Just came across this fantastic comment in the latest issue of the Journal of [Irish] Music, in Niall Keegan's review of Helen O'Shea's book The_Making_of_Irish_Traditional_Music
"...is essentially a reaction, shared by many who come as adults to the tradition, to the realisation that the session is not an egalitarian performance context but a heirarchial social structure which is rarely about just playing tunes together."
It seems that this hits the nail on the proverbial head when it comes to the mistaken attitude with which so many of us in the traditional music periphery seem to approach Irish sessions; the idea that a session should be regarded as an opportunity to play out, rather than an opportunity to listen and learn (or, perhaps, even to just drink beer and tell jokes).
I think it's much more complicated than that. The best sessions are egalitarian in so much as everyone is give a chance, everyone is allowed the opportunity to be heard (only once of course, if they are lacking). But "egalitarian performance"? Oh no, never never allowed, deeply frowned upon and quite right. Feck off to your spawn-of-the devil folk club floor spots if that's what you're after.
"hierarchical social structure"? This is also wrong, but an understandable mistake. I think it comes from the "outsider" feeling you might get if indeed you are an outsider. This has often little to do with the music itself, instead it's merely a straight forward reaction to gate-crashing a bunch of mates' social club.
However, the hierarchical structure of the music itself is evidenced, though it has little to do with the social structure. Deference is the most important factor with the music, it's not a democracy. Always defer, you are not important. If anyone, regardless of their ability, is unwilling to defer, the night is ruined.
good sessions seem to take on different characteristics depending on any number of factors. for instance, it may be more democratic at particular times, often earlier in the evening and more meritocratic later on--this tends to be the pattern at my local session. Clearly there is a social structure and it tends toward a hierarchy but if the session is strictly regimented it dies.
that's not a great analogy. a bunch of mates playing tunes together and a couple of them are better musicians than the others they will tend to lead, in my experience.
There is always a hierarchical structure whenever humans (or any animal) gather together. It may not be obvious but it's there. And you may not realize it but as you get older it becomes more apparent. It isn't always about musical accomplishment either. In most adult social situations older people are (quite properly) deferred to. Age, size, intelligence, strength, beauty, experience... all are factors determining our responses to other animals.
Boozing especially reveals the hierarchy, as the alcohol lays bare our animal nature. Dogs who are unaware of the hierarchy are odd-balls in the pack.
The hierarchy exists in sessions too, and the point Ilig makes regarding deference is well taken.
I profoundly disagree with meritocracy being the key. When I speak of deference I mean defer to the music, not to the more able musicians. It doesn't matter who starts the tunes, so long as they are good tunes.
Leoj, Your experience is not mine. With a bunch of mates playing tunes together it doesn't matter if a couple of them are better musicians than the others there is still no leaders. You don't respect your mates with a measure of how well they play, mates are mates
You know. Llig, I wish my experience in such gatherings was more like your sessions. But it is, more often than not , the more able players who know lots of tunes and can play them well that lead--not necessarily dominate--and the less experienced players typically defer to these better players. If a really great player shows up at my session I will happily defer--i love to listen to tunes by great players.
Why would the more able players who know lots of tunes and can play them well lead all the time? Unless they want to play on their own?
And if a really great player shows up, the first thing they'll do is defer to the company. The ability and willingness to do so is essential to the definition of great player. As I said, If anyone, regardless of their ability, is unwilling to defer, the night is ruined.
I mean to say that no tunes will be played at a session where everyone is constantly showing deference for everyone else. Someone has to start something with conviction.
You defer to the music, not people. I'd say a theocracy is closer than meritocracy. dicionary.com has an amusing definition that can be altered acordingly (I just had to leave no2 in):
1. a form of session in which the diddley music is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the music's laws being interpreted by the players.
2. a system of government by musicians claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
I'm being a little facetious, sorry. I think that what I'm saying is that if the present company are mates who love the music, and are not interested in egalitarian performance (at least not in the pub), then the details of who plays what when etc., will sort itself out. Without the need for rules, regs and psycobable anthropological tittle tattle. And if anyone gets upset about it, it's their own bloody fault.
"I think that what I'm saying is that if the present company are mates who love the music, and are not interested in egalitarian performance (at least not in the pub), then the details of who plays what when etc., will sort itself out. Without the need for rules, regs and psycobable anthropological tittle tattle."
Well said Michael, well said indeed! Such should be applied in all walks of life to my way of thinking but alas we are but humans.
This requires all participants to listen attentively to ensure that the music is in its rightful spot, and justice is being done on its behalf.
Sounds easy, right?
Unfortunately, respecting and ensuring the good quality of the music requires listening and common sense, the dire lack thereof being a well-worn topic on this here board.
…which is another reason why ‘alpha’ players end up in various versions of ‘leader’ roles. If everyone used common sense and their ears all the time, there’s be no need for any ‘artificial’ human aristocracy to ensure the ‘natural’ one of the music.
I think I didn't lead any of the tunes last night, in the session I convene, coagulate, curate, or facilitate.
I'm not bothered.
One of us ( me ) sends off the reminding emails.
All of those who wish to come and contribute do so.
It's a happy evening of music with friends.
The tone of the evening is defined by the people who come and what they bring with them; last night Simon brought his new box; we know him chiefly as a guitar picker of great ability, but last night he produced this D/G box and we played quite a few english tunes. No problem, a fun evening.
Not open mike, not barnstorming, not a performance.
Some people are unable to use common sense and their ears because they have never figured out how to use their brain and connect it to their ears. Either that, or they are so empty-headed and never had a brain in the first place.
Isn't anthropological tittle tattle the point of this thread?
And a good thing too - better to have it out here than engage in it during a session, fascinating though it is.
A perfectly egalitarian session is not desirable, nor is a perfectly heirarchial session. Instead, the best comes when one finds a balance between undesirable extremes.
I like getting my horizons expanded by better players. It's a let down
when they don't show up. I guess the good side of that is that I'm forced
to lead a lot more tunes which also pulls up your standards.
The Non-Egalitarian Session
The Non-Egalitarian Session
Just came across this fantastic comment in the latest issue of the Journal of [Irish] Music, in Niall Keegan's review of Helen O'Shea's book The_Making_of_Irish_Traditional_Music
"...is essentially a reaction, shared by many who come as adults to the tradition, to the realisation that the session is not an egalitarian performance context but a heirarchial social structure which is rarely about just playing tunes together."
It seems that this hits the nail on the proverbial head when it comes to the mistaken attitude with which so many of us in the traditional music periphery seem to approach Irish sessions; the idea that a session should be regarded as an opportunity to play out, rather than an opportunity to listen and learn (or, perhaps, even to just drink beer and tell jokes).
Just a thought...
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by Georgi
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Maybe there's room for both types of sessions.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by bigyabby
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Great book, although it really made me use what little anthropolgy I have.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by snorre
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I think it's much more complicated than that. The best sessions are egalitarian in so much as everyone is give a chance, everyone is allowed the opportunity to be heard (only once of course, if they are lacking). But "egalitarian performance"? Oh no, never never allowed, deeply frowned upon and quite right. Feck off to your spawn-of-the devil folk club floor spots if that's what you're after.
"hierarchical social structure"? This is also wrong, but an understandable mistake. I think it comes from the "outsider" feeling you might get if indeed you are an outsider. This has often little to do with the music itself, instead it's merely a straight forward reaction to gate-crashing a bunch of mates' social club.
However, the hierarchical structure of the music itself is evidenced, though it has little to do with the social structure. Deference is the most important factor with the music, it's not a democracy. Always defer, you are not important. If anyone, regardless of their ability, is unwilling to defer, the night is ruined.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
good sessions seem to take on different characteristics depending on any number of factors. for instance, it may be more democratic at particular times, often earlier in the evening and more meritocratic later on--this tends to be the pattern at my local session. Clearly there is a social structure and it tends toward a hierarchy but if the session is strictly regimented it dies.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by leoj
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
If you went out boozing with a bunch of mates, would you describe the gathering as having a "hierarchical social structure"?
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
that's not a great analogy. a bunch of mates playing tunes together and a couple of them are better musicians than the others they will tend to lead, in my experience.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by leoj
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Like you said, meritocracy is the key word.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by Henk Bos
There is always a hierarchical structure....
There is always a hierarchical structure whenever humans (or any animal) gather together. It may not be obvious but it's there. And you may not realize it but as you get older it becomes more apparent. It isn't always about musical accomplishment either. In most adult social situations older people are (quite properly) deferred to. Age, size, intelligence, strength, beauty, experience... all are factors determining our responses to other animals.
Boozing especially reveals the hierarchy, as the alcohol lays bare our animal nature. Dogs who are unaware of the hierarchy are odd-balls in the pack.
The hierarchy exists in sessions too, and the point Ilig makes regarding deference is well taken.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by cocus
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I profoundly disagree with meritocracy being the key. When I speak of deference I mean defer to the music, not to the more able musicians. It doesn't matter who starts the tunes, so long as they are good tunes.
Leoj, Your experience is not mine. With a bunch of mates playing tunes together it doesn't matter if a couple of them are better musicians than the others there is still no leaders. You don't respect your mates with a measure of how well they play, mates are mates
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
You know. Llig, I wish my experience in such gatherings was more like your sessions. But it is, more often than not , the more able players who know lots of tunes and can play them well that lead--not necessarily dominate--and the less experienced players typically defer to these better players. If a really great player shows up at my session I will happily defer--i love to listen to tunes by great players.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by leoj
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Why would the more able players who know lots of tunes and can play them well lead all the time? Unless they want to play on their own?
And if a really great player shows up, the first thing they'll do is defer to the company. The ability and willingness to do so is essential to the definition of great player. As I said, If anyone, regardless of their ability, is unwilling to defer, the night is ruined.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
if a a session is not a democracy and not a meritocracy, define "defer to the company" in this context, if you would.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by leoj
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I mean to say that no tunes will be played at a session where everyone is constantly showing deference for everyone else. Someone has to start something with conviction.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by leoj
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
You defer to the music, not people. I'd say a theocracy is closer than meritocracy. dicionary.com has an amusing definition that can be altered acordingly (I just had to leave no2 in):
1. a form of session in which the diddley music is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the music's laws being interpreted by the players.
2. a system of government by musicians claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I'm being a little facetious, sorry. I think that what I'm saying is that if the present company are mates who love the music, and are not interested in egalitarian performance (at least not in the pub), then the details of who plays what when etc., will sort itself out. Without the need for rules, regs and psycobable anthropological tittle tattle. And if anyone gets upset about it, it's their own bloody fault.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
"I think that what I'm saying is that if the present company are mates who love the music, and are not interested in egalitarian performance (at least not in the pub), then the details of who plays what when etc., will sort itself out. Without the need for rules, regs and psycobable anthropological tittle tattle."
Well said Michael, well said indeed! Such should be applied in all walks of life to my way of thinking but alas we are but humans.
All the best!
Peace,
Ed
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by ejsant
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
A natural aristocracy where the music is king.
This requires all participants to listen attentively to ensure that the music is in its rightful spot, and justice is being done on its behalf.
Sounds easy, right?
Unfortunately, respecting and ensuring the good quality of the music requires listening and common sense, the dire lack thereof being a well-worn topic on this here board.
…which is another reason why ‘alpha’ players end up in various versions of ‘leader’ roles. If everyone used common sense and their ears all the time, there’s be no need for any ‘artificial’ human aristocracy to ensure the ‘natural’ one of the music.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
...and yes, deference is a great word to describe that combination of keen listening, respect and common sense.
...and yes, it's not open mike night, dude, or a jam session, bro.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I think I didn't lead any of the tunes last night, in the session I convene, coagulate, curate, or facilitate.
I'm not bothered.
One of us ( me ) sends off the reminding emails.
All of those who wish to come and contribute do so.
It's a happy evening of music with friends.
The tone of the evening is defined by the people who come and what they bring with them; last night Simon brought his new box; we know him chiefly as a guitar picker of great ability, but last night he produced this D/G box and we played quite a few english tunes. No problem, a fun evening.
Not open mike, not barnstorming, not a performance.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by Guernsey Pete
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Some people are unable to use common sense and their ears because they have never figured out how to use their brain and connect it to their ears. Either that, or they are so empty-headed and never had a brain in the first place.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by fauxcelt
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
Isn't anthropological tittle tattle the point of this thread?
And a good thing too - better to have it out here than engage in it during a session, fascinating though it is.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by grego
... though I hear Desmond Morris plays a mean bodhran!
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by grego
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
No, that's just him beating on his chest, grego.
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by oldstrings
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
# Posted on June 9th 2009 by grego
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
A perfectly egalitarian session is not desirable, nor is a perfectly heirarchial session. Instead, the best comes when one finds a balance between undesirable extremes.
# Posted on June 10th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: The Non-Egalitarian Session
I like getting my horizons expanded by better players. It's a let down
when they don't show up. I guess the good side of that is that I'm forced
to lead a lot more tunes which also pulls up your standards.
# Posted on June 10th 2009 by Hup