diferent.
To me a session is not a performance because the audience is not important, it is simply external to the conversations, musical and verbal, between a peer group. I would hope that the individuals in the group are non-judgemental, welcoming and encouraging to novices, all eager to learn and be stimulated by what each other may bring to the meeting, yet acknowledging and applauding in whatever way they choose the best of what each other contributes. It is an opportunity to join in together, both to learn the new, and to repeat the old, loved, and familiar.
Whereas, in a performance, you have the performer, presenting, and the audience, accepting.
Isn't that plain enough ?
And I have performed many times, in folk clubs, concerts, and ceilidhs, so I think I know the difference.
It depends on why you're playing. If you're playing for yourself, with no real consideration of how anyone else percieves it, it's not a perfomance. If you suddenly realise some girl you quite like is sitting across the table from you, and start trying to show off a bit then, in your head, you're performing (although just a bit) because you're no longer playing for just yourself. If you're playing for the appreciation of the 'punters' then it can be safely concluded that you've gone beyond the point of no return into the realm of performance.
The reason people object to this that if you're playing (and playing with other people) entirely for yourself, then you're going to fit more easily into the session unit because maintaining the flow is paramount. If you're trying to impress other people, your desire to be impressive means you must stand out above everyone else, and so the dynamic of the group is affected: and this will have a negative effect on everyone else's enjoyment. This is particularly important in more traditional sessions.
Michael's point and mine are similar.
Outside of a session, at a gig or folk club or whatever, you're playing for other people's enjoyment. So, if you don't want to have to adjust what you do, the trick is to choose your audience (thus venue) carefully.
Ceilidhs were held in homes, in the kitchen like Dow, or the sitting room, and they were not dances but a crowd gathering to talk and play a bit of music.
Yes, musicians perform at both.
But often they don't perform. We'e been through this Mr Bliss, the fact that you are unable to differentiate is your loss. But as you'd probably admit, such subleties are lost on a humble bodhran player
If I'm asked to play a request, or if I'm playing the sort of music that the listeners know and appreciate, that to me is a performance. On the other hand if I'm backing a singer for instance, the singer is performing and my music is incidental. I wouldn't call a session a performance as such, especially when it consists of bits of tunes played to see if anybody knows it first. Then dropping in and out at will, and ending with the odd Joe Cooley type of finish eg: 'That will do'
My first thought when I saw this thread was the old joke "Why is a banjo like an artillery shell? Because by the time you hear them coming it is too late." In other words, "Why is a discussion of performance like an artillery shell?"
I disagree with llig, when he says that there are no grey areas or overlap. Performance is not a binary, go/no-go issue. It is not like pregnancy, where someone either is or isn't. When the expectations of others are involved, you begin to move up the "scale of performance." When you play alone, you are playing for yourself. When you are playing at a house party, your fellow players begin to enter in, and their expectations become part of things. When you play in a pub session, even those where playing to the audience is a small part of the goings-on, the publican who is willing to host you, and buy you beer, has some expectations--keep the music flowing at a somewhat steady clip, or whatever. And at the top of the performance scale, you get paid to make an audience happy. Only playing alone, and getting paid to entertain the audience, are purely non-performance or performance. All the others have some element of performance.
In my opinion, of course......
Yes, most musical gatherings have elements of both, in more or less quantities. But that doesn't mean there are grey areas in the definitions of the concept. Let's make this clear, it's a goal to strive to ... to make the concept of audience irrelevant. To not let the concept of audience influence your music.
Maybe some people regard a session as a performance and some don't ,Its up to the indivdual but I do think that if its entertainment of any sort its a performance whether you like it or not................
Saint, you missed the point. It's irrelevant if people are entertained. There was a whole argument about this the last time and I just want to lay it to rest. Just because some one might walk into a pub and think, from their perspective, that you are performing, does not mean you are. But more than that, it doesn't matter whether they think it's a performance or not. The trick is to completely blank not only their reactions to the music, but their very presence.
However, my gripe is with players in a session who regard it as a performance.
Al, as I said above, it is possible to play in a pub without anyone having expectations of a performance. I do it all the time. Even the barkeep "gets it." If a newcomer wanders in and happens to applaud after a spate of tunes, it's not just us musicians who are surprised out of our reverie--even the other punters and wait staff give the newbie a funny look, like "What was all that commotion? Just let 'em play."
As in previous threads on this topic, we have people posting here who apparently have never experienced a session as communion, but only a session with some aspect of performance. I can understand that--our pop culture emphasizes (and rewards) that attitude. Indeed, I know several musicians who seem incapable of not performing. They seek an audience's attention and appreciation, to garner applause and recognition for their skill and talent.
All power to them, if that's what they want. Some of us are after something different.
I don't understand why some people here are so intent on using their performance-oriented experience to tell me my non-performance-oriented experience cannot happen. That's the rub.
Yes, you are right Will. But as I said above about it not mattering whether whether punters think it's a performance or not, it also doesn't matter if Saint or Mr Bodhran Bliss think it's a performance either.
Though where it does matter, is when someone you are trying to have a tune with thinks it's a performance and starts to play to the audience. Or often worse, when the start to play "to" the other musicianns.
Is this thread a regular session?
I cannot help but notice some of the usual players.
I wonder if we have any punters.
Most entertaining! Brilliant! Bravo!
I think CPT put it eloquently in his first couple of posts in this thread. However, I had an interesting revelation last night about this very thing.
I regularly attend a session in Denver. This is a session which is really all for the players. It's at an Irish Pub that understands that, even if the punters don't always, and many of them treat it as a "free performance". Which is fine, as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter how the punters treat it, what matters is how the players treat it. And in the case of this session, it's really about sharing tunes and craic.
The last two Sundays, however, couldn't have been more different.
Last week, the only people in the establishment were players and staff for most of the evening. Most of us were tired, and the session was nice, but rather low-key, and broke up fairly early.
Last night, the place was pretty crowded, there was a lot of whooping and hollering, clapping, foot stomping, and other generally rowdy behavior from the mostly drunken crowd. (Many of whom were probably left over from the baseball game that ended a few hours prior, in which the home team had beat one of their arch rivals.)
The "revelation" was that the punters are PART of the equation, but that still doesn't make it a performance. Their energy contributes to the energy of the situation (even when they're being annoying). So while the fact that they were there didn't change the manner of our playing (coming up with tune sets on the fly, all facing each other, talking and joking between sets, losing ourselves inside the music, etc), it DID make a difference in the session.
Last night was a blast, we played way later than we usually do. We played a number of things that we hadn't played in ages. The energy of the players and punters combined to make the night something completely unique.
But I submit to you that just because the punters were there, were entertained, and were part of what was happening, it didn't make it a performance. We weren't playing for the punters, we were playing for ourselves. We weren't amplified, we weren't facing the "audience", we didn't care what their reaction was, and we weren't playing to impress anyone.
So llig, are you saying that just by the very fact that we didn't "completely blank not only their reactions to the music, but their very presence", we made it into a performance?
Pete, in my experience, the other people in the pub can and often do influence the craic and music--***because they are participants too***. That's precisely my point--we are playing music and having craic ***with*** them, not "to" them.
Live music creates beauty that is transitory, only existing in the ear of the beholder. Why would one want to block out people who are participating in the process, even if just by listening? I understand that you would not want to "pander" to an "audience," and understand that feedback from those listening are only a tiny part of what is happening in some situations.
Last night at the pub, other than chatting with one man who was there to hear his music teacher play, and a woman who sang a song with us, and other than hearing scattered applause in the background from time to time, we didn't pay much attention to the folks who weren't playing--we focused on the music we were making together. So I get what people are saying about the fact that sessions are not like paid performances, where the hired person has an obligation to entertain the others.
But this subject has always left me a bit mystified. It seems that some are arguing that we should not just fail to notice the people who are not playing, but deliberately ignore them. If I were to pursue a goal, it would be to break down barriers between "punters" and "dancers" and "players," and make us all part of the communal process--one with our fellow man, so to speak. And that is how I would get rid of the "audience," not by ignoring some of those present. And Will, it sounds to me like your session site, where everyone "gets it," actually fits that criteria--some people are playing and some are not, but no barriers involved.
Of course, now my head is spinning from all this philosophical contemplation, so maybe I better just play a few tunes to clear my head.....
I wish everyone would stop messing up my nice, relaxing, recreational session with all this formal performance nonsense.
"So come all ye, I do things my way,
I do what I like when I sing and I play.
If this you don't like, then get up on your bike,
FOR IT'S EQUAL TO ME IF YOU GO OR YOU STAY!"
Ahh, but SWFL Fiddler, my point was that it's NOT equal if the punters go or stay. I may not CARE whether they go or stay, but it's a different experience just by the fact that they're there (or not).
At sessions the musicians don't talk to the audience between sets, or tailor everything they do to the listener's desires for entertainment.
At performances, well, that's the whole point. Seems easy to me.
Rev, here's the rest of that masterpiece. Took me long enough to find it, eh?
The Pub Musician's Complaint
Say two Acts of Contrition for the poor pub musician,
If I have a son that's one thing he won't be.
He's to put up with chances and trickies and shysters,
And publicans dropping 10 quid from the fee.
But the worst of them all is that drunken old know-all,
That musical expert and self-made MC.
So if you've any notion to make a commotion,
I beg your attention you'll pay now to me.
(Chorus)
Come all you fleadh boys I do things my way,
I do what I want when I sing and I play.
If this you don't like them get up on your bike,
For it's equal to me if you go or you stay.
Now we're sitting down here and we're playing a few tunes,
It's the grandest session that we've played in years,
But if God be my judge there's some ignorant moron,
And in no time at all he'll be all bored to tears,
With his "Won't you play this one?" and "Can't you play that one?
Play some piece of rock and we'll liven this place!"
But says I "You old gobsh*te you wouldn't know rock
If it got up and clocked you straight into your face!"
(Chorus)
Now that same individual won't be there when you start,
But he'll surely be there when you've finished your stint.
For he must make a tour of all other locations,
And he only comes in when he can't get more drink.
He'll exhort you to play just to keep the bar open,
He'll sing an old dirge without rhythm or rhyme,
Some nonsensical drivel that he can't remember,
And yet he'll keep singing the same old three lines.
(Chorus)
Now every known creature has a female equivalent,
And this one's no different (the insulting old cow).
As drunk as a lord and she's singing dischorded,
She'll wonder why you can't accompany her now?
But myself, having manners, will say "I don't know it,
Besides the time has gone on and it's time to go home."
But what I'd like to say is "I don't want to play it,
Now would you kindly feck off and leave me alone?"
I just skimmed through this thread, and I must say, I do not understand what the debate is about.
Myself, I simply play. Sometimes with others, sometimes alone, sometimes for pay, sometimes merely for pleasure. But whatever the case, I play, just to try and make some music, and perhaps share it if anyone wants to listen. The line between "performing" and "session-playing" does not even seem worth drawing, it seems mostly a matter of semantics and viewpoint in most of the contexts I read above anyway.
Is this a cultural thing I am not familiar with? It seems very possible, especially after learning above that ceilidhs are not dances (I have had that wrong for a very long time, please do not judge me too harshly - I do not speak Irish or Scots Gaelic).
Perhaps I am missing something or some local connotation regarding the terms "performing" and "performance" as well.
Al, the way to bring everyone in the room together--no barriers between us and them--is to just play the music for its own sake. That's the surest way for us all to enjoy it for what it is, rather than getting wrapped around the axel over anyone's virtuousity or lack thereof, or whether the music is "good" or not.
So I don't actively "block out" the fact that other people are in the room. For me, they are part of the experience. But not as an audience. Not even as listeners. For me, all the people in the room are just part of the experience of playing the music--they affect the ambient mood--I'm happy to see friends, or I might know that one person has just recovered from a bad illness, or we're all a bit glum because a elder of the tribe has passed on--and that comes out in the music. But they're an ***input*** not just spectators, or something I output to.
The difference is that I'm not thinking about their expectations or pandering to them the way I do when performing for an audience.
Sometimes a session starts off small and cozy, but then a crowd comes in from the big sports event, or the pub just fills up with new people. And they turn into an audience, clapping at the end of every set, making requests for Danny Boy, asking us if they can buy our cd. For me, that's when I end up blocking out their existence, at least while I'm actually playing the tunes. I still try to play what I want to play, how I want to play it, for its own sake. But it's harder in this situation, and some of the musicians may start playing to the crowd. I can have fun at these sorts of sessions too, but I prefer the community-style I've described above.
Fair enough, Rook. But I've been playing music for more than 30 years, in formal gigs and concerts, competitions, and in all sorts of sessions, jams, and other informal settings. It took me a while to figure out what I liked and didn't like about the different settings, and eventually I found I had a strong preference for one over the other. I came to realize that a gig is very different from a "music as community" session. It helps me (and apparently some other folks here) to be clear about what sort of playing I'm doing, and what my motives are. It's made me a better player, and the experiences at one end of the spectrum have been much more enjoyable for me. Anyone else's mileage may vary.
cpt, I like what you said there--"play the music for its own sake"--that is what I was trying to express. And agree that, in the real world, sometimes, and regrettably, blocking out some distractions is a necessary measure to continue pursuing music for its own sake.
Mind you, I'm not saying anyone else has to adopt my approach or attitude. Some people genuinely prefer performing. I'm glad they do--I enjoy going to concerts. Some people prefer their sessions to lean toward the performance approach. Fine by me. I'll even happily play in some of those once in a while.
But I'm really glad I have a bunch of friends--players and non-players alike--where I live who understand and value the distinction, who enjoy just getting together for tunes, pints, and craic.
In a nutshell, the distinction is what you hope to feel at the end of playing a tune.
Some people are tickled pink when someone else says, "Stellar playing there! You're quite a player!"
Others are fully satisfied with a simple, "Terrific tune, that one."
And still others need nothing more than the echoes of the tune just played, well explored, before moving on to the next.
I am not a fiddle virtuouso. I'm well aware of my shortcomings as a musician. I don't need to be a brilliant fiddler to play this music, and to do it justice. If people clap, I assume that they liked the tune (not my playing) as much as I do. The ones who come back week after week, never clapping, are the ones who I know appreciate the music and craic itself.
Well, I don't think of it as playing the music for it's own sake... at least in the strictest sense. The tune doesn't care whether it gets played...
For me, it's using the music as a way of interaction with other human beings, or sometimes as introspection into the experience of being human. Using music as a way of interacting is in many ways more fulfilling to me personally than talking. (Although, any good session needs both )
The interaction can be mutual, between myself, anyone else playing, and anyone else listening. Or it can simply be an 'action', or one directional communication, between me, the original author of the tune, and the people who taught me to play.
"we are playing music and having craic ***with*** them, not "to" them."
I like that.
I read these discussions and sometimes it seems quite intimidating as a newbie because I don't want to ruin the whole thing with my poor playing, noodling, or whatever.
There is certainly an aspect of "performance", but not really in the "to the audience" kind of performance. As a newbie I practice every day in hopes I can be good enough to play with you all, that when you hear me play, it's worthy of the permission you gave me to pull up a chair.
If that isn't some kind of performance, I don't know what is, because it sure gives me performance anxiety.
If you're anxious, then you're probably thinking of it as a performance. That makes it a performance for you, even if no one else in the room sees it that way.
Try focusing instead on the music itself, rather than your playing of it. That's one of the beauties of not performing at a session--it's more relaxing.
My hunch is that this is easier after more experience.
This is just one example of how the difference in attitude can make a big difference for some people.
I don't know but when I'm playing in a session I always try to perform my best and I also think once one knows he/she is being watched one automaticlly performs..............
I still find this an interesting topic, but everything in this new thread really has been said before, for both sides of the argument. I was going to suggest that people read the other related threads first, but I don't even think that would help. There really is nothing left to say on the subject - it's all been said already! Clearly people just have different ideas of what a session is. That's clear from the above comments about being a newbie and feeling nervous about playing in sessions because it feels like a performance. I hope threads like this can - if nothing else - be of use to people like this so that they can experiment with this as an anxiety-relieving technique or something.
I must say that it's pretty obvious when you meet a musician in a session who thinks of what they're doing as a "performance". It always comes through in their body language - subtle mannerisms like smiling blissfully to themselves or making silly movements with their upper body to show the listener how deeply they're getting into the music, or little hair flicks at certain moments during their playing. And then nods and a great big grin to acknowledge the applause at the end. Personally I find all that a bit irritating to watch and listen to, to be honest.
Dow, that stuff doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when you're not performing, but then a performance mind set starts to shape the tunes they choose to play and how they play them (flashy but safe--things like Concertina Reel on steroids), and the tendency to raise the volume and pace for no other reason, and other musical histrionics instead of just enjoying the tunes.
Basically, the "performers" in sessions I've been in tend to listen to themselves rather than everyone else, and they tend to play louder and more deliberately, to be heard by everyone else. In my opinion, this doesn't help the overall sound or craic.
And as you can see from Dow and Cheshire above, it depends on what meaning you give to the word "perform". They believe a performance requires one to show off before an audience.
Some of us believe you can perform the complete works of Bach on a desert island, with you being the only person around for hundreds of miles.
This thread (said Johnny-come-lately, i.e. me - I've been off to a wedding in t'Smoke), has attracted the usual regulation quantity of bullsh1t as could have been anticipated. If you go to play music at a session for any other reason than to have fun, there's something wrong with you and I can't see why you bother going. Some of the posts here, especially the longer ones (and you know who you are), are veritable performances in themselves. It's hard to believe that their authors don't go to their sessions and spend most of their time furtively looking around to see how people are reacting to them. Mr Bliss, I hate your instrument but you are a most sound and sane fellow. Well said about Bach. I'm not quite sure how you'd manage the Matthew Passion on a desert island, though, if you were the only person around for hundreds of miles. The man who can both sing and play an oboe d'amore at the same time has yet to be invented.
Sbhikes, do bear in mind that it's far harder to learn the dynamics of playing in a group at a session than it it by forming a small (3 - 5 people) "rehersal band".
If you're playing to perform you (naturally) want to be seen at your best. However, this (in a session) usually results in people pushing themselves too hard and playing sloppily and making mistakes. This naturally degrades the experience for others.
The thing is, to people who do "serious" performances (i.e. those where there's more than 150 people or where there's a payment in excess of £75 each) and the required rehersal time, they're only going to go to a session for themselves. So don't expect them to agree that sessions are performances for them - and accept that one day (hopefully) you'll have experienced serious performance (or any form of playing music when you don't want to), and appreciate just playing music for yourself.
Yes it's all been said before and folks like saint should read it before jumping in. There was one above that made my eyes roll: "I just skimmed through this thread, and I must say, I do not understand what the debate is about." For fecks sake.
And poor old Mr Bliss is still hung up on semantics. (I wish you'd read my post where I don't mention the word)
The reverend pete had an interesting one though. He said that the general mood/size/volume of the bar has an influence on the music, even though the effort is for it not to.
Ideally, I'd like to think that the explanation is straight forward, in that simple background volume is bound to stop you playing quietly, even if you want to. But I'm willing to take on board Will's approach that general ambience is obviously influential on personal mood, and so should be influencing musical decisions. Just so long as you don't miss out the middle bit, i.e., don't choose music that merely fits the ambience, if you mood isn't running with the ambience first. It's a potential contradiction, but that's OK.
Another interesting contradiction is pointed out by Will above. Performers at sessions tend to listen to themselves. Where as to move towards my ideal of non performance in company, means you have to listen very closely to the other musicians.
I think this is a good illustration of "why?" play non performance music. Something we haven't much covered and certainly something that might help those who don't "get it". Quite simply, I think it makes for better music
As to your first point above, the way I think about it is that the other people in the room, the weather, the time of day or night, the quality of the poor, the smell of the place, the humidity--all the qualities of the moment--contribute (some more than others) to how the music happens. So every night is different, and part of the fun is in seeing how the tunes unfold differently than they did last time.
Couldn't agree more on listening to others vs. listening mostly to yourself. Totally different mind set. And my experience too is that it makes for better music.
I must be one of the chosen people. As a bodhran player, I have to listen to everyone else, and try and roll with their mistakes and nuances. And there are plenty of both, as their performance tends to vary, depending on all those influences mentioned by Cheshire above.
Oops, those outside influences affect the session, the non performance.
I always imagined doing a musical impression of Nick Faldo would make one oblivious to all these "influences".
... and it's interesting to look at why it's better music
There is the obvious lack of performance anxiety (though we will no doubt hear the reverse that some degree of performance anxiety makes for a more concentrated performance - deep sigh)
But I found it hard to make the leap to playing non performance music.
I find performing a straight forward task. I don't do it much these days, but looking back, I remember pretty strict criteria. Body language is important, facial expressions etc. The build up, The "up a tone", The planning of the peaks and troughs. The speed. The volume. And most important, the planning of ALL this (not to mention the disguising of it being planned).
I found it hard to make the leap to playing non performance music. Not only because of the safety zone that is planning, but the comfort that the audience gives to your successful planning.
I didn't know how many of you guys are flute players.
Dow-
> If you get a clap at the end, then you've failed and should give up and go home before you embarrass yourself any more
> If someone applauds my tune playing, I feel that I've failed in my effort to communicate my intention in playing the tune
That’s so weird
> I must say that it's pretty obvious when you meet a musician in a session who thinks of what they're doing
> as a "performance". It always comes through in their body language (–––) making silly movements with
> their upper body to show the listener how deeply they're getting into the music, or little hair flicks at certain
> moments during their playing. And then nods and a great big grin to acknowledge the applause at the end.
> Personally I find all that a bit irritating to watch and listen to, to be honest.
Look we can all joke about other people's mannerisms, but after the other stuff you've said that sounds pretty dammed judgemental. You're from the school of studied catatonia then?
Llig-
> It's an argument about attitude, and there are no grey areas or overlap
Spoken like a true Calvinist.
> But the trick is to blank this as irrelevant. (This is where the applause thing is just bloody
> annoying, it reminds you there are punters there
> It's irrelevant if people are entertained.
The only word I can think of is "ungenerous". The spirit of Ivor Cutler's Scotch Sitting Room lives on.
Andy-
> If you suddenly realise some girl you quite like is sitting across the table from you,
> and start trying to show off a bit then, in your head, you're performing
Jeez. Did they take all your blood when they got the flute out?
Some people, on both sides, have written with generosity and understanding. They sound as if they enjoy music. Thank God for that!
Now I must go and play with an attractively shiny grain of sand my father has allowed me as a treat, in return for a promise to keep my cries of delight entirely subdued.
Hmmm, I think you miss my point. I do enjoy playing music. But I've done enough performing in gigs and rehersals for them to know that I'd rather play for my own enjoyment than for someone elses. And I've been sat down in a room with people I don't really like, have little stylistic or repetory cross-over with and told to be creative. So I know I like not having to soundcheck. I like being able to stop to chat to someone for a bit. I like having the luxury to make a few mistakes. I like not having to arrive at a certain time. I like not having to repeat a set for an hour, discuss it at the end of every time through and discuss whether it needs altering. I like it that, at the end of the day, no one judges me on how I play at a session. Or if they do, I don't care.
I hate having to care and feel nervous when I play. And I'd rather the success of my evening be judged on how happy I am than how happy someone else is.
A performance, in performing arts, generally comprises an event in which one group of people (the performer or performers) behave in a particular way for another group of people (the audience). Sometimes the dividing line between performer and the audience may become blurred, as in the example of "participatory theatre" where audience members might get involved in the production........................................Irish musicians play Irish music in a session because the punters have come to hear Irish Music . So in my book a session is a performance whether we like it or not or whether we thing we are performing or not, if there is someone listening or someone has specificly come to the pub to hear the music its a performance its out of the musicians hands .............
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
Oh and BTW, the boojums in the central Baja desert are quite amazing (been there many times), though I'm not sure they are the "Boojum" referred to by your handle
Yup, this thread's looking like it's going down the same path as the others - finger-pointing and bickering instead of real discussion. Ban Jacki, the only thing you could find to say to me was something about my head being stuck up my arse, but you didn't actually contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, which is pretty clever, because it means I can't form an argument against you - I can only try and insult you back, but what would be the point in that? Really cheap tactics if you ask me. I'm off to do some work... not willing to waste any more time on this.
I tried to stay out of this one, as Mr Gill is doing very well along with Will. One reply to:
"Another interesting contradiction is pointed out by Will above. Performers at sessions tend to listen to themselves. Where as to move towards my ideal of non performance in company, means you have to listen very closely to the other musicians."
To confuse the issue further, this is also important in ensemble performance, to listen to your own music and also to feel and react to the others in the band. It can be exhilarating when everyone is there together. I just mention this to say that listening is a goal for both session play and performance.
But I love this line:
If "how it will be perceived" influences in even the tiniest of ways any of your musical choices, then you are not playing for entirely yourself.
I would just change that last word to "yourselves". The definition of yourselves is most commonly your fellow musicians. However, it can include others in the room who are active in the session.
Now I not only have a bit of an idea of what some people see the issue as, but I also see why people duck for cover when the subject comes up. It's been interesting. I solemnly swear I did not realize what a can of worms I was opening when I asked.
And GW, all the world is a stage according to the melancholy Jacques. People often quote lines from Shakespeare in the context of absolute truths, rather than examining it ion the context of the character
In the world I inhabit there were always "rehearsals" and "gigs".
A "session" does not easily fall into either category.
But there is one other situation: "the after show party bash".
This is informal, usually acoustic with much eating, smoking, drinking, talking, hanging-out and very similar to a ITM pub' session.
By the way one PERFORMS to lesser or greater degree in all cases. Any musician who claims "not to be performing" isn't playing at all or properly. Even when you're at home on your own practicing, you're performing!
And isn't anyone who is snooty and humourless enough to claim that they are not performing a bit miserable and anal?
I'd say, "Cheer up and stop being so precious! You may miss the chance to perform!"
Dow,
I've never heard you play.
So I don't know.
But you don't care what I have to say.
So why would you ask?
And anyway, you better define "properly" first!!
This is either the most hilarious, or the most desperately depressing thread I have ever read. It's probably symptomatic of the modern hell we call civilisation.
I bet Dow is pretty good. However, it is quite likely an impossibly for anyone ever to hear him playing as doubtless the presence of another sentient being would interfere with his 'rendition' (can't say the P word). And even if it didn't, any 'appreciation' of his having rendered said piece 'properly' would be upsetting beyond words.
In the Zen-like state of play in which a couple of people here seem to exist, I'd imagine worlds such as proper and improper, correct and incorrect, cease to have any meaning. And yet, conversely, the exact opposite seems to hold.
In the end it all sounds a bit like an old (very) frankfurt school argument.
"Dow you've got to have become one of the most bitter and twisted blokes I've met. I don't know why??"
Not really bitter and twisted, Kookie, I've just lost all patience with certain people who 1) won't bother reading previous threads and then complain that they don't understand what's going on (duh?!), 2) people who insult people's playing who they've never even heard play, and 3) clueless people who don't know what they're talking about coming on thesession.org puffing themselves up and posturing with their pseudo-intellectual jargon and brandishing their massive egos when you just know that if you tried to have a tune with them in real life, they might just about manage John Ryan's polka, played badly, if you're lucky. I'm just sick of it and that's why I've been more blunt and sometimes downright rude of late.
Well, I tell a lie, I am bitter because a lot of good friends have left thesession.org because of the reasons I've given above.
I am one of the people on this thread who claims "not to be performing". You said that anyone who claims not to be performing 1) isn't playing "properly", 2) is "snooty and humourless" and 3) "miserable and anal". That's insulting. It's all right there in your post, so don't go denying it and acting innocent. Your post sucks.
Dow,
I think you being a bit strange about this!
Musicians have to sell themselves and display their passion otherwise the opportunities to play and maybe earn money could pass you by.
So “showing off” is what they do.
Even if you are an “enthusiastic amateur” and don’t intend to “get gigs” surely you still want to be a better musician.
If you have a brilliant technique or a fab new tune- you’ll want to show it off!
Musicians also need to develop a modicum of stagecraft in order to enhance the (sorry) performance and entertain their own or the punters. Or maybe enhance their lesson and teach their students.
I suppose, not a musician, but a “player of an instrument” may not want to go there?!
But who wants to be known as a “player of an instrument” instead of “musician”!
But surely everyone that goes to and plays at a session wants to be a musician- even the most novice amateur.
Performance Art anyone?!
Is PASSION a key word?
I'm talking about the difference between a gig and a session.
Musicians *don't* have to sell themselves. To do so is a choice. Of course anyone who does a gig is performing and therefore also showing off their abilities in order to make money. That's fine - I've nothing against that. It's when that performance ideal is forced on me in sessions that I'm against it.
I choose not to sell myself. I am *not* a trad whore
Maybe it's just that some people don't understand what a "musician" is. I believe you can be a musician without doing gigs and selling your own abilities for money. I myself play music purely for my own pleasure. I'd be quite happy to sit and play at home and lose myself in music, and never ever have anybody hear my playing for the rest of my life, if there was no other choice. It's just that I happen to enjoy playing tunes with other people for the pleasure it gives me. I'm telling you the truth about the way I think. There's nothing "zen" about it. I really don't understand why people can't get their heads round this, when to me, Will, llig etc it's so bleeding *obvious*!
Main Entry: mu·si·cian
Pronunciation: myü-'zi-sh&n
Function: noun
: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : INSTRUMENTALIST
- mu·si·cian·ly /-lE/ adjective
- mu·si·cian·ship /-"ship/ noun
Yes, I am an INSTRUMENTALIST, and to some extent a composer. I'm not a conductor and never have been. I do not perform music to an audience for money or otherwise. I only perform music in the sense that I physically perform the action of moving my fingers onto concertina buttons. But we've been through that before in previous threads. In this thread we've been talking about the "show, performance" nuance of performing, not its sense of "execute, carry out".
Dow et cetera...
Do you think getting paid (or free beer!) for an ITM gig is somehow disrespecting the "tradition"?
And you lot are the curators of the true pure faith unsullied by filthy lucre, men in suits and music stands?
I repeat: gigs and sessions are two different things. Of course I'm not against people doing paid ITM gigs. Why should I be? Nothing I've said in this thread should even imply that if you've read it properly.
Aw well!
I've enjoyed this little chat about semantics.
I'm off to get this evening's Evening Standard, read it with a pint of Stella and later on, off to perform at the Kilkenny session .
We will undoubtably disagree again shortly and look forward to the opportunity of corresponding with you!
I have no qualms with your attitude regarding 'performance', nor less with your happiness to play music without an audience for the rest of your life. That's fine. But maybe some people would appreciate hearing you, non-musicians that is ...??? Maybe? Surely that shouldn't be an issue? I wouldn't assume this of course.
I also wouldn't assume very much about anyone that posts here.
If a non-musician heard me and liked my music, of course it wouldn't be an issue. But if they heard me, it would most likely be because they overheard my playing in a session making music with other people, not because I'd been performing to them.
That is, unless I decided to do a performance, such as a gig, or street busking, in which case I'd hope that people liked my music because they'd be likely to give me more money if they liked it.
I enjoy sessions. I don't enjoy gigs. Are gigs performing? It feels like it. I'll tell you what it feels like, it feels like work.
So that's how I always define this 'performing' nonsense that shows up on here, aka 'work'.
Am I performing when I'm playing a session? I don't care. Like Dow said" I enjoy playing tunes with other people for the pleasure it gives me."
The problem with our dear, beloved mustard board here is that performing becomes not a verb, meaning to play music, but becomes something else entirely.
The Session.org appears to recognize the word 'performance' or 'performing' as making music for an audience.
So, in the end, it's very simple:
Performance: Making music for an audience
Session: Making music for yourself/other musicians, an audience in incidental
Performing: All about the audience
Session: All about you (me, us, we the musicians)
...which is why sessions are not performances. Is that OK with everyone? Probably not. Seems mighty logical though.
Wow, I sure like to read myself type. What a wind-bag.
Please note, I did that just for myself and my other typers. Any of you inadvertantly reading it out there, it was not directed at you at all. Your entertainment is strictly accidental.
> Well, I tell a lie, I am bitter because a lot of good friends have left
> thesession.org because of the reasons I've given above.
There's the rub. The bickering and posturing gets old, I agree with you there, Dow.
Online communities have yet to evolve into something that approaches face to face communication, where (hopefully) courtesy and politeness are still practiced.
Why do the wind-up topics always degrade into name calling and arguing? Is it the anonymity of hiding behind a nickname? Is it that good-natured ribbing and joking aren't conveyed well in text? Is it not OK that people might actually *disagree* with you? Do people get a thrill out of being antagonistic in a situation where they're not likely to get punched in the nose?
A fair amount of this thread was people having honest discussion about the differences between performance and a session, and what that means to them.
It is sad that the bickering inevitably happens, because it DOES drive people away, and diminishes the appeal of this site, and it's ability to make connections between people who share common interests.
SWFL - that was my original point many threads ago on this very issue. Why do we need any other word for what a session is? If it were a "performance" in the "playing music to an audience" sense of the word, we wouldn't call it a session, we'd just call it a performance, or gig, or concert, or show.
A session is somehow different--at least for some of us. Yes, some sessions are more perfomance-like than others. But some sessions have little or nothing to do with performing for an audience.
Good on you, SWFL.
And yet people will come on this thread and tell me I can't possibly play music without performing it. They insinuate that I must suck as a musician. They mock my explanations of how our session works. Yet they've never heard me play. They've never been to my session. In short, they don't have a clue what they're talking about, but they don't hesitate to cast aspersions on it. And all I was doing was giving my good-faith answer to Boojum's good-faith query. Without insulting anyone.
So someome please clarify who's showboating? Who's "performing" on this thread? Who's actually posting to move the conversation forward? Who's flouting Jeremy's simple "be civil" rule?
Sadly, Dow is right. Run your cursor over my screen name. I've been participating on this board longer than anyone on this thread. Over the years, far too many of the fun, friendly, reasonable people have been run off by the pointless posturing and insulting behavior of others on these threads. It's really a shame that's been allowed to happen. I wish Jeremy would put a stop to it.
Dow has sessions in the kitchen, where they perform their repertoire. The majority have sessions in pubs, and perform their stuff, but there are other people there.
To perform does not mean to show off.
And Dow, you cannot really claim to be insulted, and then accuse everyone who disagrees with you of maybe being able to play John Ryan's polka, a tune I am not familiar with.
Just to be clear, the word "perform" has several different meanings. In some situations it means simply to "do" something, to execute an action. In other situations it means to "present music to an audience for the purpose of entertaining them."
We've been through that many times on other threads. It's clear also on this thread that we're talking about the latter meaning, not the former.
I'd suggest that anyone who insists on sticking solely to the first meaning isn't helping the conversation move forward, but is actually impeding its progress.
Thank god you're still here, Will. Sometimes I have to give myself a reality check reading posts on this board (do people really think like that??!!), and it's so refreshing to know that someone out there experiences the music in a similar way to me, even though live many thousands of miles away.
As c.p.t. says, I think SWFL Fiddler summarized the issue very nicely. Not all may agree with that summary, but it fits my thinking on the topic. And I fully agree with Pete, c.p.t. and Dow regarding the loss of some fine voices on this website over the years.
But bodhran bliss, you break my heart. How could you not recognize a tune featured in that touchstone of traditional Irish culture, the movie "Titanic"?
In a way, this whole issue is why our Sydney session closed recently. It was because of my absolute stubborn refusal to compromise on what the session was to be. It was clear from the way the bar staff acted that they expected us to perform: they'd complain when we didn't attract enough customers to the pub, and if you went to the toilet for a 2 or 3 minute break between sets, they'd switch the jukebox on while you were away to "fill in the silences". This is because they didn't understand what our session was intended to be. I had meetings with them and explained that we were not there to be performing monkeys. We were there to foster a sense of musical community by playing tunes together as a group, in a place where we could also benefit from an ambient atmosphere and the availability of alcoholic drinks. The manager understood this but didn't communicate it effectively enough to his bar staff. They treated us more and more as performing monkeys, as though we were obliged to entertain, with no gaps between sets, and no conversation. That wasn't good enough for me, so I arranged for the session to be closed. That's how strongly I feel about this topic. I won't budge on it, because I care about the music and I care about my enjoyment of it and my friends' enjoyment of it. I'm happier to have the odd house session where nobody expects us to perform for them.
So anyone who was curious to know why it closed - now you know.
"You can't imagine all the typing I've erased recently"
LOL I think I could do with some editing lessons, Will. I stopped holding back some time ago, and tend to just freely let rip these days. I'm sure you've noticed - you've known me long enough
We session in three different pubs. Two of them get it completely. The third is finally catching on--the owner used to bark at us to quit talking and play tunes, but now he just lets us be.
The interesting thing is that our "music as community" session tends to pull in more people than the hired musical acts. In part because all the participants in our session--musicians and non-musicians alike--want to be there every week. They have a sense of belonging to it, a sense of ownership even.
At one of the pubs, the owners have said that they don't care whether we draw people in or drive them away--they want us to play there because of they want to be part of the circle of community it creates. Of course, all three pubs are happy that they sell plenty of pints on a session night, but it's not a significant reason for them opening their doors to us.
That makes us extremely lucky--to have found three homes. I think it's partly the way people treat each other in a small town. And in this respect it's similar to small-town pub sessions in Ireland and anywhere else. It's a community gathering place, with music.
Dow - I can completely appreciate your frustration with the loss of your session because of this issue. Some of our locals were in a similar relationship with pub owners, but fortunately, we have found a very nice middle ground. The session group plays for the joy of it, and the publican makes a nice bit of change off the crowd we attract for him on Sundays. We have accepted the occasional requests for certain tunes and songs as part of the communal atmosphere with the punters, and at the same time, everyone there knows we are not hired entertainment. I feel lucky to have found places that have struck a happy middle ground on this obviously volitile issue.
it means to "present music to an audience for the purpose of entertaining them." Cheshire Puddy.
Like a session? There you are playing away just for yourselves, when Paddy Keenan leans over and requests "John Ryan's Polka".
Or does this simple act of making a request reduce Keenan to the status of "ill informed moron who knows nothing about Irish music?"
Perhaps that is for another discussion. Now the musicians are playing "for themselves" but by dint of being human they must be aware of their surroundings. And although not everyone is interested, there are people who go to that venue because of the music. They might slabber all night long to their friends, but next day will tell all and sundry that "the music was great". That's human nature.
And all of this because Dow hit upon a bad pub. Happened us loads of time, we just move on to the next pub. Perhaps that is not readily available in Oz, but the sins of a few bar staff should not be visited upon us all.
Dow, that is a shame about that pub. We have the same issues in Americay, of course, the home of Danny Boy-style Vaudevillian nonsense. Education is another key point of sessions, I think. I’ve been lucky with a new spot up the street from me. Nice older gent from Boston semi-retired to Florida and bought a pub. He ran one in Boston for years, well familiar with sessions, etc.
Being a session player is not easy. You have to educate, network, act as an agent with publicans (if hosting), keep lines of communication open among musicians, be an ‘evangelist’ for Irish Culture and Music … (if not in Ireland) ...oh yes, and then there's the whole point of what you're doing it for, the music.
Insane, but all done out of love, it really is.
“Yes, I do all that because I love to perform! Woo hoo! Everybody lookie at me! I’m a big fiddle star! Gonna make a million dollars and be on TV! Woo hoo!” [/sarcasm]
Bliss, you can argue your same point over and over if you want, but I think we get it already.
You're saying that if anyone is listening to our music, they are by definition an audience. And that by being human, we're necessarily aware of this listening audience. Therefore it is by definition a "performance."
But you seem to be missing the finer distinctions Dow, Gill, and I have made above. Sure, these distinctions may not matter to you--and that's fine. But they do matter to us. If you disagree, why not just leave us to our discussion? The only reason it came up was because Boojum asked for an explanation.
No one here is trying to force our view of sessions on you--why insist we adopt yours? And if you think we're just telling lies or fooling ourselves, well, you've already warned us of that. I can't imagine why anyone in your shoes would want to keep hanging around us deluded mendicants.
Muse, part of what's so cool about "music as community" sessions is that they can happen anywhere--doesn't have to be a thatch-roofed cottage in Corofin. We do kitchen sessions a fair amount here in Montana, and they're always great fun. A good part of that spirit carries over into our pub sessions, too.
You're between a rock and a hard place really, trying to (re)create a session. Outside of the musicians themselves hardly anyone ever understands.
I'd imagine, Dow, that almost anyone who has ever had anything to do with playing sessions outside - and not a few inside too - Ireland will have very similar tales to report. Years ago I used to naively think that all that was necessary was to turn up, NOT perform, and let the tunes speak for themselves. They do, of course, but in a pub populated by people who really haven't a clue, after the initial wave of enthusiasm (maybe two sets long at best), they don't speak to anyone but the musicians. This often has the bizarre effect of actually annoying and even seriously upsetting bystanders/bar staff and publicans.
I think the kitchen route is the best one in the end. I get fed up with people in the pubs asking me why it all sounds the same, or why "do you never improvise".
And Cheshire, if someone disagrees with you they should stop posting? An admirable idea.
Unfortunately Ireland was known as "The land of Saints (sic) and scholars". We tried to educate the world. Some of us are still trying.
And I have never, unlike you just did, tried to force my opinion on anyone. I am simply stating my beliefs, based on attending sessions, in Ireland, for some 40 years.
And maybe because most of my experience is in Ireland, that is why I differ from you.
Why is "performance" an issue?
Why is "performance" an issue?
First, this is not a windup. I can appreciate a windup, like "What to do?" (though for my taste that particular thread was a bit too obvious from the very start), and I have tried to start one or two two myself, such as "Software for putting tunes into sets".
I mention this because I know that "performance" is one of the keywords in the culture of the yellow board. It is not alone. The humour surrounding bodhrans, banjos, clarinets, shaky eggs, diminished and augmented chords, the boom-chuck rhythm and a few others is quite obvious to me, as are the reasons why many of us hate some of the above. (No, let's not worry here about which of the above are just traditional joke-fodder and which really are horrible.)
What I can't grasp is why "performance" is anathema to anybody here. Yes, I know that there have been many, many discussions about it in the past, but that the very reason why searching old discussions has not helped much. There is such a mass of opinion and argument, quibbling over the structure of sentences and definitions of words that I am lost. Although I have been a member here for several years, it's really only this year that I have joined in discussions much, and perhaps if I'd followed all that stuff from beginning to end I would grasp what it's about. But it's too late for that.
So can anybody tell me in a reasonably clear and simple way (and preferably a non-contentious way that people on both sides of the argument would accept) just what the issue is? Why is "performing" a problem for anybody who likes to play music? Isn't it just fun? Admittedly, the standard of my performance on my current instrument of choice has a lot of what we might politely call "room for improvement", but that's not really the point. Surely, whether we are sat at home with a couple of friends, in public in a pub at an open session with a larger audience who may be listening more or less closely, or actually up on a stage in front of people who've specifically paid to watch and listen - it is huge fun. Isn't it? If not, why are we interested in a performing art like music? We would be better off expressing our creativity by writing novels at a small table in a cafe or painting in a private studio.
I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything, nor am I asking to be persuaded. But I would like to know just what the issue about "performance" actually is.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
There is no issue. Many who post here pretend to play for the sole reason that they love the music, but they are telling lies.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I want to be a star........................
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
If you don't see a Session as a performance (I Did say "if"), then performance would have to be pretty much not what a Session website is all about.
Some people feel that introducing money has a negative impact on the music.
Others feel that in the session context "Performance" = "grandstanding".
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Donough
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Those of us who play in gigs or on stage are "performing", just as classical musicians playing in an orchestral concert are also "performing".
What I'd like to know is, if I'm playing with a band accompanying set dancers (usually no audience other than those dancers "sitting out" or others actively involved in the event), am I "performing" within the meaning of the Act?
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by lazyhound
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
From what I gather, you are defining "performance" in this context as playing music in a venue for the express purpose of entertaining others.
Let's present two extremes. In one, the performer(s) simply present their music with seemingly little or no awareness that there is an audience to listen to them. The performers' assumption is that the audience has a considerable investment and interest in the music "as is," and therefore does not particularly care about, say, "stage presence" or arrangements with any degree of complexity.
At the other extreme would be performers who are quite conscious and aware of their overall presentation, from what they wear to what they say in between songs/tunes, and do arrange the music with a certain amount of forethought and deliberation.
There are, of course, many points along the spectrum between these two extremes, and that's what makes for so much animated chatter, at thesession.org and elsewhere. At what point does a performer's "awareness" of playing for the audience lead him/her to possibly compromise the music's character? Or is it really "compromise"? Is it perhaps simply innovation and inspiration?
I readily admit to being a "performer." I like trying out different ways of presenting songs or tunes in ways I think -- and hope -- are perhaps "creative," and perform these in the appropriate settings; and yeah, "appropriate settings" is the whole key here, isn't it?
But I also am very happy to play this music without any kind of affectation or self-consciousness. I think one kind of presentation helps to strengthen the other kind.
Dunno if any of this makes sense or goes to your point, but I sure enjoyed writing it.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by sts
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
You just know that if someone starts off a thread saying "this is not a windup", then it's going to be a windup. Don't think it'll work tho', unless you can get some newbies to argue about it.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I have run afoul of the "session is not performance" sentiment here myself in the past. You have raised an excellent question, one which I predict will be answered with sarcasm, lame attempts at humor, rants, ad hominem attacks, and hopefully a bit of useful information somewhere in the mix.
I personally don't see what the big deal is. "Playing" and "performing" are more or less synonymous to me, because, in terms of what I actually am doing when I am playing in my dining room, or when I am playing in a session, or when I am playing on a stage, there is very little difference. But the very idea that people in "the crowd", those who are not playing instruments in a session, might be thinking of the session musicians as some sort of free concert, as some sort of performance at least partially for the entertainment of those in the crowd, is something so dreadful, so hideous and awful to some here that the mere mention of such a possibility sends them into fits.
Now, if you continue along the path of "performance", sooner or later you do run into things that many "serious" musicians find tedious and downright odious -- having to play "Danny Boy" and "Fields of Athenry" over and over (or "Mustang Sally" for that matter), having spice up your style with drums and electric guitars, etc. So perhaps any step whatsoever in the direction of worrying about what the crowd thinks of your playing represents some sort of defeat of the musical purity of a session, where you are playing for your own enjoyment. But honestly, it's a safe bet that for decent musicians, playing that leads to your own enjoyment will also tend to be playing that is enjoyable for others to listen to as well, so like it or not, what you are doing is perfectly passable as a type of performance, even you don't like to be reminded of it.
There, that's off my chest.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by crazy_fingerz
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
In my mind, there is a difference, but both are just fine. Playing music with other people with little or no audience (people listening without playing) is certainly very enjoyable. However, so is getting on a stage and showing off (and getting paid for it!). IMO, some people take the "give the audience what it wants" approach a little too far, but that's their problem, not ours.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Ben314
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow: "You just know that if someone starts off a thread saying "this is not a windup", then it's going to be a windup."
Anyone is free to treat is as such if they want, of course, but I did not mean that way.
And Mark, I know full well that you are one of the people with vigorous views on this subject - my reading got me that far. What is the issue for you?
sts wrote: "..you are defining "performance" in this context as playing music in a venue for the express purpose of entertaining others." I'm not quite sure who you are addressing here. Quite likely the whole question does revolve around definition. I only understand the word in a general sense, something like "executing the playing". There is an implication that an audience is potentially present - what else is music for? Whether they have paid or not has very little to do with my own understanding of the word.
And crazy-fingerz suggested that: "... the very idea that people in "the crowd" ... might be thinking of the session musicians as some sort of free concert ... at least partially for the entertainment of those in the crowd" is objectionable to some. Can someone who holds that view (or at least a mild and reasonable version of it) say why?
So far I still only know that some people react negatively to the word "performance", but I still haven't grasped why.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Just accept that some people don't like the idea that a session might be considered a performance and others see it as one. Please do not let this thread sink into arguing that jaded question again. It is a mixture of semantics and attitudes rather than objective facts.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Donough
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I always wonder when reading the 'Discussions' if one style of the Irish session is disappearing. In most, if not all, mention of individual sessions they are more or less public. I consider it a session when we play in someone's kitchen with only the musicians present. That is a bit off topic so I will get back to your question.
I have a great deal of respect for one musician who has spoken on this topic - Jerry Holland. He talks about Irish style sessions vs. Cape Breton as well as the performance aspect of playing. I highly recommend reading the interview on his website;
An Interview With Jerry Holland
Excerpts from Fiddler Magazine, Vol.6 No.4.
http://www.jerryholland.com/press.htm
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Random_notes
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
All of the sessions I go to at present are kitchen sessions.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Donough, in a fitting plea not to let the discussion sink, suggested accepting that "some people don't like the idea that a session might be considered a performance". Not a bad idea, but the thing is, I don't know whether I agree with them or not because I just don't know what they mean by that. It is still not even slightly clear what the issue is about.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'll take Boojum's question at face value and give my honest answer.
I've played gigs and concerts. I also play in small local pub and house sessions. In the first instance, I am always "performing," in the sense of actively, consciously entertaining an audience. In those situations, we pre-arrange our tunes into sets, we do a lot more songs, we all face the audience, and some of us talk and otherwise interact directly with the audience to keep them entertained between sets. For serious gigs, we usually rehearse at least a few times, and we make up a written set list. For big gigs, we'ved use a sound system in these settings, so we show up early to do a sound check. I'm not a big fan of playing trad music through speakers--it's less intimate than a purely acoustic setting, and I like hearing the actual instruments, rather than the soundwaves made by speakers. But sometimes it's the only way to reach a big audience.
Such performances are a rush, and I've enjoyed doing them. (I used to be a professional performer, both as a musician and as a juggler, earning a living at each, when I was younger.)
Sessions, for me, are different from performances, although some sessions certainly share a lot of qualities with performances as I described them above.
I prefer a session style that is not performance oriented at all. By this I mean that the musicians are playing simply for the sake of playing the tunes, not to impress or entertain anyone. In this kind of session, I play because I enjoy the physical act of re-creating the tunes, of feeling the breath come into them, of hearing them ricochet around the room. The tunes themselves are the center of attention, not the people playing them or listening to them.
For me, the distinctions between these two approaches to playing the music are important. A non-performance session lets us musicians:
- be more spontaneous, stringing tunes together on the fly, without pre-arranging sets.
- learn tunes on the fly.
- play with more abandon, which sometimes leads to clinkers and mistakes, but that doesn't matter--they become avenues for new ideas.
- lose ourselves in the music and "live inside the tune."
- play freely what we want to play, without worrying whether the "audience" is getting bored with the 12th reel in a row. Ditch the internal editor or music critic and just play what comes to mind.
- Put the instruments down and just visit, laugh, listen to stories, eat the cookies that someone brought, drink....
For me, these qualities make this type of session more fun and enjoyable. They also feel more inclusive, with no divide between "performer" and "audience." Everyone's a participant, part of the circle, even if they're sitting outside the actual circle of chairs.
In my experience, the more a session feels like a performance, the less likely these qualities will prevail. Performance oriented sessions tend to favor pre-determined sets, a limit on how long you can pause between sets before someone insists on more tunes or a song, and more "grandstanding" - people playing to impress. Which too often results in stale show-off tunes being played in overwrought well-rehearsed arrangements, the same exact way we heard them last time.
This is just my experience. YMMV.
I'm not particularly interested in participating in sessions that run to the performance end of the spectrum, but it doesn't bother me that some people like them that way. I think people who never get away from the sense of performing are missing some really fun aspects of this music, but that's their choice. I'm not riled by that.
What does get under my skin is the broken record of derisive, dismissive, and misrepresenting comments of some people (e.g., bliss's above) that suggest I am deluding myself, or that I am anti-performance in all situations. Too many previous threads on this topic hinged on someone's claim that "you MUST be performing if someone else in the room is being entertained by your playing." This simply misses the unselfconscious qualities of the sessions I've described above, and discounts even the possibility that I feel, think, and act very differently when I'm performing for an audience than I do when I'm playing for the tune, unaware and uncaring whether anyone else is listening or not.
I've been in both settings--on stage in front of a crowd, and lost amongst friends and neighbors in a long set where nothing else exists but the skirl and pulse of the tunes and the tang of porter in my mouth. If some people don't believe me, that's fine. But it gets old seeing them insist over and over that I shouldn't believe myself. It's none of their business. I'm certainly not telling them they can't perform at their sessions.
That's it.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Suffice to say that some people don't feel like they are performing when they are playing in a session the way that they might feel when they are on stage at a gig. But whilst they are "not performing", the punter has come to the pub specially to listen to the Irish Music session which he loves. To him this is a performance.
The bottom line is whether in fact a session becomes a performance once there is one person there who views it as such. Indeed one could even argue that in his kitchen session Dow is performing to the other musicians - Not my opinion I hasten to add!
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Donough
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I crossposted with Will but I reckon I said much the same in less words!!
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Donough
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Donough, your points have been specifically addressed in previous threads. Not all punters see a session as a performance. Many (sometimes *all*) of the people who come to our session understand that it is *not* a performance. It's just a time in a pub where some people play music, some people talk, some people read, some people eat and drink, and we're all in it together. And I've experienced this in many other sessions.
Is it a performance to simply enjoy one another's company, while doing things we like to do?
I realize that this is a strange, almost impossible concept for people raised on the likes of "American Idol" and the celebrity worship that passes for culture these days. But it surprises me how many people here--on a web site dedicated to a musical tradition with its roots in ktichen dances, crossroad ceilis, lilting, and late nights around the fire simply playing tunes--how many people here have such a hard time even imagining such as thing as "music as community."
Weird.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Cross posting again. But Donough, if you think you said what I said, you're entirely missing my point.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Thanks CPT, that was a full explanation. I think I do get what it's about now!
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Your welcome.
Over the years, I've noticed that the non-musicians in a "music as community" session behave very differently than an audience at a performance would. They visit with the musicians, sometimes sitting right with us. They're much more likely to join in on songs, or to tell a story or joke between tunes. Some bring treats for everyone to share. Some will start a song of their own. Some dance. They tend not to applaud.
There are all sorts of cues that our session isn't a performance:
- Some of us sit with our backs to the rest of the bar. We sit around our own table, just like every other group of people in the pub.
- We don't use a sound system. It's easy for people to find a place to sit where they can't hear us if they don't want to.
- We don't start at a hard-and-fast time. We take breaks to talk, get up and stretch, etc. Sometimes a musician or two will be eating while the rest of us are playing. Sometimes we're all chowing down on Gayle's homemade cookies.
- We don't treat anyone in the pub like an audience. We don't announce our tunes, we don't ask them to quit talking or making noise, we don't expect them to listen, or to pay us any attention at all.
- Sometimes the willowy tapstress gives one of us a neck massage while everyone else is playing.
- We don't do pre-arranged sets. We don't rehearse--and anyone who is paying attention can tell. Sometimes players go into different tunes at the turn. Sometimes only one person keeps playing at the turn until others hear what the new tune is and join in. Sometimes everything trainwrecks and we all laugh.
- Sometimes someone gets a wild hair and plays non-stop reels for 20 minutes or more.
- Sometimes we noodle through the start of a tune, or the B part, just to referesh our memories before starting it. Sometimes someone starts a tune while someone else is trying to start a different tune. Sometimes people learn tunes on the fly. Sometimes someone will shout out a request to keep playing a tune so they can get it. Sometimes we'll play a tune we've just learned and it's still a bit rough around the corners.
- Musicians sometimes wander in two hours after the first music was played. Sometimes musicians leave early. Different musicians show up on different nights. Musicians sometimes stand up in the middle of tunes and leave to go to the loo or visit a friend.
Given these cues, even most newcomers quickly realize that we're not a band, that we're not playing music "for" them, that there is no program or set routine, and there's not much sense in their having any expectations of "entertainment" from us. That said, some people enjoy the whole thing precisely because it's so laidback, casual, neighborly, and integrated, much like a potluck.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Heh, one more thought. In Boojum's first post, he asks, if we don't like performing, then "why are we interested in a performing art like music?"
It's a good question, but based on too narrow a premise.
That is, that music (and dance, too) is and *must * be a "performing art."
I understand that today, most of the music and dance we see and hear is presented as a performance. It's part of an attitude we've inherited from the formal Western ethos of Music with a capital M.
But this is a relatively recent development. For thousands of years, music and dance were community and private activities. For some of us, they still are.
Few music traditions remain as strongly rooted in this community-based approach as Irish trad, and the local session *can* be a powerful expression of that mindset if people want it to be. Indeed, a recent thread here was just lamenting the loss of this community feel in Ireland, and people here said that it still exists in some places. It also still exists at some sessions here in North America. And I imagine elsewhere--the UK, Oz, etc.
I enjoy helping to keep that spirit alive, partly as an antidote to our star-crazed pop culture, but mostly as a fun, positive way to bring my own friends and neighbors together once a week. It's wonderful to live in a place where people share a sense of community. A session is one small, simple, enjoyable way to foster that.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'd go so far as to say that if you find yourself in a session playing a tune on your own that nobody else knows, if you get a clap at the end, then you've failed and should give up and go home before you embarrass yourself any more. If the reaction at the end is "that was a nice tune" with no clapping, then you've been successful in wordlessly communicating to your fellow musicians that your intention was not to perform the tune, but simply to share it.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
But I like getting a clap. (Note indefinite article)
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
That means you like performing, which I've noticed before, incidentally, and it probably means your perception of what was taking place at Kelly's session every week was quite different to the other musicians'.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I shouldn't have said you "failed and should go home" etc. I suppose it's just a different way of viewing things and I should live and let live. I'm just much more interested in sharing tunes than either performing them or watching someone else performing in a session. That's just me though.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
More Tao of Dow. I like it.
There are lots of reasons to play music other than performance. Music can be self expression, self soothing, self energizing, or a way to communicate, bond, share, give solace, etc.
Music is played to woo, to frighten in war, to vent anger, to celebrate, to incite, to pass the time.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes I do, not that I'm particularly good at it. I would have thought that everybody's perception would differ to some extent. Was there some common perception I might have missed out on? It never struck me, but I don't know how to go about figuring that out. Don't most players like a bit of applause once in a while?
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Possibly yes. I personally don't like applause from other musicians. If someone applauds my tune playing, I feel that I've failed in my effort to communicate my intention in playing the tune. I don't care if I get applause from punters or not. Most of them don't understand what a session is, and not do I expect them to. If they applaud I'd acknowledge it out of politeness, but I wouldn't seek it actively.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
nor
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Well although I think I have a better idea now of what some people's issue with "performance" is, it's not one that I really feel. My experience in general has been that people in sessions and similar settings usually do a mix of things - playing tunes together is a big one of course, but some might do a song or two, there would be a solo (or near-solo, maybe a "duet") here and there, someone else might even do a recitation. The boundary between sessioning and performing seems to me totally soft. Everybody contributes something, maybe a lot, maybe a little, the quality may be high, or it may not. Some of the punters listen constructively and intelligently, some don't listen at all. And some applaud on occasion.
But I'm risking actually getting drawn into the discussion of whether it's a good thing or not. Really I just wanted to understand why anybody would have a problem with "performing", and I think I do now.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
That's fine, but you need to understand that when you choose a tune you know nobody else knows, and you perform it for the enjoyment of performing it and getting applause, you are forcing everyone else at the session to conform to your ideal of performance. This doesn't work the other way round, because if you're not intending to perform, you're simply playing for playing's sake, and you're not forcing anything on anybody. Bear in mind that some people get a bit irritated when that "performance" ideal is forced on them in a session.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"when you choose a tune you know nobody else knows, and you perform it for the enjoyment of performing it and getting applause.."
Do you think that happens often? Were there people at Kelly's who's purpose was to get applause? I'm at risk of losing the thread again here.
By the way, is Kelly's beyond resurrection? Leaving aside a "perception of what was taking place", it was a great session, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses it.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'll try to answer this without using the word performance (all right, I used it then, but I won't again), because it shouldn't be an argument about semantics. It's an argument about attitude, and there are no grey areas or overlap.
It's simply about what is relevant to you when you play, what influences your playing, what informs your choices - from what tune in what key right down to what speed, what variation and when, what volume etc, right down to the smallest of nuances.
If "how it will be perceived" influences in even the tiniest of ways any of your musical choices, then you are not playing for entirely yourself.
It's not easy, and as with many aspects of this music, there are inherent contradictions, but try to think of it more as a goal than an absolute state of nivarna.
Most importantly, it has nothing to do with how you are actually perceived. There could be any number of people actually listening to you and even appreciating it. But the trick is to blank this as irrelevant. (This is where the applause thing is just bloody annoying, it reminds you there are punters there and breaks the concentration. Unlike Dow, who is polite, I either blank it or if I'm week, show my annoyance.)
A conundrum arises when playing with others, you obviously have to let them into your head, and they must let you into theirs. But this can be solved satisfactorily by focusing purely on the music, not trying to impress, rather to simultaneously accommodate and influence.
Why is all this important? Well it's simply because if you find yourself in a situation where you are trying to play with people who are trying to impress, it's just a bloody useless waste of time
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"Unlike Dow, who is polite"
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Johannes J
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
And the end of one of our sessions a while ago, someone came up and told me we should turn towards our "audience", open the circle into a semi-circle, and other such performance-like things, and would not countenance my explanationthat we were doing something diferent.
To me a session is not a performance because the audience is not important, it is simply external to the conversations, musical and verbal, between a peer group. I would hope that the individuals in the group are non-judgemental, welcoming and encouraging to novices, all eager to learn and be stimulated by what each other may bring to the meeting, yet acknowledging and applauding in whatever way they choose the best of what each other contributes. It is an opportunity to join in together, both to learn the new, and to repeat the old, loved, and familiar.
Whereas, in a performance, you have the performer, presenting, and the audience, accepting.
Isn't that plain enough ?
And I have performed many times, in folk clubs, concerts, and ceilidhs, so I think I know the difference.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
It depends on why you're playing. If you're playing for yourself, with no real consideration of how anyone else percieves it, it's not a perfomance. If you suddenly realise some girl you quite like is sitting across the table from you, and start trying to show off a bit then, in your head, you're performing (although just a bit) because you're no longer playing for just yourself. If you're playing for the appreciation of the 'punters' then it can be safely concluded that you've gone beyond the point of no return into the realm of performance.
The reason people object to this that if you're playing (and playing with other people) entirely for yourself, then you're going to fit more easily into the session unit because maintaining the flow is paramount. If you're trying to impress other people, your desire to be impressive means you must stand out above everyone else, and so the dynamic of the group is affected: and this will have a negative effect on everyone else's enjoyment. This is particularly important in more traditional sessions.
Michael's point and mine are similar.
Outside of a session, at a gig or folk club or whatever, you're playing for other people's enjoyment. So, if you don't want to have to adjust what you do, the trick is to choose your audience (thus venue) carefully.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Ceilidhs were held in homes, in the kitchen like Dow, or the sitting room, and they were not dances but a crowd gathering to talk and play a bit of music.
Sessions were and still are held usually in pubs.
Musicians perform at both.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes, musicians perform at both.
But often they don't perform. We'e been through this Mr Bliss, the fact that you are unable to differentiate is your loss. But as you'd probably admit, such subleties are lost on a humble bodhran player
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
If I'm asked to play a request, or if I'm playing the sort of music that the listeners know and appreciate, that to me is a performance. On the other hand if I'm backing a singer for instance, the singer is performing and my music is incidental. I wouldn't call a session a performance as such, especially when it consists of bits of tunes played to see if anybody knows it first. Then dropping in and out at will, and ending with the odd Joe Cooley type of finish eg: 'That will do'
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Free Reed
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
My first thought when I saw this thread was the old joke "Why is a banjo like an artillery shell? Because by the time you hear them coming it is too late." In other words, "Why is a discussion of performance like an artillery shell?"
I disagree with llig, when he says that there are no grey areas or overlap. Performance is not a binary, go/no-go issue. It is not like pregnancy, where someone either is or isn't. When the expectations of others are involved, you begin to move up the "scale of performance." When you play alone, you are playing for yourself. When you are playing at a house party, your fellow players begin to enter in, and their expectations become part of things. When you play in a pub session, even those where playing to the audience is a small part of the goings-on, the publican who is willing to host you, and buy you beer, has some expectations--keep the music flowing at a somewhat steady clip, or whatever. And at the top of the performance scale, you get paid to make an audience happy. Only playing alone, and getting paid to entertain the audience, are purely non-performance or performance. All the others have some element of performance.
In my opinion, of course......
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes, most musical gatherings have elements of both, in more or less quantities. But that doesn't mean there are grey areas in the definitions of the concept. Let's make this clear, it's a goal to strive to ... to make the concept of audience irrelevant. To not let the concept of audience influence your music.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Maybe some people regard a session as a performance and some don't ,Its up to the indivdual but I do think that if its entertainment of any sort its a performance whether you like it or not................
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Saint, you missed the point. It's irrelevant if people are entertained. There was a whole argument about this the last time and I just want to lay it to rest. Just because some one might walk into a pub and think, from their perspective, that you are performing, does not mean you are. But more than that, it doesn't matter whether they think it's a performance or not. The trick is to completely blank not only their reactions to the music, but their very presence.
However, my gripe is with players in a session who regard it as a performance.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Al, as I said above, it is possible to play in a pub without anyone having expectations of a performance. I do it all the time. Even the barkeep "gets it." If a newcomer wanders in and happens to applaud after a spate of tunes, it's not just us musicians who are surprised out of our reverie--even the other punters and wait staff give the newbie a funny look, like "What was all that commotion? Just let 'em play."
As in previous threads on this topic, we have people posting here who apparently have never experienced a session as communion, but only a session with some aspect of performance. I can understand that--our pop culture emphasizes (and rewards) that attitude. Indeed, I know several musicians who seem incapable of not performing. They seek an audience's attention and appreciation, to garner applause and recognition for their skill and talent.
All power to them, if that's what they want. Some of us are after something different.
I don't understand why some people here are so intent on using their performance-oriented experience to tell me my non-performance-oriented experience cannot happen. That's the rub.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes, you are right Will. But as I said above about it not mattering whether whether punters think it's a performance or not, it also doesn't matter if Saint or Mr Bodhran Bliss think it's a performance either.
Though where it does matter, is when someone you are trying to have a tune with thinks it's a performance and starts to play to the audience. Or often worse, when the start to play "to" the other musicianns.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Agreed wholeheartedly.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Is this thread a regular session?
I cannot help but notice some of the usual players.
I wonder if we have any punters.
Most entertaining! Brilliant! Bravo!
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Tonya
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
You've just spoiled everything, Tonya.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Ottery
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Certainly is entertaining, but i don't think you can really call it a session till the concertina player arrives.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by silver bow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Tonya apparently has this discussion confused with a session confused with an opera.
Or do people in her town say "Bravo!" at the local pub sesh?
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I thought the concertina player had already arrived - he's posted a few times.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by lazyhound
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Oh; but it is opera.
Encore! Encore!
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Tonya
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I think CPT put it eloquently in his first couple of posts in this thread. However, I had an interesting revelation last night about this very thing.
I regularly attend a session in Denver. This is a session which is really all for the players. It's at an Irish Pub that understands that, even if the punters don't always, and many of them treat it as a "free performance". Which is fine, as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter how the punters treat it, what matters is how the players treat it. And in the case of this session, it's really about sharing tunes and craic.
The last two Sundays, however, couldn't have been more different.
Last week, the only people in the establishment were players and staff for most of the evening. Most of us were tired, and the session was nice, but rather low-key, and broke up fairly early.
Last night, the place was pretty crowded, there was a lot of whooping and hollering, clapping, foot stomping, and other generally rowdy behavior from the mostly drunken crowd. (Many of whom were probably left over from the baseball game that ended a few hours prior, in which the home team had beat one of their arch rivals.)
The "revelation" was that the punters are PART of the equation, but that still doesn't make it a performance. Their energy contributes to the energy of the situation (even when they're being annoying). So while the fact that they were there didn't change the manner of our playing (coming up with tune sets on the fly, all facing each other, talking and joking between sets, losing ourselves inside the music, etc), it DID make a difference in the session.
Last night was a blast, we played way later than we usually do. We played a number of things that we hadn't played in ages. The energy of the players and punters combined to make the night something completely unique.
But I submit to you that just because the punters were there, were entertained, and were part of what was happening, it didn't make it a performance. We weren't playing for the punters, we were playing for ourselves. We weren't amplified, we weren't facing the "audience", we didn't care what their reaction was, and we weren't playing to impress anyone.
So llig, are you saying that just by the very fact that we didn't "completely blank not only their reactions to the music, but their very presence", we made it into a performance?
Pete
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Pete, in my experience, the other people in the pub can and often do influence the craic and music--***because they are participants too***. That's precisely my point--we are playing music and having craic ***with*** them, not "to" them.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
HA! Well, that's one way to take my long, wordy post and summarize it in 12 words! LOL
Pete
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Live music creates beauty that is transitory, only existing in the ear of the beholder. Why would one want to block out people who are participating in the process, even if just by listening? I understand that you would not want to "pander" to an "audience," and understand that feedback from those listening are only a tiny part of what is happening in some situations.
Last night at the pub, other than chatting with one man who was there to hear his music teacher play, and a woman who sang a song with us, and other than hearing scattered applause in the background from time to time, we didn't pay much attention to the folks who weren't playing--we focused on the music we were making together. So I get what people are saying about the fact that sessions are not like paid performances, where the hired person has an obligation to entertain the others.
But this subject has always left me a bit mystified. It seems that some are arguing that we should not just fail to notice the people who are not playing, but deliberately ignore them. If I were to pursue a goal, it would be to break down barriers between "punters" and "dancers" and "players," and make us all part of the communal process--one with our fellow man, so to speak. And that is how I would get rid of the "audience," not by ignoring some of those present. And Will, it sounds to me like your session site, where everyone "gets it," actually fits that criteria--some people are playing and some are not, but no barriers involved.
Of course, now my head is spinning from all this philosophical contemplation, so maybe I better just play a few tunes to clear my head.....
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I wish everyone would stop messing up my nice, relaxing, recreational session with all this formal performance nonsense.
"So come all ye, I do things my way,
I do what I like when I sing and I play.
If this you don't like, then get up on your bike,
FOR IT'S EQUAL TO ME IF YOU GO OR YOU STAY!"
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Ahh, but SWFL Fiddler, my point was that it's NOT equal if the punters go or stay. I may not CARE whether they go or stay, but it's a different experience just by the fact that they're there (or not).
Pete
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Although, I guess saying "it's equal to me if you go or you stay" is the same thing as saying "I don't care"...
So point taken
Pete
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
You got it.
At sessions the musicians don't talk to the audience between sets, or tailor everything they do to the listener's desires for entertainment.
At performances, well, that's the whole point. Seems easy to me.
Rev, here's the rest of that masterpiece. Took me long enough to find it, eh?
The Pub Musician's Complaint
Say two Acts of Contrition for the poor pub musician,
If I have a son that's one thing he won't be.
He's to put up with chances and trickies and shysters,
And publicans dropping 10 quid from the fee.
But the worst of them all is that drunken old know-all,
That musical expert and self-made MC.
So if you've any notion to make a commotion,
I beg your attention you'll pay now to me.
(Chorus)
Come all you fleadh boys I do things my way,
I do what I want when I sing and I play.
If this you don't like them get up on your bike,
For it's equal to me if you go or you stay.
Now we're sitting down here and we're playing a few tunes,
It's the grandest session that we've played in years,
But if God be my judge there's some ignorant moron,
And in no time at all he'll be all bored to tears,
With his "Won't you play this one?" and "Can't you play that one?
Play some piece of rock and we'll liven this place!"
But says I "You old gobsh*te you wouldn't know rock
If it got up and clocked you straight into your face!"
(Chorus)
Now that same individual won't be there when you start,
But he'll surely be there when you've finished your stint.
For he must make a tour of all other locations,
And he only comes in when he can't get more drink.
He'll exhort you to play just to keep the bar open,
He'll sing an old dirge without rhythm or rhyme,
Some nonsensical drivel that he can't remember,
And yet he'll keep singing the same old three lines.
(Chorus)
Now every known creature has a female equivalent,
And this one's no different (the insulting old cow).
As drunk as a lord and she's singing dischorded,
She'll wonder why you can't accompany her now?
But myself, having manners, will say "I don't know it,
Besides the time has gone on and it's time to go home."
But what I'd like to say is "I don't want to play it,
Now would you kindly feck off and leave me alone?"
(Chorus)
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I just skimmed through this thread, and I must say, I do not understand what the debate is about.
Myself, I simply play. Sometimes with others, sometimes alone, sometimes for pay, sometimes merely for pleasure. But whatever the case, I play, just to try and make some music, and perhaps share it if anyone wants to listen. The line between "performing" and "session-playing" does not even seem worth drawing, it seems mostly a matter of semantics and viewpoint in most of the contexts I read above anyway.
Is this a cultural thing I am not familiar with? It seems very possible, especially after learning above that ceilidhs are not dances (I have had that wrong for a very long time, please do not judge me too harshly - I do not speak Irish or Scots Gaelic).
Perhaps I am missing something or some local connotation regarding the terms "performing" and "performance" as well.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Rook
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Brilliant.
Al, the way to bring everyone in the room together--no barriers between us and them--is to just play the music for its own sake. That's the surest way for us all to enjoy it for what it is, rather than getting wrapped around the axel over anyone's virtuousity or lack thereof, or whether the music is "good" or not.
So I don't actively "block out" the fact that other people are in the room. For me, they are part of the experience. But not as an audience. Not even as listeners. For me, all the people in the room are just part of the experience of playing the music--they affect the ambient mood--I'm happy to see friends, or I might know that one person has just recovered from a bad illness, or we're all a bit glum because a elder of the tribe has passed on--and that comes out in the music. But they're an ***input*** not just spectators, or something I output to.
The difference is that I'm not thinking about their expectations or pandering to them the way I do when performing for an audience.
Sometimes a session starts off small and cozy, but then a crowd comes in from the big sports event, or the pub just fills up with new people. And they turn into an audience, clapping at the end of every set, making requests for Danny Boy, asking us if they can buy our cd. For me, that's when I end up blocking out their existence, at least while I'm actually playing the tunes. I still try to play what I want to play, how I want to play it, for its own sake. But it's harder in this situation, and some of the musicians may start playing to the crowd. I can have fun at these sorts of sessions too, but I prefer the community-style I've described above.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Er, "brilliant" was for SWFL Fiddler's post of the lyrics. Thanks for that.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Fair enough, Rook. But I've been playing music for more than 30 years, in formal gigs and concerts, competitions, and in all sorts of sessions, jams, and other informal settings. It took me a while to figure out what I liked and didn't like about the different settings, and eventually I found I had a strong preference for one over the other. I came to realize that a gig is very different from a "music as community" session. It helps me (and apparently some other folks here) to be clear about what sort of playing I'm doing, and what my motives are. It's made me a better player, and the experiences at one end of the spectrum have been much more enjoyable for me. Anyone else's mileage may vary.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
cpt, I like what you said there--"play the music for its own sake"--that is what I was trying to express. And agree that, in the real world, sometimes, and regrettably, blocking out some distractions is a necessary measure to continue pursuing music for its own sake.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Mind you, I'm not saying anyone else has to adopt my approach or attitude. Some people genuinely prefer performing. I'm glad they do--I enjoy going to concerts. Some people prefer their sessions to lean toward the performance approach. Fine by me. I'll even happily play in some of those once in a while.
But I'm really glad I have a bunch of friends--players and non-players alike--where I live who understand and value the distinction, who enjoy just getting together for tunes, pints, and craic.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
In a nutshell, the distinction is what you hope to feel at the end of playing a tune.
Some people are tickled pink when someone else says, "Stellar playing there! You're quite a player!"
Others are fully satisfied with a simple, "Terrific tune, that one."
And still others need nothing more than the echoes of the tune just played, well explored, before moving on to the next.
I am not a fiddle virtuouso. I'm well aware of my shortcomings as a musician. I don't need to be a brilliant fiddler to play this music, and to do it justice. If people clap, I assume that they liked the tune (not my playing) as much as I do. The ones who come back week after week, never clapping, are the ones who I know appreciate the music and craic itself.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Well, I don't think of it as playing the music for it's own sake... at least in the strictest sense. The tune doesn't care whether it gets played...
For me, it's using the music as a way of interaction with other human beings, or sometimes as introspection into the experience of being human. Using music as a way of interacting is in many ways more fulfilling to me personally than talking. (Although, any good session needs both
)
The interaction can be mutual, between myself, anyone else playing, and anyone else listening. Or it can simply be an 'action', or one directional communication, between me, the original author of the tune, and the people who taught me to play.
Pete
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Kevin Burke once told me that the tunes don't exist for us to play them, it's the other way around.
To be totally precise on this, I would say that I enjoy playing music for the sake of playing music.
So the sorts of sessions I enjoy most are where no one is playing "to" anyone else; we're all focused instead on the tunes/craic.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Eureka! We now have the definitive answer, supplied by Mr Llig, to whom we shall be eternally grateful.
If you are playing a bodhran, it is a performance. If playing anything else it is not.
Glad that's settled.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"we are playing music and having craic ***with*** them, not "to" them."
I like that.
I read these discussions and sometimes it seems quite intimidating as a newbie because I don't want to ruin the whole thing with my poor playing, noodling, or whatever.
There is certainly an aspect of "performance", but not really in the "to the audience" kind of performance. As a newbie I practice every day in hopes I can be good enough to play with you all, that when you hear me play, it's worthy of the permission you gave me to pull up a chair.
If that isn't some kind of performance, I don't know what is, because it sure gives me performance anxiety.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by sbhikes
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I was just away performing my daily ablutions, without an audience. I suppose that means I haven't really?
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
If you're anxious, then you're probably thinking of it as a performance. That makes it a performance for you, even if no one else in the room sees it that way.
Try focusing instead on the music itself, rather than your playing of it. That's one of the beauties of not performing at a session--it's more relaxing.
My hunch is that this is easier after more experience.
This is just one example of how the difference in attitude can make a big difference for some people.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I don't know but when I'm playing in a session I always try to perform my best and I also think once one knows he/she is being watched one automaticlly performs..............
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Saint, bnelieve it or not, my experience is different from yours.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
And I said it before if session are the highest level people will ever play at. This is thier only chance to perform.......
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Not sure I understand that sentence, but as I've said above, I've played gigs and concerts--genuine performances.
Sessions are a great opportunity to play music without performing.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Cheshire I believe it everyone is different .If you care about what other people think its a performance..........
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
If you can't perform in a session you won't be able to perform on stage
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Saint, you might consider reading the thread before challenging what any of us thinks.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Fair enough I jumped in a bit early..... sorry about that
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
No worries, but your points are addressed above.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I still find this an interesting topic, but everything in this new thread really has been said before, for both sides of the argument. I was going to suggest that people read the other related threads first, but I don't even think that would help. There really is nothing left to say on the subject - it's all been said already! Clearly people just have different ideas of what a session is. That's clear from the above comments about being a newbie and feeling nervous about playing in sessions because it feels like a performance. I hope threads like this can - if nothing else - be of use to people like this so that they can experiment with this as an anxiety-relieving technique or something.
I must say that it's pretty obvious when you meet a musician in a session who thinks of what they're doing as a "performance". It always comes through in their body language - subtle mannerisms like smiling blissfully to themselves or making silly movements with their upper body to show the listener how deeply they're getting into the music, or little hair flicks at certain moments during their playing. And then nods and a great big grin to acknowledge the applause at the end. Personally I find all that a bit irritating to watch and listen to, to be honest.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow, that stuff doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when you're not performing, but then a performance mind set starts to shape the tunes they choose to play and how they play them (flashy but safe--things like Concertina Reel on steroids), and the tendency to raise the volume and pace for no other reason, and other musical histrionics instead of just enjoying the tunes.
Basically, the "performers" in sessions I've been in tend to listen to themselves rather than everyone else, and they tend to play louder and more deliberately, to be heard by everyone else. In my opinion, this doesn't help the overall sound or craic.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Rook, a ceilidh nowadays is a dance, usually in a hall. The music and dancing moved out of houses and into venues.
Saint, we had all of this some time ago. To Cheshire, he plays in a pub where no-one listens to anything, they watch TV with the sound down.
I have now successfully performed the task of submitting this post, again without an audience, unless you count the dog, who used to perform tricks.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
And as you can see from Dow and Cheshire above, it depends on what meaning you give to the word "perform". They believe a performance requires one to show off before an audience.
Some of us believe you can perform the complete works of Bach on a desert island, with you being the only person around for hundreds of miles.
# Posted on July 30th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
This thread (said Johnny-come-lately, i.e. me - I've been off to a wedding in t'Smoke), has attracted the usual regulation quantity of bullsh1t as could have been anticipated. If you go to play music at a session for any other reason than to have fun, there's something wrong with you and I can't see why you bother going. Some of the posts here, especially the longer ones (and you know who you are), are veritable performances in themselves. It's hard to believe that their authors don't go to their sessions and spend most of their time furtively looking around to see how people are reacting to them. Mr Bliss, I hate your instrument but you are a most sound and sane fellow. Well said about Bach. I'm not quite sure how you'd manage the Matthew Passion on a desert island, though, if you were the only person around for hundreds of miles. The man who can both sing and play an oboe d'amore at the same time has yet to be invented.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Sbhikes, do bear in mind that it's far harder to learn the dynamics of playing in a group at a session than it it by forming a small (3 - 5 people) "rehersal band".
If you're playing to perform you (naturally) want to be seen at your best. However, this (in a session) usually results in people pushing themselves too hard and playing sloppily and making mistakes. This naturally degrades the experience for others.
The thing is, to people who do "serious" performances (i.e. those where there's more than 150 people or where there's a payment in excess of £75 each) and the required rehersal time, they're only going to go to a session for themselves. So don't expect them to agree that sessions are performances for them - and accept that one day (hopefully) you'll have experienced serious performance (or any form of playing music when you don't want to), and appreciate just playing music for yourself.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Andy V
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Thank you Steve. As for the instrument, is that the harmonica, bodhran or mandolin? Or all of them?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes it's all been said before and folks like saint should read it before jumping in. There was one above that made my eyes roll: "I just skimmed through this thread, and I must say, I do not understand what the debate is about." For fecks sake.
And poor old Mr Bliss is still hung up on semantics. (I wish you'd read my post where I don't mention the word)
The reverend pete had an interesting one though. He said that the general mood/size/volume of the bar has an influence on the music, even though the effort is for it not to.
Ideally, I'd like to think that the explanation is straight forward, in that simple background volume is bound to stop you playing quietly, even if you want to. But I'm willing to take on board Will's approach that general ambience is obviously influential on personal mood, and so should be influencing musical decisions. Just so long as you don't miss out the middle bit, i.e., don't choose music that merely fits the ambience, if you mood isn't running with the ambience first. It's a potential contradiction, but that's OK.
Another interesting contradiction is pointed out by Will above. Performers at sessions tend to listen to themselves. Where as to move towards my ideal of non performance in company, means you have to listen very closely to the other musicians.
I think this is a good illustration of "why?" play non performance music. Something we haven't much covered and certainly something that might help those who don't "get it". Quite simply, I think it makes for better music
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Spot on Michael.
As to your first point above, the way I think about it is that the other people in the room, the weather, the time of day or night, the quality of the poor, the smell of the place, the humidity--all the qualities of the moment--contribute (some more than others) to how the music happens. So every night is different, and part of the fun is in seeing how the tunes unfold differently than they did last time.
Couldn't agree more on listening to others vs. listening mostly to yourself. Totally different mind set. And my experience too is that it makes for better music.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Hear hear, Michael. Particularly the last two paragraphs.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Andy V
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I must be one of the chosen people. As a bodhran player, I have to listen to everyone else, and try and roll with their mistakes and nuances. And there are plenty of both, as their performance tends to vary, depending on all those influences mentioned by Cheshire above.
Oops, those outside influences affect the session, the non performance.
I always imagined doing a musical impression of Nick Faldo would make one oblivious to all these "influences".
Still, I like being one of the anti-social elite.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
... and it's interesting to look at why it's better music
There is the obvious lack of performance anxiety (though we will no doubt hear the reverse that some degree of performance anxiety makes for a more concentrated performance - deep sigh)
But I found it hard to make the leap to playing non performance music.
I find performing a straight forward task. I don't do it much these days, but looking back, I remember pretty strict criteria. Body language is important, facial expressions etc. The build up, The "up a tone", The planning of the peaks and troughs. The speed. The volume. And most important, the planning of ALL this (not to mention the disguising of it being planned).
I found it hard to make the leap to playing non performance music. Not only because of the safety zone that is planning, but the comfort that the audience gives to your successful planning.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
It's late.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I didn't know how many of you guys are flute players.
Dow-
> If you get a clap at the end, then you've failed and should give up and go home before you embarrass yourself any more
> If someone applauds my tune playing, I feel that I've failed in my effort to communicate my intention in playing the tune
That’s so weird
> I must say that it's pretty obvious when you meet a musician in a session who thinks of what they're doing
> as a "performance". It always comes through in their body language (–––) making silly movements with
> their upper body to show the listener how deeply they're getting into the music, or little hair flicks at certain
> moments during their playing. And then nods and a great big grin to acknowledge the applause at the end.
> Personally I find all that a bit irritating to watch and listen to, to be honest.
Look we can all joke about other people's mannerisms, but after the other stuff you've said that sounds pretty dammed judgemental. You're from the school of studied catatonia then?
Llig-
> It's an argument about attitude, and there are no grey areas or overlap
Spoken like a true Calvinist.
> But the trick is to blank this as irrelevant. (This is where the applause thing is just bloody
> annoying, it reminds you there are punters there
> It's irrelevant if people are entertained.
The only word I can think of is "ungenerous". The spirit of Ivor Cutler's Scotch Sitting Room lives on.
Andy-
> If you suddenly realise some girl you quite like is sitting across the table from you,
> and start trying to show off a bit then, in your head, you're performing
Jeez. Did they take all your blood when they got the flute out?
Some people, on both sides, have written with generosity and understanding. They sound as if they enjoy music. Thank God for that!
Now I must go and play with an attractively shiny grain of sand my father has allowed me as a treat, in return for a promise to keep my cries of delight entirely subdued.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by BanJacki
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Its a late performance.......
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Hmmm, I think you miss my point. I do enjoy playing music. But I've done enough performing in gigs and rehersals for them to know that I'd rather play for my own enjoyment than for someone elses. And I've been sat down in a room with people I don't really like, have little stylistic or repetory cross-over with and told to be creative. So I know I like not having to soundcheck. I like being able to stop to chat to someone for a bit. I like having the luxury to make a few mistakes. I like not having to arrive at a certain time. I like not having to repeat a set for an hour, discuss it at the end of every time through and discuss whether it needs altering. I like it that, at the end of the day, no one judges me on how I play at a session. Or if they do, I don't care.
I hate having to care and feel nervous when I play. And I'd rather the success of my evening be judged on how happy I am than how happy someone else is.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Andy V
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Well said, Ban Jacki, spoken like a true Antrim man. Is Wednesday at Ballinderry now?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
A performance, in performing arts, generally comprises an event in which one group of people (the performer or performers) behave in a particular way for another group of people (the audience). Sometimes the dividing line between performer and the audience may become blurred, as in the example of "participatory theatre" where audience members might get involved in the production........................................Irish musicians play Irish music in a session because the punters have come to hear Irish Music . So in my book a session is a performance whether we like it or not or whether we thing we are performing or not, if there is someone listening or someone has specificly come to the pub to hear the music its a performance its out of the musicians hands .............
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I don't do this but if one is playing in front of a mirror is it a performance?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Come on Saint, admit you play with yourself in front of a mirror
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by dogbox
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Ha ha............
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
Isn't it ALL a performance?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by gw
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Oh and BTW, the boojums in the central Baja desert are quite amazing (been there many times), though I'm not sure they are the "Boojum" referred to by your handle
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by gw
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yup, this thread's looking like it's going down the same path as the others - finger-pointing and bickering instead of real discussion. Ban Jacki, the only thing you could find to say to me was something about my head being stuck up my arse, but you didn't actually contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, which is pretty clever, because it means I can't form an argument against you - I can only try and insult you back, but what would be the point in that? Really cheap tactics if you ask me. I'm off to do some work... not willing to waste any more time on this.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I tried to stay out of this one, as Mr Gill is doing very well along with Will. One reply to:
"Another interesting contradiction is pointed out by Will above. Performers at sessions tend to listen to themselves. Where as to move towards my ideal of non performance in company, means you have to listen very closely to the other musicians."
To confuse the issue further, this is also important in ensemble performance, to listen to your own music and also to feel and react to the others in the band. It can be exhilarating when everyone is there together. I just mention this to say that listening is a goal for both session play and performance.
But I love this line:
If "how it will be perceived" influences in even the tiniest of ways any of your musical choices, then you are not playing for entirely yourself.
I would just change that last word to "yourselves". The definition of yourselves is most commonly your fellow musicians. However, it can include others in the room who are active in the session.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Jode
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Now I not only have a bit of an idea of what some people see the issue as, but I also see why people duck for cover when the subject comes up. It's been interesting. I solemnly swear I did not realize what a can of worms I was opening when I asked.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes, that's good that, Jode
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
And GW, all the world is a stage according to the melancholy Jacques. People often quote lines from Shakespeare in the context of absolute truths, rather than examining it ion the context of the character
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by llig leahcim
After Show Party
In the world I inhabit there were always "rehearsals" and "gigs".
A "session" does not easily fall into either category.
But there is one other situation: "the after show party bash".
This is informal, usually acoustic with much eating, smoking, drinking, talking, hanging-out and very similar to a ITM pub' session.
By the way one PERFORMS to lesser or greater degree in all cases. Any musician who claims "not to be performing" isn't playing at all or properly. Even when you're at home on your own practicing, you're performing!
And isn't anyone who is snooty and humourless enough to claim that they are not performing a bit miserable and anal?
I'd say, "Cheer up and stop being so precious! You may miss the chance to perform!"
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
You saying I can't play properly? You know what? I don't give a f**k what you think, yhaalhouse.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Sorry to be blunt, but I the way you're talking is ridiculous, and really insulting too, but I suppose that was intentional.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow,
I've never heard you play.
So I don't know.
But you don't care what I have to say.
So why would you ask?
And anyway, you better define "properly" first!!
A smile upon you, you old curmudgeon!!
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Where is the insulting bit?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow you've got to have become one of the most bitter and twisted blokes I've met. I don't know why??
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by kookabat
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
This is either the most hilarious, or the most desperately depressing thread I have ever read. It's probably symptomatic of the modern hell we call civilisation.
I bet Dow is pretty good. However, it is quite likely an impossibly for anyone ever to hear him playing as doubtless the presence of another sentient being would interfere with his 'rendition' (can't say the P word). And even if it didn't, any 'appreciation' of his having rendered said piece 'properly' would be upsetting beyond words.
In the Zen-like state of play in which a couple of people here seem to exist, I'd imagine worlds such as proper and improper, correct and incorrect, cease to have any meaning. And yet, conversely, the exact opposite seems to hold.
In the end it all sounds a bit like an old (very) frankfurt school argument.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'll put it simply: I don't like showing off, and I don't like people who show off. If you perform, you are always showing off to some extent.
What's so bad about that? Please tell me because obviously I need to become a better person.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"Dow you've got to have become one of the most bitter and twisted blokes I've met. I don't know why??"
Not really bitter and twisted, Kookie, I've just lost all patience with certain people who 1) won't bother reading previous threads and then complain that they don't understand what's going on (duh?!), 2) people who insult people's playing who they've never even heard play, and 3) clueless people who don't know what they're talking about coming on thesession.org puffing themselves up and posturing with their pseudo-intellectual jargon and brandishing their massive egos when you just know that if you tried to have a tune with them in real life, they might just about manage John Ryan's polka, played badly, if you're lucky. I'm just sick of it and that's why I've been more blunt and sometimes downright rude of late.
Well, I tell a lie, I am bitter because a lot of good friends have left thesession.org because of the reasons I've given above.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"Where is the insulting bit?"
I am one of the people on this thread who claims "not to be performing". You said that anyone who claims not to be performing 1) isn't playing "properly", 2) is "snooty and humourless" and 3) "miserable and anal". That's insulting. It's all right there in your post, so don't go denying it and acting innocent. Your post sucks.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I don't mind at all if you don't like showing off. I don't either. Nor do I think your attitude makes you a bad person. Only a funny one
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
The Passion of Performing Music (any music)
Dow,
I think you being a bit strange about this!
Musicians have to sell themselves and display their passion otherwise the opportunities to play and maybe earn money could pass you by.
So “showing off” is what they do.
Even if you are an “enthusiastic amateur” and don’t intend to “get gigs” surely you still want to be a better musician.
If you have a brilliant technique or a fab new tune- you’ll want to show it off!
Musicians also need to develop a modicum of stagecraft in order to enhance the (sorry) performance and entertain their own or the punters. Or maybe enhance their lesson and teach their students.
I suppose, not a musician, but a “player of an instrument” may not want to go there?!
But who wants to be known as a “player of an instrument” instead of “musician”!
But surely everyone that goes to and plays at a session wants to be a musician- even the most novice amateur.
Performance Art anyone?!
Is PASSION a key word?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'm talking about the difference between a gig and a session.
Musicians *don't* have to sell themselves. To do so is a choice. Of course anyone who does a gig is performing and therefore also showing off their abilities in order to make money. That's fine - I've nothing against that. It's when that performance ideal is forced on me in sessions that I'm against it.
I choose not to sell myself. I am *not* a trad whore
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
But are you a "musician"?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I'm a musician, not a musical whore.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Webster's says...
musician
One entry found for musician.
Main Entry: mu·si·cian
Pronunciation: myü-'zi-sh&n
Function: noun
: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : INSTRUMENTALIST
- mu·si·cian·ly /-lE/ adjective
- mu·si·cian·ship /-"ship/ noun
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow,
I don't believe you can be a musician and not perform.
You have to either admit to being a performer or deny that you are a musician.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Maybe it's just that some people don't understand what a "musician" is. I believe you can be a musician without doing gigs and selling your own abilities for money. I myself play music purely for my own pleasure. I'd be quite happy to sit and play at home and lose myself in music, and never ever have anybody hear my playing for the rest of my life, if there was no other choice. It's just that I happen to enjoy playing tunes with other people for the pleasure it gives me. I'm telling you the truth about the way I think. There's nothing "zen" about it. I really don't understand why people can't get their heads round this, when to me, Will, llig etc it's so bleeding *obvious*!
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"3) clueless people who don't know what they're talking about"
which ones?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Main Entry: mu·si·cian
Pronunciation: myü-'zi-sh&n
Function: noun
: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : INSTRUMENTALIST
- mu·si·cian·ly /-lE/ adjective
- mu·si·cian·ship /-"ship/ noun
Yes, I am an INSTRUMENTALIST, and to some extent a composer. I'm not a conductor and never have been. I do not perform music to an audience for money or otherwise. I only perform music in the sense that I physically perform the action of moving my fingers onto concertina buttons. But we've been through that before in previous threads. In this thread we've been talking about the "show, performance" nuance of performing, not its sense of "execute, carry out".
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow et cetera...
Do you think getting paid (or free beer!) for an ITM gig is somehow disrespecting the "tradition"?
And you lot are the curators of the true pure faith unsullied by filthy lucre, men in suits and music stands?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I repeat: gigs and sessions are two different things. Of course I'm not against people doing paid ITM gigs. Why should I be? Nothing I've said in this thread should even imply that if you've read it properly.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Aw well!
I've enjoyed this little chat about semantics.
I'm off to get this evening's Evening Standard, read it with a pint of Stella and later on, off to perform at the Kilkenny session .
We will undoubtably disagree again shortly and look forward to the opportunity of corresponding with you!
Boom shackalackalacka...
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I have no qualms with your attitude regarding 'performance', nor less with your happiness to play music without an audience for the rest of your life. That's fine. But maybe some people would appreciate hearing you, non-musicians that is ...??? Maybe? Surely that shouldn't be an issue? I wouldn't assume this of course.
I also wouldn't assume very much about anyone that posts here.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
If a non-musician heard me and liked my music, of course it wouldn't be an issue. But if they heard me, it would most likely be because they overheard my playing in a session making music with other people, not because I'd been performing to them.
That is, unless I decided to do a performance, such as a gig, or street busking, in which case I'd hope that people liked my music because they'd be likely to give me more money if they liked it.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yes, Dow, I understood that. I've been through all these things ad nauseum with myself for years.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I enjoy sessions. I don't enjoy gigs. Are gigs performing? It feels like it. I'll tell you what it feels like, it feels like work.
So that's how I always define this 'performing' nonsense that shows up on here, aka 'work'.
Am I performing when I'm playing a session? I don't care. Like Dow said" I enjoy playing tunes with other people for the pleasure it gives me."
The problem with our dear, beloved mustard board here is that performing becomes not a verb, meaning to play music, but becomes something else entirely.
The Session.org appears to recognize the word 'performance' or 'performing' as making music for an audience.
So, in the end, it's very simple:
Performance: Making music for an audience
Session: Making music for yourself/other musicians, an audience in incidental
Performing: All about the audience
Session: All about you (me, us, we the musicians)
...which is why sessions are not performances. Is that OK with everyone? Probably not. Seems mighty logical though.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Wow, I sure like to read myself type. What a wind-bag.
Please note, I did that just for myself and my other typers. Any of you inadvertantly reading it out there, it was not directed at you at all. Your entertainment is strictly accidental.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
> Well, I tell a lie, I am bitter because a lot of good friends have left
> thesession.org because of the reasons I've given above.
There's the rub. The bickering and posturing gets old, I agree with you there, Dow.
Online communities have yet to evolve into something that approaches face to face communication, where (hopefully) courtesy and politeness are still practiced.
Why do the wind-up topics always degrade into name calling and arguing? Is it the anonymity of hiding behind a nickname? Is it that good-natured ribbing and joking aren't conveyed well in text? Is it not OK that people might actually *disagree* with you? Do people get a thrill out of being antagonistic in a situation where they're not likely to get punched in the nose?
A fair amount of this thread was people having honest discussion about the differences between performance and a session, and what that means to them.
It is sad that the bickering inevitably happens, because it DOES drive people away, and diminishes the appeal of this site, and it's ability to make connections between people who share common interests.
There are a lot of people that I miss too.
Pete
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Reverend
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
SWFL - that was my original point many threads ago on this very issue. Why do we need any other word for what a session is? If it were a "performance" in the "playing music to an audience" sense of the word, we wouldn't call it a session, we'd just call it a performance, or gig, or concert, or show.
A session is somehow different--at least for some of us. Yes, some sessions are more perfomance-like than others. But some sessions have little or nothing to do with performing for an audience.
Good on you, SWFL.
And yet people will come on this thread and tell me I can't possibly play music without performing it. They insinuate that I must suck as a musician. They mock my explanations of how our session works. Yet they've never heard me play. They've never been to my session. In short, they don't have a clue what they're talking about, but they don't hesitate to cast aspersions on it. And all I was doing was giving my good-faith answer to Boojum's good-faith query. Without insulting anyone.
So someome please clarify who's showboating? Who's "performing" on this thread? Who's actually posting to move the conversation forward? Who's flouting Jeremy's simple "be civil" rule?
Sadly, Dow is right. Run your cursor over my screen name. I've been participating on this board longer than anyone on this thread. Over the years, far too many of the fun, friendly, reasonable people have been run off by the pointless posturing and insulting behavior of others on these threads. It's really a shame that's been allowed to happen. I wish Jeremy would put a stop to it.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow has sessions in the kitchen, where they perform their repertoire. The majority have sessions in pubs, and perform their stuff, but there are other people there.
To perform does not mean to show off.
And Dow, you cannot really claim to be insulted, and then accuse everyone who disagrees with you of maybe being able to play John Ryan's polka, a tune I am not familiar with.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Just to be clear, the word "perform" has several different meanings. In some situations it means simply to "do" something, to execute an action. In other situations it means to "present music to an audience for the purpose of entertaining them."
We've been through that many times on other threads. It's clear also on this thread that we're talking about the latter meaning, not the former.
I'd suggest that anyone who insists on sticking solely to the first meaning isn't helping the conversation move forward, but is actually impeding its progress.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Thank god you're still here, Will. Sometimes I have to give myself a reality check reading posts on this board (do people really think like that??!!), and it's so refreshing to know that someone out there experiences the music in a similar way to me, even though live many thousands of miles away.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
you live
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
As c.p.t. says, I think SWFL Fiddler summarized the issue very nicely. Not all may agree with that summary, but it fits my thinking on the topic. And I fully agree with Pete, c.p.t. and Dow regarding the loss of some fine voices on this website over the years.
But bodhran bliss, you break my heart. How could you not recognize a tune featured in that touchstone of traditional Irish culture, the movie "Titanic"?
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Yep, the challenge is to stay positive amid all the trash talk. You can't imagine all the typing I've erased recently....
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
In a way, this whole issue is why our Sydney session closed recently. It was because of my absolute stubborn refusal to compromise on what the session was to be. It was clear from the way the bar staff acted that they expected us to perform: they'd complain when we didn't attract enough customers to the pub, and if you went to the toilet for a 2 or 3 minute break between sets, they'd switch the jukebox on while you were away to "fill in the silences". This is because they didn't understand what our session was intended to be. I had meetings with them and explained that we were not there to be performing monkeys. We were there to foster a sense of musical community by playing tunes together as a group, in a place where we could also benefit from an ambient atmosphere and the availability of alcoholic drinks. The manager understood this but didn't communicate it effectively enough to his bar staff. They treated us more and more as performing monkeys, as though we were obliged to entertain, with no gaps between sets, and no conversation. That wasn't good enough for me, so I arranged for the session to be closed. That's how strongly I feel about this topic. I won't budge on it, because I care about the music and I care about my enjoyment of it and my friends' enjoyment of it. I'm happier to have the odd house session where nobody expects us to perform for them.
So anyone who was curious to know why it closed - now you know.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
"You can't imagine all the typing I've erased recently"
LOL I think I could do with some editing lessons, Will. I stopped holding back some time ago, and tend to just freely let rip these days. I'm sure you've noticed - you've known me long enough
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Dow
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
We session in three different pubs. Two of them get it completely. The third is finally catching on--the owner used to bark at us to quit talking and play tunes, but now he just lets us be.
The interesting thing is that our "music as community" session tends to pull in more people than the hired musical acts. In part because all the participants in our session--musicians and non-musicians alike--want to be there every week. They have a sense of belonging to it, a sense of ownership even.
At one of the pubs, the owners have said that they don't care whether we draw people in or drive them away--they want us to play there because of they want to be part of the circle of community it creates. Of course, all three pubs are happy that they sell plenty of pints on a session night, but it's not a significant reason for them opening their doors to us.
That makes us extremely lucky--to have found three homes. I think it's partly the way people treat each other in a small town. And in this respect it's similar to small-town pub sessions in Ireland and anywhere else. It's a community gathering place, with music.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow - I can completely appreciate your frustration with the loss of your session because of this issue. Some of our locals were in a similar relationship with pub owners, but fortunately, we have found a very nice middle ground. The session group plays for the joy of it, and the publican makes a nice bit of change off the crowd we attract for him on Sundays. We have accepted the occasional requests for certain tunes and songs as part of the communal atmosphere with the punters, and at the same time, everyone there knows we are not hired entertainment. I feel lucky to have found places that have struck a happy middle ground on this obviously volitile issue.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
it means to "present music to an audience for the purpose of entertaining them." Cheshire Puddy.
Like a session? There you are playing away just for yourselves, when Paddy Keenan leans over and requests "John Ryan's Polka".
Or does this simple act of making a request reduce Keenan to the status of "ill informed moron who knows nothing about Irish music?"
Perhaps that is for another discussion. Now the musicians are playing "for themselves" but by dint of being human they must be aware of their surroundings. And although not everyone is interested, there are people who go to that venue because of the music. They might slabber all night long to their friends, but next day will tell all and sundry that "the music was great". That's human nature.
And all of this because Dow hit upon a bad pub. Happened us loads of time, we just move on to the next pub. Perhaps that is not readily available in Oz, but the sins of a few bar staff should not be visited upon us all.
That's my sensible contribution.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
I am grateful to hear that the old tradition of playing music at someone's house (kitchen) is still alive as it has ever been.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Random_notes
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Dow, that is a shame about that pub. We have the same issues in Americay, of course, the home of Danny Boy-style Vaudevillian nonsense. Education is another key point of sessions, I think. I’ve been lucky with a new spot up the street from me. Nice older gent from Boston semi-retired to Florida and bought a pub. He ran one in Boston for years, well familiar with sessions, etc.
Being a session player is not easy. You have to educate, network, act as an agent with publicans (if hosting), keep lines of communication open among musicians, be an ‘evangelist’ for Irish Culture and Music … (if not in Ireland) ...oh yes, and then there's the whole point of what you're doing it for, the music.
Insane, but all done out of love, it really is.
“Yes, I do all that because I love to perform! Woo hoo! Everybody lookie at me! I’m a big fiddle star! Gonna make a million dollars and be on TV! Woo hoo!” [/sarcasm]
OK, sorry, I know, civility and all that.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Bliss, you can argue your same point over and over if you want, but I think we get it already.
You're saying that if anyone is listening to our music, they are by definition an audience. And that by being human, we're necessarily aware of this listening audience. Therefore it is by definition a "performance."
But you seem to be missing the finer distinctions Dow, Gill, and I have made above. Sure, these distinctions may not matter to you--and that's fine. But they do matter to us. If you disagree, why not just leave us to our discussion? The only reason it came up was because Boojum asked for an explanation.
No one here is trying to force our view of sessions on you--why insist we adopt yours? And if you think we're just telling lies or fooling ourselves, well, you've already warned us of that. I can't imagine why anyone in your shoes would want to keep hanging around us deluded mendicants.
Muse, part of what's so cool about "music as community" sessions is that they can happen anywhere--doesn't have to be a thatch-roofed cottage in Corofin. We do kitchen sessions a fair amount here in Montana, and they're always great fun. A good part of that spirit carries over into our pub sessions, too.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
You're between a rock and a hard place really, trying to (re)create a session. Outside of the musicians themselves hardly anyone ever understands.
I'd imagine, Dow, that almost anyone who has ever had anything to do with playing sessions outside - and not a few inside too - Ireland will have very similar tales to report. Years ago I used to naively think that all that was necessary was to turn up, NOT perform, and let the tunes speak for themselves. They do, of course, but in a pub populated by people who really haven't a clue, after the initial wave of enthusiasm (maybe two sets long at best), they don't speak to anyone but the musicians. This often has the bizarre effect of actually annoying and even seriously upsetting bystanders/bar staff and publicans.
I think the kitchen route is the best one in the end. I get fed up with people in the pubs asking me why it all sounds the same, or why "do you never improvise".
The Paddy Keenan comment above is ... well,
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
Well what?
And Cheshire, if someone disagrees with you they should stop posting? An admirable idea.
Unfortunately Ireland was known as "The land of Saints (sic) and scholars". We tried to educate the world. Some of us are still trying.
And I have never, unlike you just did, tried to force my opinion on anyone. I am simply stating my beliefs, based on attending sessions, in Ireland, for some 40 years.
And maybe because most of my experience is in Ireland, that is why I differ from you.
# Posted on July 31st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Why is "performance" an issue?
And we now have a poster using the name "IRA. Ou