I like to mix and match tunes I learn off CDs rather than playing them in the order they appear on the recording where I found them. But sometimes people who've learned them from the same source will insist on playing what was on the recording regardless of my intention after starting the tune. I'll try to go into the tune I had in mind, but it will be a train wreck for the first couple of seconds while that person attempts to follow with the tune that came next on the recording. When we get to the end they'll play the tune that was next anyway as if to demonstrate what should have happened. Granted there are medleys from recordings I enjoy playing, but some people seem to think there's a rule that you have to play the medleys as they are on the recordings where you got the tune. Does this happen to you guys? Is there something wrong with mixing and matching or should I just submit to the recording’s medleys.
I know what you mean. Related to this is the phenomenon of someone putting a set together themselves, then always, without exception, playing the same set. I actually find this even more irritating. Part of the fun for me is the uncertainty of what's coming next!
Yea, there are medleys I've put together that I really enjoy playing, but they're never carved in stone, and I certainly wouldn't insist other people put them in that order when they start the tune. Sometimes they do, but it's because they liked my medley idea, and that's great, but it's still up to them to mix & match if they want. If I go to someone else's session I'll often put tunes together the way I've heard them do it out of respect, but it's just a gesture and not a rule.
Some of the first sets I learned were off the Friends of Matt Molloy album. I still enjoy playing many of them, like Over the Moor to Maggie / Fred Finn's / Hunter's House, as old standbys. However, when somebody else kicks off a set I follow the leader accordingly and joyfully - I mean seriously, what kind of bullying ego-maniac would force another person to change the spontaneous flow of tunes just because they rigidly prefer them in a different order?
Sometimes, a tune can be found to pair with another tune so splendidly that it becomes a standard enjoyment to keep the pairing. I don't see anything wrong with this. Sometimes you might stumble across such a pairing, or your mate might, or someone you don't know might and put it out as a commercial recording. I like this
We take great pleasure in learning tunes as they are played by others (or we should) so i don't see the difference in playing pairs as played by others. Clever people put a lot of effort into pairing tunes, so why eschew such pairings merely because of some daft "rule" you make up that says it's uncreative to play someone else's set?
We know that the the heart and soul of this music is the deep respect of the way it is and has been played, So where's the problem?
Having said that, I would never assume that if someone played a tune, they "should" play a particular tune after it. And even if it might disappoint me that they may have wasted an opportunity by introducing a substandard pairing, that's their call, I would never ever complain. Who knows, it's possible that they may have come across an even better pairing
Wisdom, but I have had some not jump on me for choosing to play tunes together that hadn't started that association pre-recorded... There are some real Yahoos out there, scary people...
A "substandard pairing." What's that - Charles and DI?
Exploring all kinds of combinations of tunes is one of the joys of a session, if it sometimes causes a train wreck, or lack of a nice key change, or two tunes that are oo similar. The great thing is no-one is around with a yardstick making sure the music is up to "standard" or, if they are, they get ignored.
No-one should be refused their favouriteset from an Altan album, though, so long as they started the set.
Anyone who proffers an opinion about what goes with what is an eejit. Do what you flamin' well like. It's not a performance after all! Read my lips: There...are...no...rules....
Well, are you taking lists yet? Save some of that Jameson for me, if you would... Just remember, it doesn't 'mix' well with harmonica reed verdigris, that green waxy shight... We wouldn't want yuh poisoning yourself just yet.
Hey p-Shaw, I really enjoyed reading the additions you've made to your 'details'... Scary though, I didn't expect I had any lost brothers out there in the sticks of Cornwall... Are you a foundling by any chance? Or is there any question with regards to your genetic father?
I'll give you an example: I like to play George White's Favorite with that Andy McGann tune in C Maj (that he recorded with the Humours of Scariff,) but instead of the Humours of Scariff I like to go into Balinasloe Fair. A visiting fiddler didn't like that idea at all and tried to force the Humours of Scariff in. I seem to have won the tug of war since I had called the key to the back-up player, but at the end of the medley the fiddler tagged on the humours of scariff anyway. There was a look of disapproval from him after the medley ended.
Now don’t get me wrong, I like to play some of these classic sets too, but I also like to have the option not to. Is it really blasphemous to break up these classic sets?
Ouch! ~ that strikes memories P.B. I haven't as strong a constitution as you. I have had sets I'd started railroaded over by folks like you just mentioned being emphatic that "that-is-the-only-way-things-should-go", as Planxty or whoever recorded it, and nothing else will do... What's sad is that sometimes the sets I know and have enjoyed were because I'd learned them in situ from someone I liked, not off a recording, but sometimes those who swear by the commercial norms have interrupted my revelry by redirecting things the way they think they ought to go. The tyranny of it all. If I'm honest, push over that I am, it hurts a little... I have no emotional ties to Planxty or any particular commercial CD, but people, yes, and the things we'd shared...
I always thought that Verdi Grease was some sort of fusion between grand opera and almost modern cinema. Oh well. I can't help suspecting the taste of any man who implores me to "save him some Jameson's." I've had two glasses on top of my Rioja (had lamb for tea so Rioja it had to be) and I just know I'll have belly-ache in the morning (if there is a morning) and it won't be the Rioja's fault.
Rioja and Guiness, no, the description of single malt had me convinced or a shared lineage, but mixing Jameson with Rioja, nah, there can't be. I hope you don't dilute the single malt with lemonade...
I also can't imagine lamb, preferring the salt marsh variety, or the French milk sheep sort, cut with a rioja, and I quite like a good rioja. I think it needs something completely different, like an New Zealand Gewurtztraminer...
Red wine with red lamb is so passé, the tyranny of old tele programs and old farts, male and female, in pipe smokers musty suits or concrete hair marms dressed in curtains with makeup laid on with a trowel...
"Red wine with Red meat"
That's a classic set
If it is good, why would you change it?
What's wrong with Cooley's and the Maids?
What's wrong with rioja and lamb?
'Ramiro', might I suggest a bias? Having travelled in realms of other 'Ramiros', they never fussed that much with what colour the wine was, lamb on the table or not...
What's 'CLASSIC' is wine with the meal. I would never argue with that. But, mixing whiskey with it as well? I guess we have to make allowances for harmonica players, but I'm not cleaning up after him. So, the 'classic set', wine with meat, who could argue, though I also appreciate other alcoholic combinations with meat. Ale ain't half bad, or something along that line, eh? But hey, I like oysters in Lancashire Hot Pot...
What is Lancashire Hot Pot?
Oh, I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Hotpot
Oysters??? I think I'd better stay on the holy ground of tradition.
Yummmm, hot pot... with red wine, of course.
If we kept it to the 'holy ground' then we'd only ever have red wine and that awful sweet stuff they serve in church with those styrofoam tabs. YUCK!!! What a loss that would be. I love reds especially, but I also appreciate the whites and all colours and shades in between, even the stuff you can't see light through... And I'd choose homebaking anyday over styrofoam...
Dragging this back to something near the topic. My take on this is slightly different. There are lots of classic sets that I would like to play, but here in Belfast it might be seen as a bit passé. For example You can play Martin Wynne's No2, and it would be welcome. You could later on play The Longford Tinker, and that would be ok. But if you put them together as per the Bothy Band, people might not play the set, and you would certainly get slagged at the end.
However there are sets which people expect to be played together, and are disappointed if you don't. For example, Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen. I think these are different because they are traditionally played together, rather than the work of a recognisable musician or band
I'd hate to think I was playing with a group of musicians who'd look down their noses were I too launch into a Bothy Band set. Sets should ideally be the prerogative of the person who starts the first tune and whether Martin Wynne's No 2 is played with the Longford Collector, following his No. 1 (my personal preference) or anywhere else (I think the Border Collies put it with Mossy Banks), it's still a great reel. I think we should all play music for its own sake and not get hung up on forms of session snobbery.
Sorry about the typo (too) in the first line. I don't know about the rest of you but I always tend to do this in topics I feel particularly strong about!
Last year we got into the habit of playing the BothyBand's big jig and five reels set. It really is brilliant fun to play the lot, with all the harmonies etc. Except it's just as much fun as it used to be. Someone I haven't seen for a while asked for it the other day, and I just couldn't. But I'm still enjoying, after many many years, playing The Traveller and The Humours Of Lissadel. Say's it all really, what goes around comes around.
I'm surprised this thread got so hijacked that the discussion almost died, because it's a really good question. Phantom asked about sets on *recordings*, not sets people traditionally play (they're not always the same thing). What about when you have different recordings with different sets using some of the same tunes? Which recording to follow?
Another reason for playing sets a certain way is in remembrance of a departed musician who played them that way---like the Tarbolton set comes from the way Michael Coleman played it.
I'm not as experienced as many of the session players here, but it seems to me that playing a certain set a certain way *all* the time would grow kind of boring after a while, like playing the Kesh jig twice a night every week. What's so bad about mixing it up?
Just scrolled down so forgive me if I'm repeating anyone, but why "Recorded medleys *vs.* mix & match" Why should it be either/or? Why is it a problem either way? Unlike Kennedy, I don't think it is a really good question, and don't think it's even remotely worth worrying about never mind posting a thread about. No doubt there will be repercussions for me saying that. Am I bovvered?
Well. Never mind, then. It sounded like a problem to me, though, because Phantom's session mates want to play their tunes their way and don't want to go along if he plays something his way. Not worth worrying about? Even when everyone isn't working toward the same goal?
KML, you stroll in here, not bovvered to read the bloody thing, then say it's not worth your time. With such a p*ssy attitude, why did you bovver posting?
If this is a problem, why don't you do some communicating about where you're going before you go there, instead of trying to drag people through the messy train wreck?
If you can't call out the tunes before the switch because you're playing flute at the time (which shouldn't necessarily stop you, there's no harm in stopping your playing for a second to call out a tune name, is there?), but you could always tell people what you intend to play before you even star the set...
It was a late night, amongst other influences. There were some relevant things mixed in with the previous madness.
Yes, it is an issue, at least for some, or this wouldn't have bubbled up here. I've had the cold shoulder for playing something different than was expected, and it seems others have been slagged for playing the same ol' set off of whosits album... So, it isn't in a vacuum, these things happen and for some cause the tyrannical in them to surface. Yes, that's a shame, but it still happens, or has, to some of us. As I've said, I usually back off and let them have their way...
Also in this is the question of medleys at all. A lot of the music playing I did, with friends, tunes I'd learned, and played in good company and also for dance, were not sets at all, not medleys, and sometimes I would just love to play the one tune for a spell, without something having to precede it or follow it. Now, that does get looks if you request that option, as it is generally not an option in your general run-of-the-mill sessions... There are even quite a few 'recordings' that are in the same vein, not medleys, just the one tune on its own...and why not?
Why can't we prep beforehand and say something to the effect of "I'd like to play this ~" ~ ? I know that sometimes that feels mechanical, but sometimes I just don't want 8 tunes on the run, just once or twice through each...
"why don't you do some communicating about where you're going before you go there, instead of trying to drag people through the messy train wreck?" ~ rev
When other people start a tune that I recognize as part of a classic set I don't assume they're going to play that set just because they didn't tell me first. I mentioned above that in most circles around here people don't really like the idea of saying what you intend to play before you start. I like to, but I'm usually met with resistance for doing so. People have even said to me as I'm doing it, "Just play the tune Jack!" If I'm at someone else's session and they don't like to go that route, I respect their session. If I'm the anchor or host I have a little more leeway, but still meet some resistance from visitors and cohorts. Sometimes the pubs a little too noisy or the session's a little to big as well, but I always give the benefit of the doubt to whomever started the set to decide whether it's a classic set of something different.
But didn't most or all of the classic sets start out as recorded medlys? Pol mentions the Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen set, but where did that originate?
I wanted to try playing Aggie Whyte's before Humours of Scartaglen one night because Aggie Whyte's last 5 notes are exactly the same as the first 5 notes of Humours of Scartaglen. But nobody was willing to stop after the Humours of Scartaglen.
Then there's the conflicting classic sets, for example: Llig mentioned that the Travelers and the Humours Of Lissadel are a classic set, but for me the Humours Of Lissadel and the Connemara Stockings is a classic set that appears on 3 recordings I have. And I'm not talking about new recordings either. So which is the classic set?
Right, Kennedy... that's true. I mentioned many times in this forum how I like to play a snippet of each tune so people will know which one I'm talking about without having to know the name.
I've been told by older players that many "classic sets" were tried and true long before recordings came around. Though recordings seem to help cement such medleys in their place.
Other classic sets clearly stem from particular, influential recordings. But commercial recordings aren't particularly relevant to how a session works--except when newbies get hung up on them as the model for playing this music. Which they aren't. If anything, recordings are an aberration (and I'm being polite ).
Sometimes it's fun to play those sets simply because everyone knows them and knows what to expect. But more often, I like to mix things up, try new combinations, on the fly or pre-conceived.
Here's how it works in sessions I play in. At my local sessions, I take into account who's leading the set. Some people almost always mix things up, so I wait to hear where they're going between each tune. I usually do a little quiet shuffle on whatever note I'm on while they start the next tune just to keep the beat going and so I'm ready to jump in within two or three notes (as soon as I recognize the next tune). Other people almost always stick to familiar sets, so I'll go into the expected tune--but I'll listen just in case they've thrown in a surprise.
At sessions with people I don't know so well, I may anticipate a classic set but I don't take it for granted. So I listen at the change between every tune. It really does help to be able to keep a drone or rhythmic shuffle going in the background (quietly) untill you suss out the next tune. I usually figure it out within the first bar. If it's one I don't know, I drop out. After a time or two around, I may jump back in, learning it on the fly.
Announcing the tunes ahead of time--by name or the snippet method--is uncommon in my experience. It does happen, but not often, and rarely at all when playing among new acquaintances. If someone has worked out a medley and wants the group to give it a go, then by all means, give us the table of contents. Otherwise, whoever starts the set leads the changes until s/he runs out of ideas.
Hmmmm. Re-reading my own post, I'd hazard a theory that sessions work very differently where people learn this music primarily from recordings, as opposed to face-to-face mentoring and tune swapping with other trad players. It's all about actively listening to the unpredictable. A recording is by definition utterly predictable. That predictability is anathema to the heart of this music.
I do appreciate the 'snippet' method, as that tells me better than a title if I know the tune, but as said, it doesn't happen everywhere. It is also an easier act of kindness and consideration in small settings ~ "Do you know this one?" It helps elsewhere, like when someone corners you to start a set in and unfamiliar setting, as I would much rather contribute one others can join in than be left on my own with something nobody else present knows. So, when I've had that courtesy, of the snippet, it is appreciated. When it isn't available, well, it has never put me off enjoying the music... That only happens when someone adamantly opposes some combination, or insists on another...
The snippet method, or talking about what you're going to play before starting, is much more rare this side of the pond, but I've seen it used a lot around Ireland on visits I made during the winter months. When I was in Ennis November of 2004 I saw it being used before and after the Trad Fest, but when the Festival was on the practice got suspended all together. It really only works in smaller sessions.
But in my experience locally people aren't always as restrained about listening to see if the person who started the tune is going for the classic set or not. Very often everyone assumes it will be the classic set and any new ideas are overpowered.
People who don't listen at the change of tunes for what comes next--given that someone else started the set--aren't really having a session. They're just careening through the tunes. That's like having a conversation, except you get to talk whenever an idea enters your head, whether or not someone else is talking. A shame some of your local players are like that.
The most common strategy I've seen for getting to the next tune is for the lead player on that set to bark out the next tune sometime during the last run through of the previous tune. Easier on some instruments than others, and not everyone is as adept as some at talking and playing at the same time. Our flute player will sometimes stop and shout out a tune (or "one more time") and then jump right back in.
At my best, I can belch out one word while playing fiddle. Not much help when the word I land on is "Her!" or "Maggie" or "Road" or "Humours." Sigh.
Also, yelling out tune names while in the throes of playing tends to lead to misunderstandings: "Greenfields of Rossbeigh? I thought you said Whistler of Rossleigh!" And "Sorry I blew that change--I was trying to figure out why you shouted 'the ewe has clap!' I had no idea you wanted to play Hughie's Cap."
Ceolacanth, old chap, you have the germ of a notion there I have a lot of time for, namely questioning the concept of the medley in the first place. I bought a tune-book once by John Kirkpatrick (the bugger persuaded me to buy it off him, actually!), and in it there is an anti-medley rant, the main thrust of it being that you're not much of a musician if you can't use all your resources of variation and ornamentation to maintain interest in a tune for three or four minutes. I think he was being a bit extreme, but at least it adds another dimension to this tiresome debate about what should be played with what. We are playing music in a sociable setting for our own pleasure and as such - the mantra yet again, and I'd spout it to Mr Kirkpatrick too were he to be here - there are no rules!
And just to put the record straight, I may have philistine instincts, but I did not mix Rioja and Jamesons. It was a good two hours after the last of the cosecha 2000 had been supped before I raided the Jamesons bottle. In the interim the washing-up had been done, the wife consigned to bed and the cats cuddled, not to speak of Palin having been watched.
Steve, we've been known to let a tune stand on it's own now and then, but the concept of medleys is well established and just playing one tune at a time would be impossible to enforce. I am pleased to say that when we invite visitors to start a tune they sometimes will only play one, and we all stop when they give the nod or just stop. Most of the time they seem to think we were going to jump in and start something else, but we were waiting for their cue. I'm never disappointed when this happens.
Danny, if you thought this thread was so worthless... why did you bother posting anything on it? Or as old Shakespeare once said, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."
Yeah, that seems a reasonable delay between rioja and the Jamesons. You still might be my father's bastard son... Bro!
Worse, Danny might be too... What would it be without his dour rejection of the worries of others, eh? It is good to know I'm not the only miserable git on site these last couple of days. I'm coming down with something, what's your burr in the butt key? Aren't we allowed our moments to attempt to exorcise demons?
I like that P.B., respect for the courtesy your lot has the grace to extend to thers, even better, with appreciation... Yes, medleys are here to stay, but an occassional change is a welcome... There's little worse than going from something everybody is swinging with and together on then to suddenly swerve into a traffic jam. I'd much rather finish on the up...
One of the worse medley abuses, and it gives the form a bad name, are polkas...including some awful 'classic' sets...
Frankly key, I welcome this ramble as it gets me thinking about how I feel about the possible imposition and tyranny of recorded music on tradition. No, it isn't all good, and while I agree in part with you, in that I don't mind it either way, that is not always the case with some of the folks I've had the unfortunate experience of coming across in sessions. I'm willing to give respect and consideration for another's choice of tunes in a medley, classic or not, but am not comfortable when some folks pull it off as gospel, by the holy order of ASCAP, this is the order of things and shall not be changed. Yes, that tyrannical approach, imagined, imposed, or just taken for granted because it's the easy option, does occassionally raise my ire... I don't think the tradition should be straight jacketed by commercial recordings that often get it wrong anyway, such as with boosted tempos and some pretty awful melodies and medleys... Sometimes cuteness just doesn't cut if for deciding what goes with what in what order. IMO...
For some reason lost in the mists of time we always play Trip to Durrow on its own. And The Butterfly. And we never put slow airs in medleys of more than three, unless we have bodhran accompaniment.
Aha, now we're getting closer to the truth of it. Some players we may label as tyrannical because they do - or don't - do things according to a recording. So this really is all about @rseholes who try and dominate your session with or without recorded sets.
Despite my occasional slip into that category, and suggesting it of others, I see 'greater influences' sometimes at work, such as the 'spirit of vinyl', or in the case of those younger, the digital, how things are cut and ordered by the industry or those pandering to it. Some folks develop a strong dislike of the old 'classic' sets, voiced vehemently, certain famous characters included, while others are enamoured by the history of them and the artist and cling to them. I think this 'rut' of fixed medleys, and this discussion, is in part about 'understanding', which can become fixed and tyrannical either way. I don't lay all the blame on the person who adopts the dogma. I'd like to think better of them than '@rsehole', though that may apply too.
With regards to the 'classic', though mostly nowadays it isn't actually 'classic' recorded sets we're talking about, but, if your nurture into this passion we share is solely or primarily through the pre-recorded, then your understanding is squiff, incomplete, lacking, just as if all you ever listened to was Coleman or Cole... The hope is that in discussing such things we might find ways around the brick walls that such misunderstanding can throw up, and maybe we can find solutions, or set the good example. Yes, it is, I think, about communication, communicating our own understanding and experience, our own appreciation. From experience, it generally doesn't work imposed, unless it starts in the build of the foundations. With that, it may also be that if you want something a certain way, then rather than imposing it on others, you do as button wisely has and you create, establish and maintain the setting, environment & spirit, you'd like for yourself and others. Or, if you're not the organizing type, you seek out a session that more closely suits your needs and character, like maybe one that only plays new wave sets off of the latest spins...
That's me trying to get around to 'understanding'. I have to admit it is something that does reside in my memory and can limit my involvement in this passion. It may be age too, as sometimes, one or two sets and I know I'd be better off moving on, or occupying a seat and enjoying nursing a pint, listening, and the company I'm usually in... I'm also wanting to move some of my bricks, and button's thread offered possibilities. "Cask of Amontillado" anyone? Yeah, I did skirt the issue for a spell and went to other mixes and matches, red, rose, white, Jameson, but that's called 'avoidance'...
as C.P.Tat posted: "...At my local sessions, I take into account who's leading the set. Some people almost always mix things up, so I wait to hear where they're going between each tune. I usually do a little quiet shuffle on whatever note I'm on while they start the next tune just to keep the beat going and so I'm ready to jump in within two or three notes (as soon as I recognize the next tune). Other people almost always stick to familiar sets, so I'll go into the expected tune--but I'll listen just in case they've thrown in a surprise...."
listening keeps us in the tunes, wherever they lead, and transforms the players into the moment, the magic.
hmmm....seems to me that the issue here is more one of, why don't those other folks leave it to the person who began the set, in this case you, pb, to determine the tunes in the set? isn't the etiquette that you follow the set-starter, unless the starter gives the shrug or the toss-off?
that aside.....i play sets off of cds because i live in a jurisdiction where just about nobody listens to, or gives two you-know-whats -about, the musicians and recordings i learn from, so i could get away with playing entire albums, practically, a state of affairs which is probably not good for my set-devising practice, i guess...
Yes... that is my policy, but some people seem to think breaking up certain sets should be illegal. Like Master Crowley and the Roscommon Reel, or Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen. Many times when I've suggested any of these without it's partner I've received dissappointing looks.
oh, that's right, now i think i recall from other threads that you take the "forewarning" approach, which i thought sounded like a great idea, and which isn't usually done in my neck. i guess with the "forewarning" approach, that explains why there is more opening for people to disagree with the sets you have in mind....
Not exactly. If you're allowed to indicate what tunes you have in mind there's less chance that people will assume you're going to play the standard set. Communication is the best way to avoid that problem. If everyone seems to just want to play "spontaneously" they're more likely to assume the standard and any mixing and matching is less likely unless it's understood that it could happen. The issue I tried to raise in this thread is how some people think it's wrong to break up certain sets and how they react adversely if you do so.
Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I like to mix and match tunes I learn off CDs rather than playing them in the order they appear on the recording where I found them. But sometimes people who've learned them from the same source will insist on playing what was on the recording regardless of my intention after starting the tune. I'll try to go into the tune I had in mind, but it will be a train wreck for the first couple of seconds while that person attempts to follow with the tune that came next on the recording. When we get to the end they'll play the tune that was next anyway as if to demonstrate what should have happened. Granted there are medleys from recordings I enjoy playing, but some people seem to think there's a rule that you have to play the medleys as they are on the recordings where you got the tune. Does this happen to you guys? Is there something wrong with mixing and matching or should I just submit to the recording’s medleys.
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I know what you mean. Related to this is the phenomenon of someone putting a set together themselves, then always, without exception, playing the same set. I actually find this even more irritating. Part of the fun for me is the uncertainty of what's coming next!
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by Doodle
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Yes I totally agree. Just another example of how not listening ruins a session.
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by crazy_fingerz
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Yea, there are medleys I've put together that I really enjoy playing, but they're never carved in stone, and I certainly wouldn't insist other people put them in that order when they start the tune. Sometimes they do, but it's because they liked my medley idea, and that's great, but it's still up to them to mix & match if they want. If I go to someone else's session I'll often put tunes together the way I've heard them do it out of respect, but it's just a gesture and not a rule.
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I generally prefer to mix and match, but sometimes i stick to recorded ones just for the security of knowing what to play next.
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by alexthomas
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Here, here P.B.!!!
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by ceolachan
~ whatever source they are learned from...
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Some of the first sets I learned were off the Friends of Matt Molloy album. I still enjoy playing many of them, like Over the Moor to Maggie / Fred Finn's / Hunter's House, as old standbys. However, when somebody else kicks off a set I follow the leader accordingly and joyfully - I mean seriously, what kind of bullying ego-maniac would force another person to change the spontaneous flow of tunes just because they rigidly prefer them in a different order?
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Sometimes, a tune can be found to pair with another tune so splendidly that it becomes a standard enjoyment to keep the pairing. I don't see anything wrong with this. Sometimes you might stumble across such a pairing, or your mate might, or someone you don't know might and put it out as a commercial recording. I like this
We take great pleasure in learning tunes as they are played by others (or we should) so i don't see the difference in playing pairs as played by others. Clever people put a lot of effort into pairing tunes, so why eschew such pairings merely because of some daft "rule" you make up that says it's uncreative to play someone else's set?
We know that the the heart and soul of this music is the deep respect of the way it is and has been played, So where's the problem?
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Having said that, I would never assume that if someone played a tune, they "should" play a particular tune after it. And even if it might disappoint me that they may have wasted an opportunity by introducing a substandard pairing, that's their call, I would never ever complain. Who knows, it's possible that they may have come across an even better pairing
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Wisdom, but I have had some not jump on me for choosing to play tunes together that hadn't started that association pre-recorded... There are some real Yahoos out there, scary people...
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by ceolachan
"some not" ~ should have read ~ "some nut"
# Posted on October 7th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
A "substandard pairing." What's that - Charles and DI?
Exploring all kinds of combinations of tunes is one of the joys of a session, if it sometimes causes a train wreck, or lack of a nice key change, or two tunes that are oo similar. The great thing is no-one is around with a yardstick making sure the music is up to "standard" or, if they are, they get ignored.
No-one should be refused their favouriteset from an Altan album, though, so long as they started the set.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by grego
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Meant to say:
"even if it sometimes causes a train wreck..."
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by grego
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Anyone who proffers an opinion about what goes with what is an eejit. Do what you flamin' well like. It's not a performance after all! Read my lips: There...are...no...rules....
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
You aren't also drinking are you grego? Mines an Aussie bubbly, a good one too, if pink...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Damn, it's the Shaw, who left the door open?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Finishing off a bottle of Jameson's this end. Somebody bought me it so I have to drink it. It'll fill the void 'til Father Christmas comes.
Hang on - I'm Father Christmas...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Well, are you taking lists yet? Save some of that Jameson for me, if you would... Just remember, it doesn't 'mix' well with harmonica reed verdigris, that green waxy shight... We wouldn't want yuh poisoning yourself just yet.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Hey p-Shaw, I really enjoyed reading the additions you've made to your 'details'... Scary though, I didn't expect I had any lost brothers out there in the sticks of Cornwall... Are you a foundling by any chance? Or is there any question with regards to your genetic father?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I'll give you an example: I like to play George White's Favorite with that Andy McGann tune in C Maj (that he recorded with the Humours of Scariff,) but instead of the Humours of Scariff I like to go into Balinasloe Fair. A visiting fiddler didn't like that idea at all and tried to force the Humours of Scariff in. I seem to have won the tug of war since I had called the key to the back-up player, but at the end of the medley the fiddler tagged on the humours of scariff anyway. There was a look of disapproval from him after the medley ended.
Now don’t get me wrong, I like to play some of these classic sets too, but I also like to have the option not to. Is it really blasphemous to break up these classic sets?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Yes, I know, the topic, but his is about mix & match...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Ouch! ~ that strikes memories P.B. I haven't as strong a constitution as you. I have had sets I'd started railroaded over by folks like you just mentioned being emphatic that "that-is-the-only-way-things-should-go", as Planxty or whoever recorded it, and nothing else will do... What's sad is that sometimes the sets I know and have enjoyed were because I'd learned them in situ from someone I liked, not off a recording, but sometimes those who swear by the commercial norms have interrupted my revelry by redirecting things the way they think they ought to go. The tyranny of it all. If I'm honest, push over that I am, it hurts a little... I have no emotional ties to Planxty or any particular commercial CD, but people, yes, and the things we'd shared...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I always thought that Verdi Grease was some sort of fusion between grand opera and almost modern cinema. Oh well. I can't help suspecting the taste of any man who implores me to "save him some Jameson's." I've had two glasses on top of my Rioja (had lamb for tea so Rioja it had to be) and I just know I'll have belly-ache in the morning (if there is a morning) and it won't be the Rioja's fault.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Rioja and Guiness, no, the description of single malt had me convinced or a shared lineage, but mixing Jameson with Rioja, nah, there can't be. I hope you don't dilute the single malt with lemonade...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Sorry, I can't feel any sympathy for your belly ache, you asked for it...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
I also can't imagine lamb, preferring the salt marsh variety, or the French milk sheep sort, cut with a rioja, and I quite like a good rioja. I think it needs something completely different, like an New Zealand Gewurtztraminer...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Red wine with red lamb is so passé, the tyranny of old tele programs and old farts, male and female, in pipe smokers musty suits or concrete hair marms dressed in curtains with makeup laid on with a trowel...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
"Red wine with Red meat" ~ is how that was meant to read...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Hey, it's still on track ~ medleys vs. mix & match...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I think we owe it to the music to break up the classic sets. But not all the time.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
"Red wine with Red meat"
That's a classic set
If it is good, why would you change it?
What's wrong with Cooley's and the Maids?
What's wrong with rioja and lamb?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Ramiro
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
'Ramiro', might I suggest a bias? Having travelled in realms of other 'Ramiros', they never fussed that much with what colour the wine was, lamb on the table or not...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
What's 'CLASSIC' is wine with the meal. I would never argue with that. But, mixing whiskey with it as well? I guess we have to make allowances for harmonica players, but I'm not cleaning up after him. So, the 'classic set', wine with meat, who could argue, though I also appreciate other alcoholic combinations with meat. Ale ain't half bad, or something along that line, eh? But hey, I like oysters in Lancashire Hot Pot...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
What is Lancashire Hot Pot?
Oh, I see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Hotpot
Oysters??? I think I'd better stay on the holy ground of tradition.
Yummmm, hot pot... with red wine, of course.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Ramiro
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Oysters were the 'tradition', the 'old school'...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
If we kept it to the 'holy ground' then we'd only ever have red wine and that awful sweet stuff they serve in church with those styrofoam tabs. YUCK!!! What a loss that would be. I love reds especially, but I also appreciate the whites and all colours and shades in between, even the stuff you can't see light through... And I'd choose homebaking anyday over styrofoam...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Dragging this back to something near the topic. My take on this is slightly different. There are lots of classic sets that I would like to play, but here in Belfast it might be seen as a bit passé. For example You can play Martin Wynne's No2, and it would be welcome. You could later on play The Longford Tinker, and that would be ok. But if you put them together as per the Bothy Band, people might not play the set, and you would certainly get slagged at the end.
However there are sets which people expect to be played together, and are disappointed if you don't. For example, Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen. I think these are different because they are traditionally played together, rather than the work of a recognisable musician or band
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Pól
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I'd hate to think I was playing with a group of musicians who'd look down their noses were I too launch into a Bothy Band set. Sets should ideally be the prerogative of the person who starts the first tune and whether Martin Wynne's No 2 is played with the Longford Collector, following his No. 1 (my personal preference) or anywhere else (I think the Border Collies put it with Mossy Banks), it's still a great reel. I think we should all play music for its own sake and not get hung up on forms of session snobbery.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Bannerman
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Sorry about the typo (too) in the first line. I don't know about the rest of you but I always tend to do this in topics I feel particularly strong about!
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Bannerman
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Last year we got into the habit of playing the BothyBand's big jig and five reels set. It really is brilliant fun to play the lot, with all the harmonies etc. Except it's just as much fun as it used to be. Someone I haven't seen for a while asked for it the other day, and I just couldn't. But I'm still enjoying, after many many years, playing The Traveller and The Humours Of Lissadel. Say's it all really, what goes around comes around.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I'm surprised this thread got so hijacked that the discussion almost died, because it's a really good question. Phantom asked about sets on *recordings*, not sets people traditionally play (they're not always the same thing). What about when you have different recordings with different sets using some of the same tunes? Which recording to follow?
Another reason for playing sets a certain way is in remembrance of a departed musician who played them that way---like the Tarbolton set comes from the way Michael Coleman played it.
I'm not as experienced as many of the session players here, but it seems to me that playing a certain set a certain way *all* the time would grow kind of boring after a while, like playing the Kesh jig twice a night every week. What's so bad about mixing it up?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by kennedy
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Just scrolled down so forgive me if I'm repeating anyone, but why "Recorded medleys *vs.* mix & match" Why should it be either/or? Why is it a problem either way? Unlike Kennedy, I don't think it is a really good question, and don't think it's even remotely worth worrying about never mind posting a thread about. No doubt there will be repercussions for me saying that. Am I bovvered?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Well. Never mind, then. It sounded like a problem to me, though, because Phantom's session mates want to play their tunes their way and don't want to go along if he plays something his way. Not worth worrying about? Even when everyone isn't working toward the same goal?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by kennedy
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
KML, you stroll in here, not bovvered to read the bloody thing, then say it's not worth your time. With such a p*ssy attitude, why did you bovver posting?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I like the 'classic' sets. But I also like mixing them up.
(Others have said the same above, but for once I thought *I'd* try the version with fewer words.)
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
If this is a problem, why don't you do some communicating about where you're going before you go there, instead of trying to drag people through the messy train wreck?
If you can't call out the tunes before the switch because you're playing flute at the time (which shouldn't necessarily stop you, there's no harm in stopping your playing for a second to call out a tune name, is there?), but you could always tell people what you intend to play before you even star the set...
Pete
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Erm, *start* the set... (Although, since it's your set, you may star in it too) And I'm not even the one drinking Jamesons!
Pete
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
It was a late night, amongst other influences. There were some relevant things mixed in with the previous madness.
Yes, it is an issue, at least for some, or this wouldn't have bubbled up here. I've had the cold shoulder for playing something different than was expected, and it seems others have been slagged for playing the same ol' set off of whosits album... So, it isn't in a vacuum, these things happen and for some cause the tyrannical in them to surface. Yes, that's a shame, but it still happens, or has, to some of us. As I've said, I usually back off and let them have their way...
Also in this is the question of medleys at all. A lot of the music playing I did, with friends, tunes I'd learned, and played in good company and also for dance, were not sets at all, not medleys, and sometimes I would just love to play the one tune for a spell, without something having to precede it or follow it. Now, that does get looks if you request that option, as it is generally not an option in your general run-of-the-mill sessions... There are even quite a few 'recordings' that are in the same vein, not medleys, just the one tune on its own...and why not?
Why can't we prep beforehand and say something to the effect of "I'd like to play this ~" ~ ? I know that sometimes that feels mechanical, but sometimes I just don't want 8 tunes on the run, just once or twice through each...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
"why don't you do some communicating about where you're going before you go there, instead of trying to drag people through the messy train wreck?" ~ rev
~ that's basically what I was trying to second...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
When other people start a tune that I recognize as part of a classic set I don't assume they're going to play that set just because they didn't tell me first. I mentioned above that in most circles around here people don't really like the idea of saying what you intend to play before you start. I like to, but I'm usually met with resistance for doing so. People have even said to me as I'm doing it, "Just play the tune Jack!" If I'm at someone else's session and they don't like to go that route, I respect their session. If I'm the anchor or host I have a little more leeway, but still meet some resistance from visitors and cohorts. Sometimes the pubs a little too noisy or the session's a little to big as well, but I always give the benefit of the doubt to whomever started the set to decide whether it's a classic set of something different.
But didn't most or all of the classic sets start out as recorded medlys? Pol mentions the Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen set, but where did that originate?
I wanted to try playing Aggie Whyte's before Humours of Scartaglen one night because Aggie Whyte's last 5 notes are exactly the same as the first 5 notes of Humours of Scartaglen. But nobody was willing to stop after the Humours of Scartaglen.
Then there's the conflicting classic sets, for example: Llig mentioned that the Travelers and the Humours Of Lissadel are a classic set, but for me the Humours Of Lissadel and the Connemara Stockings is a classic set that appears on 3 recordings I have. And I'm not talking about new recordings either. So which is the classic set?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
One thing about saying the tune you're going to play, is no one knows what tune it is anyway, so it doesn't always help...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by kennedy
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Right, Kennedy... that's true. I mentioned many times in this forum how I like to play a snippet of each tune so people will know which one I'm talking about without having to know the name.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I've been told by older players that many "classic sets" were tried and true long before recordings came around. Though recordings seem to help cement such medleys in their place.
Other classic sets clearly stem from particular, influential recordings. But commercial recordings aren't particularly relevant to how a session works--except when newbies get hung up on them as the model for playing this music. Which they aren't. If anything, recordings are an aberration (and I'm being polite
).
Sometimes it's fun to play those sets simply because everyone knows them and knows what to expect. But more often, I like to mix things up, try new combinations, on the fly or pre-conceived.
Here's how it works in sessions I play in. At my local sessions, I take into account who's leading the set. Some people almost always mix things up, so I wait to hear where they're going between each tune. I usually do a little quiet shuffle on whatever note I'm on while they start the next tune just to keep the beat going and so I'm ready to jump in within two or three notes (as soon as I recognize the next tune). Other people almost always stick to familiar sets, so I'll go into the expected tune--but I'll listen just in case they've thrown in a surprise.
At sessions with people I don't know so well, I may anticipate a classic set but I don't take it for granted. So I listen at the change between every tune. It really does help to be able to keep a drone or rhythmic shuffle going in the background (quietly) untill you suss out the next tune. I usually figure it out within the first bar. If it's one I don't know, I drop out. After a time or two around, I may jump back in, learning it on the fly.
Announcing the tunes ahead of time--by name or the snippet method--is uncommon in my experience. It does happen, but not often, and rarely at all when playing among new acquaintances. If someone has worked out a medley and wants the group to give it a go, then by all means, give us the table of contents. Otherwise, whoever starts the set leads the changes until s/he runs out of ideas.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Hmmmm. Re-reading my own post, I'd hazard a theory that sessions work very differently where people learn this music primarily from recordings, as opposed to face-to-face mentoring and tune swapping with other trad players. It's all about actively listening to the unpredictable. A recording is by definition utterly predictable. That predictability is anathema to the heart of this music.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I'd second - strongly - both of your last two posts, Will. Can't put it better ...
... or I would!
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I do appreciate the 'snippet' method, as that tells me better than a title if I know the tune, but as said, it doesn't happen everywhere. It is also an easier act of kindness and consideration in small settings ~ "Do you know this one?" It helps elsewhere, like when someone corners you to start a set in and unfamiliar setting, as I would much rather contribute one others can join in than be left on my own with something nobody else present knows. So, when I've had that courtesy, of the snippet, it is appreciated. When it isn't available, well, it has never put me off enjoying the music... That only happens when someone adamantly opposes some combination, or insists on another...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
I don't have a problem with following someone else's lead, whether a 'classic' set or a new mix...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
The snippet method, or talking about what you're going to play before starting, is much more rare this side of the pond, but I've seen it used a lot around Ireland on visits I made during the winter months. When I was in Ennis November of 2004 I saw it being used before and after the Trad Fest, but when the Festival was on the practice got suspended all together. It really only works in smaller sessions.
But in my experience locally people aren't always as restrained about listening to see if the person who started the tune is going for the classic set or not. Very often everyone assumes it will be the classic set and any new ideas are overpowered.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
People who don't listen at the change of tunes for what comes next--given that someone else started the set--aren't really having a session. They're just careening through the tunes. That's like having a conversation, except you get to talk whenever an idea enters your head, whether or not someone else is talking. A shame some of your local players are like that.
The most common strategy I've seen for getting to the next tune is for the lead player on that set to bark out the next tune sometime during the last run through of the previous tune. Easier on some instruments than others, and not everyone is as adept as some at talking and playing at the same time. Our flute player will sometimes stop and shout out a tune (or "one more time") and then jump right back in.
At my best, I can belch out one word while playing fiddle. Not much help when the word I land on is "Her!" or "Maggie" or "Road" or "Humours." Sigh.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Also, yelling out tune names while in the throes of playing tends to lead to misunderstandings: "Greenfields of Rossbeigh? I thought you said Whistler of Rossleigh!" And "Sorry I blew that change--I was trying to figure out why you shouted 'the ewe has clap!' I had no idea you wanted to play Hughie's Cap."
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Ceolacanth, old chap, you have the germ of a notion there I have a lot of time for, namely questioning the concept of the medley in the first place. I bought a tune-book once by John Kirkpatrick (the bugger persuaded me to buy it off him, actually!), and in it there is an anti-medley rant, the main thrust of it being that you're not much of a musician if you can't use all your resources of variation and ornamentation to maintain interest in a tune for three or four minutes. I think he was being a bit extreme, but at least it adds another dimension to this tiresome debate about what should be played with what. We are playing music in a sociable setting for our own pleasure and as such - the mantra yet again, and I'd spout it to Mr Kirkpatrick too were he to be here - there are no rules!
And just to put the record straight, I may have philistine instincts, but I did not mix Rioja and Jamesons. It was a good two hours after the last of the cosecha 2000 had been supped before I raided the Jamesons bottle. In the interim the washing-up had been done, the wife consigned to bed and the cats cuddled, not to speak of Palin having been watched.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Steve, we've been known to let a tune stand on it's own now and then, but the concept of medleys is well established and just playing one tune at a time would be impossible to enforce. I am pleased to say that when we invite visitors to start a tune they sometimes will only play one, and we all stop when they give the nod or just stop. Most of the time they seem to think we were going to jump in and start something else, but we were waiting for their cue. I'm never disappointed when this happens.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Read it all through now - wished I hadn't bovvered. Still of same opinion.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Danny, if you thought this thread was so worthless... why did you bother posting anything on it? Or as old Shakespeare once said, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
I've hardly been on it for that reason. And I was just answering Llig's earlier protestation. Youthinks what you want. I've told you what methinks.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Now Jack, I was merely relaying another angle to the debate promoted by another fellow, not putting it forward as a universal fix for ITM.
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Yeah, that seems a reasonable delay between rioja and the Jamesons. You still might be my father's bastard son... Bro!
Worse, Danny might be too... What would it be without his dour rejection of the worries of others, eh? It is good to know I'm not the only miserable git on site these last couple of days. I'm coming down with something, what's your burr in the butt key?
Aren't we allowed our moments to attempt to exorcise demons?
I like that P.B., respect for the courtesy your lot has the grace to extend to thers, even better, with appreciation... Yes, medleys are here to stay, but an occassional change is a welcome... There's little worse than going from something everybody is swinging with and together on then to suddenly swerve into a traffic jam. I'd much rather finish on the up...
One of the worse medley abuses, and it gives the form a bad name, are polkas...including some awful 'classic' sets...
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
to thers ~ to others
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Bowered?
# Posted on October 8th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Frankly key, I welcome this ramble as it gets me thinking about how I feel about the possible imposition and tyranny of recorded music on tradition. No, it isn't all good, and while I agree in part with you, in that I don't mind it either way, that is not always the case with some of the folks I've had the unfortunate experience of coming across in sessions. I'm willing to give respect and consideration for another's choice of tunes in a medley, classic or not, but am not comfortable when some folks pull it off as gospel, by the holy order of ASCAP, this is the order of things and shall not be changed. Yes, that tyrannical approach, imagined, imposed, or just taken for granted because it's the easy option, does occassionally raise my ire... I don't think the tradition should be straight jacketed by commercial recordings that often get it wrong anyway, such as with boosted tempos and some pretty awful melodies and medleys... Sometimes cuteness just doesn't cut if for deciding what goes with what in what order. IMO...
# Posted on October 9th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
For some reason lost in the mists of time we always play Trip to Durrow on its own. And The Butterfly. And we never put slow airs in medleys of more than three, unless we have bodhran accompaniment.
# Posted on October 9th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Aha, now we're getting closer to the truth of it. Some players we may label as tyrannical because they do - or don't - do things according to a recording. So this really is all about @rseholes who try and dominate your session with or without recorded sets.
# Posted on October 9th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Hi old friend... Not you! Not me!
Despite my occasional slip into that category, and suggesting it of others, I see 'greater influences' sometimes at work, such as the 'spirit of vinyl', or in the case of those younger, the digital, how things are cut and ordered by the industry or those pandering to it. Some folks develop a strong dislike of the old 'classic' sets, voiced vehemently, certain famous characters included, while others are enamoured by the history of them and the artist and cling to them. I think this 'rut' of fixed medleys, and this discussion, is in part about 'understanding', which can become fixed and tyrannical either way. I don't lay all the blame on the person who adopts the dogma. I'd like to think better of them than '@rsehole', though that may apply too.
With regards to the 'classic', though mostly nowadays it isn't actually 'classic' recorded sets we're talking about, but, if your nurture into this passion we share is solely or primarily through the pre-recorded, then your understanding is squiff, incomplete, lacking, just as if all you ever listened to was Coleman or Cole... The hope is that in discussing such things we might find ways around the brick walls that such misunderstanding can throw up, and maybe we can find solutions, or set the good example. Yes, it is, I think, about communication, communicating our own understanding and experience, our own appreciation. From experience, it generally doesn't work imposed, unless it starts in the build of the foundations. With that, it may also be that if you want something a certain way, then rather than imposing it on others, you do as button wisely has and you create, establish and maintain the setting, environment & spirit, you'd like for yourself and others. Or, if you're not the organizing type, you seek out a session that more closely suits your needs and character, like maybe one that only plays new wave sets off of the latest spins...
That's me trying to get around to 'understanding'. I have to admit it is something that does reside in my memory and can limit my involvement in this passion. It may be age too, as sometimes, one or two sets and I know I'd be better off moving on, or occupying a seat and enjoying nursing a pint, listening, and the company I'm usually in... I'm also wanting to move some of my bricks, and button's thread offered possibilities. "Cask of Amontillado" anyone? Yeah, I did skirt the issue for a spell and went to other mixes and matches, red, rose, white, Jameson, but that's called 'avoidance'...
# Posted on October 9th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
as C.P.Tat posted: "...At my local sessions, I take into account who's leading the set. Some people almost always mix things up, so I wait to hear where they're going between each tune. I usually do a little quiet shuffle on whatever note I'm on while they start the next tune just to keep the beat going and so I'm ready to jump in within two or three notes (as soon as I recognize the next tune). Other people almost always stick to familiar sets, so I'll go into the expected tune--but I'll listen just in case they've thrown in a surprise...."
listening keeps us in the tunes, wherever they lead, and transforms the players into the moment, the magic.
gotta love it!
# Posted on October 9th 2007 by trad2nz
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
hmmm....seems to me that the issue here is more one of, why don't those other folks leave it to the person who began the set, in this case you, pb, to determine the tunes in the set? isn't the etiquette that you follow the set-starter, unless the starter gives the shrug or the toss-off?
that aside.....i play sets off of cds because i live in a jurisdiction where just about nobody listens to, or gives two you-know-whats -about, the musicians and recordings i learn from, so i could get away with playing entire albums, practically, a state of affairs which is probably not good for my set-devising practice, i guess...
# Posted on October 11th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Yes... that is my policy, but some people seem to think breaking up certain sets should be illegal. Like Master Crowley and the Roscommon Reel, or Humours of Scartaglen and the Banks of the Ilen. Many times when I've suggested any of these without it's partner I've received dissappointing looks.
# Posted on October 11th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
oh, that's right, now i think i recall from other threads that you take the "forewarning" approach, which i thought sounded like a great idea, and which isn't usually done in my neck. i guess with the "forewarning" approach, that explains why there is more opening for people to disagree with the sets you have in mind....
# Posted on October 12th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: Recorded medleys vs. mix & match
Not exactly. If you're allowed to indicate what tunes you have in mind there's less chance that people will assume you're going to play the standard set. Communication is the best way to avoid that problem. If everyone seems to just want to play "spontaneously" they're more likely to assume the standard and any mixing and matching is less likely unless it's understood that it could happen. The issue I tried to raise in this thread is how some people think it's wrong to break up certain sets and how they react adversely if you do so.
# Posted on October 12th 2007 by Phantom Button