An acquaintance of mine contacted me recently to play a session with him.
Thing is, the owner of this restaurant/bar contacted him in the first place to organise a session, weighing in a meal for the musicians plus the difference of up to a hundred euros after the hat was passed around.
Now, that hardly covers the cost of getting there, so if four of us manage to make it, it's really because it's no steam off our piss.
My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform?
Personally, I declined the offer on the basis that it was simply too much of a hassle in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of going out for the sake of having a good time, just like practically everybody else around here. So if I am to play this music I'm familiar with, it's got to be worth my while. Otherwise I might as well go flip burgers (like the rest of us).
Perhaps the debate around such an instance might be caused by the number of players in a given area capable of fulfilling such a task as what I've described above. A given desire (for ITM) is emmitted by the proprietor of a public establishment; and a limited number of people are capable of filling this gap in the "market".
So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?
If you're expected to turn up at a set time and play until a set time, that's probably a performance. If you can drop in as you like and play or not, as you like, that's most likely a session.
If you're facing the audience and using microphones, that's looking more like a performance. If you're siting in a circle and using no microphones, that's more sessiony.
If you're comfortable with taking half an hour in between tunes to chat, that's very like a session. If all the players take a break every hour or so, you're looking more like a gig.
If you can get fired, it's a gig. If you find that you turn up and the good players have failed to show for the third week in a row, it was a session.
If you have to think about it during the rest of the week, it's something like a gig. If it's just there when you need it, it's more like a session.
If you don't mind running through that last one again a bit slower so I can get the turn off you, it might very well be a session. If you have a set list, it's definitely a gig.
If there's more guitarists than tune players, it's probably a session, unless you're with Lynyrd Skynrd.
If there's a digeridon't player, it's either a gig or a session, but it's likely the last one you're having, whichever it is.
I used to think that sessions weren't performances ... and though the best of them most certainly aren't, the blanket statement that they are all not performances doesn't take into account the many numpties who, despite overwhelming derision, continue to insist that they are. And of course, there's nothing more tedious than trying to have a tune with someone who's performing.
There are three ways of looking at it.
1. Every attempt at playing music in public is a performance. .. Clearly a pointless position because it turns a blind eye to those who disagree. I feel sorry for people who hold this view because they are disallowing themselves the pleasure of playing for themselves.
2. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is not the people playing, but the punters in the pub. In other words, if they think it's a performance, then it is. This position is annoying because it takes away responsibility from the player. It forces the player to respect the opinions of the punters, which of course is the true definition of whether it's a performance or not.
3. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is the people playing.
Pragmatically, 3 is the only workable way of looking at it. If all things are going well, then the assembled company can collectively decide there is no performance. And if things are not so good, at least it can accommodate people who insist that either points 1 or 2 are correct.
grammatically 3 is upta (should be "are the people playing"
however all are correct, of course it is a performance even if you do the "do you want to play a few tunes, no audience, just us special people having fun and enjoying the music?"
You are still performing. Jointly and severally performing. For each other and yourselves. No escape.
Good evening Michael I trust all is well with you and yours..
Point 2 and 3: The people who define whether anything is a performance are any and all who happen to be speaking at the moment. The word "performance" tends, even here, to be a bit of an elephant.
You are right rook. In that if someone, anyone, calls anything art, then it is. Whether the artist knows it or not. But if a punter describes a session as a performance, it may well make it so for them, but it doesn't make it so for the players.
Wrong mcknowall, though it's a common mistake. "the people" is singular.
But the point of the three examples of how people define performance is to illustrate, for example, that mcknowall's (No1) possition excludes No 3, myself. Where as No3 is inclusive of No1.
I though this disagreement might be semantic, so I check in a few dictionaries. They do however make it quite clear, unanimously, that performance means.
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
1. the act of performing; execution, accomplishment, fulfillment, etc.
2 something done or performed; deed or feat
3
A. a formal exhibition or presentation before an audience, as a play, musical program, etc.; show
B. one's part in this
performance
1 the action or process of performing.
2 an act of performing a play, concert, song, etc.
C] the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music
noun: the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it ("They criticised his performance as mayor")
▸ noun: the act of presenting a play or a piece of music or other entertainment ("We congratulated him on his performance at the rehearsal")
▸ noun: a dramatic or musical entertainment ("They listened to ten different performances")
So how do the 'non-performance camp' define performance ?
We've been over this before, the No1 camp say that if there are people their then they are an audience, whether we like it or not. And so, non-performance cannot exist. For even ourselves can be considered the audience.
But it's not the existence or non existence of an audience that is the issue. It's one's choice not to present.
How do you present music to an audience? in what way is tha different to playing in front of an audience? .
OK, you are using performance in a manner which is different to the common definitions.You are looking at it as your performance means to present / gift /show, [as in powerpoint presentation] non performance means to not present/gift/ show the 'audience? Ie Ignore, turn your back etc.
A session is a session whether it is in a kitchin or bar right. According to the dictionary definition , in public or private you are performing the act of making music. However the dictionary also goes on to define performance as ''the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music'' An act.
Do you therefore mean that if the audience is not entertained, then it is not a performance?
I understand your definition as' the choice whether to present or not' this is an individual or group choice. Its not however the meaning of the word, None the less your meaning is clear.
But By plaYING in a public space you have no choice, you are performing the act of music in public.
For example, making love , you can choose to do this in public, you can also say/feel that you were not performing, you were simply doing it for your own amusement. Nonethe less the law is quite clear that the individuals motivation is Irrelevant, what is relevant is that you performed the act in public. whether others were watching or not is also Irrelevant , you could in a fit of angst confess to an officer of the law and be found guilty of a lewd act in a public place.
Like wise in performing the act of playing musical instruments in a public place, your motivation is Irrelevant, it the the act that counts.
> My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform? <
Fer fecksake Loic... what a daft question. Just make up your own effing mind when an offer is made whether you can be arsed to do it - which you seem to have done in this case anyway, so why bleat about it on here?
Ionannas, missing it completely as usual. And not even able to use a dictionary. The reason dictionaries put numbers next to definitions is because they are different definitions of the same word.
1. Perform: to present before an audience
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
These are two quite seperate definitions.
We are talking about the first. You, don't understand the difference.
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
I invite people to come and listen to our session at the coffee shop, but I also tell them this is not a performance, just a group of friends, sitting around a table playing tunes.
If it were a performance, we'd be up on the small stage, lined up, looking towards the "audience." We, in fact, did a "performance" of our tunes at a local farmer's market. It was different. We didn't get up for another cup of coffee, we didn't talk or visit much between tunes, we were kind of lined up, not facing each other, but the audience. I found out later we were to get $50 for the "gig" but since none of us are in charge, I don't think anyone collected it.
When we play at our session, no one gets paid, and we have to pay full price for our coffee drinks. Sometimes there are folks listening to us, and sometimes the book club is seated next to us and talk over the whole thing.
Just because we play tunes in public doesn't mean we are "performing" in the sense that we are providing entertainment for others. Heck, there's lots of stuff that happens in public that entertains others that could never be construed as "performance." (O.K., think about it, come up with your own examples)
At the end of the day a session will only last and be a true session if you are doing it because you want to and you enjoy it. If you have a good bar and the contribute to beer and travel all the better (tell them to stick their hat ** their ****)
FWIW three of us get £60 for drinks and taxis to host the session and pints for £1. Obviously that's not why we do it but it makes the whole affair friendly and nobody is out of pocket. We do it because we enjoy it and we could not care less if anyone thinks it's a performance or otherwise. Doesn't make the remotest bit of difference.
Exactly, which is why I thought the argument might be semantic. we use the word differently.; Performing an act, or making a performance out of an action. Without clarifying the usage of the word how can we even discuss it? as we are discussing different things.
So you are using the word to mean :making a performance out of an action, a show, theatre, acting in a manner specifically to draw a reaction from a separate group of people defined loosely as 'audience'.
But where does that leave a session where there is no dividing line between Audience and actors? Where someone from the audience gets up and does their thing, say a song. are they performing? are they performing for the Actors, themselves, the audience ,all, none of the above?
Where does this dividing line exist?does it in fact even exist anywhere bar the minds of people who decide what they are doing is or is not a performance. If the actors are not performing [in their minds], but are nonetheless on stage in front of a paying audience, is this a performance?
Performance? or session? both? IMO its a session on stage. yes its a performance because they are on stage in public, but they do nothing that would be different than the local session. How do you look inside their minds to decide whether they view it as a performance or a non-performance. What are the material requirements for a session to become a performance Irrespective of the personal views of the players?
<< Just because we play tunes in public doesn't mean we are "performing" in the sense that we are providing entertainment for others.>>
Are you or are you not providing entertainment for others? Is that your definition of 'performing'?
So then a full band putting on a spectacular show, in an empty theatre are not performing? or they are? Does a performance require an audience?
Conversely does an audience mean a performance is taking place irrespective of the personal views of the players?
get over it. You are arguing just to see your words in print...
I listed some things that are different when our session group plays a "session" and when we've done a performance.
It's pretty obvious to all but you.
What do YOU do personally at these two different things?
I know what I do. At gigs/performances/whatever I announce each set and song, say a few words, a joke or two. The 'band' takes breaks but when there is no break, we are constantly playing music, or talking to the audience in between, introducing the next piece of music, etc. The audience is the focus. The band has received payment in cash (keep your bouncy checks over there, publican) to entertain an audience.
Isn't it strange that Irish Trad Musicians seem to be only performers who seem to jump at the chance of playing in a pub for free. Sometimes even risking life and limb to do so..........! I recently joined in a session myself were we bought our own drinks. I was in the same pub the following night and had the head blown off me by a mediocre singer with a guitar and backing tracks, who read all the words from a book. At the end of the night I was at the bar when the barman took what appeared to be over one hundred euro from the till and handed it to him. Maybe it's the didiley didliey bit they don't like?
Ionannas, are you going to answer the question? What do YOU do differently? What do YOU do during a performance that is the same or different from a session? I don't care to look at youtube videos to support or refute your so-called argument. You always seem to rest on the laurel of others when you spout your point of view.
Wyogal, Ive asked about 20 question now, none of which have been answered, now 1 question is directed at me and you insist I answer it! faire is fair now. why dont you answer some or even just one of mine?
What do I do? I play music, I dont concern myself with any distinction , Its all quite Irrelevant.
As far as focus, that a very good point; So at a performance, gig, your focus is on the audience and in 'looking good/sounding good' for the audience. Fair enough and thats a good distinction. I personally rarely make any particular change in my actions. If the craic is mighty then all sorts of crazy stuff happens irrespective of where we are playing, spirits are high the music is wild and so are we. If the music is so- so, then so is the energy of the crowd ' group consciousness' .
I dont make any distinction between player and audience, we are all one. I just do my thing and that is; I put my heart and soul into my music when in public. While at home, in private I tend to be more analytical and less spontaneous, more preparatory stuff, learning tunes etc.
I consider the people about me whether they are players or not. We are all people sharing the same space.
in a dark corner of Oxford, yet another lexicographer kicks his own face off in disgust.
last time i went to a musical performance,
someone jumped off the stage and crowdsurfed.
if i ever see this at a session i will die a contented man.
if youre in a session and it runs really late, and you look up and all the punters are gone and probably arent coming back,
does it make the slightest difference to you?
i hope not.
do you keep playing?
i hope so.
there is an answer in there somewhere.
it is true that there are certain people who cannot, for reasons of ego and vanity, muster the energy to do anything unless they feel they have an audience. there is no doubt a non vulgar word for such individuals.
its quite possible these are of a similar nature to those who cannot accept that sessions are not perormances.
SWFL, what on earth do you mean? please clarify? to reiterate I dont do anything different, I play the music. To me there is no difference, session, gig, performance, its all about the music, if you want to wear green face paint thats up to you, but I do not. I have never needed to do anything other than play. I play music because I love it.
Now rather than your tit for tat, arguing for the sake of it, why not consider the questions I haver asked and the issues I have raised. Otherwise its really pointless discussing these issues with you. You appear firmly and emotionally attached to your belief system and no amount of common sense or logic will open your minds. So be it. up to you, presumably it serves some function for you and thats fair enough.
You said, "I consider the people about me whether they are players or not. We are all people sharing the same space."
Therefore, you are always performing. This limits your focus on the music.
Ionannas
can i boomerang this at you, its from your last post
"You appear firmly and emotionally attached to your belief system and no amount of common sense or logic will open your mind.
So be it. up to you, presumably it serves some function for you and thats fair enough."
i can hear whipcrack on deceased stallion all over shop here
It is not always easy to have a session in a public place.
You & your mates can only do so much to keep from drawing an audience. But, when the session is more about playing with your mates than playing to an audience (or playing for applause); then you might realize why this distinction matters.
Yes you can, but I have answered and considered all these issues and points you raise, while no one has yet answered any of my questions or even appear to have thought about them. The best you can do it seems is repeatedly reiterate your contention that a session is not a performance . If you have some well thought out answer to any of the questions I raise then lets here them otherwise your position appears to be untenable. My contention is that there is no difference. If there is, where is it? is it in the minds of the players? the minds of the audience? the actions of the players? the actions of the audience? Where exactly is this difference to be found. Where is this dividing line to be drawn? Until you or anyone con convincingly answer these questions Im afraid your argument does not appear to even exist. Just as in fact this 'dividing line' does not exist. There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other.
imho you are right on this point;
"There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other."
"There is no dividing line between session and performance"
Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.
So Ionannas, at the session you follow one set/song with another, and introduce each one to the audience? Do you take requests? Put out the tip jar? Take pre-timed breaks? "We'll play from 9-11 with a 10 minute break at 10..." Receive cash for payment at the end?
Fair play. 2nd attempt
imho you are right on this point;
". . . , if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other."
No one defined the phrase * dividing line*.
I knew an old feller once used to play dominoes in a pub team in a public place. I doubt he ever considered he was putting on a performance in the sense of playing for an audience.
I've played pool in public without it being a performance.
Been in pubs with punters playing darts with thier mates. They wouldn't have considered it a performance.
I've played in fitba matches in public parks and pitches, never considered I was putting on a performance. (Nor I suspect would any hypothetical spectators)
Merely doing something in public doesn't make it a performance.
Whether or not someone is "performing" in a session comes down to the mind set of the people playing. If you consider yourself to be putting on a performance and pitch your playing at an (imagined?) audience then to my mind you are putting on a performance. Others in the same session may be oblivious to the needs and perceptions of any audience and just enjoying a night out with musical mates, and not putting on a performance.
If you consider all sessions to be performances, what about the situation where there are no punters in the pub, no actual audience. The session can otherwise go on the same as another week when the bar is full, but is it still a performance in the absence of an audience.
What about the exact same compliment of players getting togther on another night in someone's kitchen. Playing from the same repertiore of tunes in the same manner and with the same attitudes. This is obviously still a session. But is it really a performance? If the players feel and act exactly the same way they do when in the pub, but one is a performance and the other not, then that definition is based on the listener not on the player, which seems absurd. Or maybe the kitchen session is considered "practice".
Three people sit in a pub, playing tunes. One is playing for the crowd and he intends to entertain them. For him, it’s a performance. The other two are playing for the joy of mutual music-making and really don’t care if anybody else listens. For them, it’s not a performance.
The other folks in the pub don’t know the intentions of the individual musicians. Half of them are watching and listening to the musicians. To some of them, it’s a performance. The rest of the crowd are chatting and paying no more attention to the musicians than if they were playing bridge instead of music. To them, it’s not a performance; it’s just part of the ambience.
>>Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.<<
Rubbish, you might do this but I certainly dont. I agree its wise in a gig that somebody interacts with the audience,but that is rarely me. For example in one band I played in no one did, we just played and got riotous applause, which rather surprised me, but there you go, they liked the music, not the theatrics that you seem to think is expected.
very good points chris.
and bob , well said, where does this dividing line exist? IMO it is purely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of people who for whatever reason wish to make this distinction.
Now if the discussion is ''gig versus session'' its probably easier to define and delineate a difference. But still there are so many holes and inconsistencies as to make the whole process meaningless.
Many sessions have a core of paid musicians who turn up because they feel a responsibility, Its a gig. No stage no actions that they do differently from an unpaid informal sesh in their kitchin. Some players turn up but dont get paid, is this session a performance? or not. ?
To reiterate, there is no dividing line it is purely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of people who for whatever reason wish to make this distinction.
I can't believe people are arguing about this again. It went on for more than 400 posts the last time.
But this current thread isn't really a debate because one side isn't supportable by reason. To wit, Ion says: "There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. "
How can there be "no difference" between "one extreme" and "the other"? If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different.
Comments such as this that directly contradict themselves must be a performance because they have no value beyond their potential for comic entertainment.
Some sessions *are* performances because the participants want them to be so. Some sessions are just friends playing tunes together with none of the expectations common to performances. If a punter (or even another musician) thinks the latter are performances, s/he'd be mistaken, just as much as a person wandering into a gig would be mistaken to sit in as tho it were a session.
Floss
Unfortunetly I have to admit to knowing people who met jig/ionannas/tradpiper/ will evans at Willie Clancy Week He is a real person evidently and there is only one of them.
Bob, the bit missing from the scenario you paint above is a point that llig and I cited repeatedly in the previous threads on this topic. When someone treats a session like a performance, it skews the whole thing away from playing music for music's sake toward trying to please or impress others. Sure some sessions are like that, but some of us prefer our sessions to be guided by the music, not by an "audience's" expectations or player's egos. It's easier to do this if the participants (players and listeners alike) are aware of the distinctions between session and performance.
Of course there's no sharp dividing line between sessions and performances--that's a straw man, easily blown down. But there is a wide fuzzy gray area between the two concepts, and the two concepts can be distinguished from one another, as has been done to death on earlier threads here.
" >>Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.<<
Rubbish, you might do this but I certainly dont. I agree its wise in a gig that somebody interacts with the audience,but that is rarely me. For example in one band I played in no one did, we just played and got riotous applause, which rather surprised me, but there you go, they liked the music, not the theatrics that you seem to think is expected. "
To me a performance implies planning ,payment and playing for others .
A session implies spontinaety ,crack and playing for playing sake enjoying the music for its own sake.
I am not really interested in the bit in the middle either its egos and/ or a poor performance
Gig? session? performance? whats the difference here?
Three lads sit and play some tunes together, no acting no theatrics... its a session to my mind , no doubt. yet its also a performance. If its so easy to distinguish the 2 concepts, do so here and make clear what criteria you use to make your definition.
Jesus would often sit with His disciples around a table at an inn. Sometimes a merchant or a potter or a weaver would overhear Jesus and would approach the table to listen.
So Luke asked Jesus, "What saith you of those not here seated with us? Are they also meant to hear thee?"
Jesus answered, "I play this banjo loud. I play every one of my custom banjos super hard. If people here—especially some of the ladies, okay, and I know you're with me on this, Luke—want to stroll on over and give a little listen, well, I don't mind so much. No, siree."
And you could smoke indoors back then, so He put His feet up on the table and blew out a smoke ring that drifted up and over a roof beam then slowly came back down to float like a halo over Peter's head. Everyone got a huge kick out of that, even the one-eyed centurion.
Ionannas
Your clip hows three blokes on the stage with mics playing tunes for an audience 10 meters away and on TV too and they are in suits Its an obvious performance I think the announcer at the start of the clip is a clue too..
Do you remember that session at Willie Clancy Week, the one with the bloke on the harmonica who kept playing ridiculously complex solo tunes at warp speed and going a bit mad with the ornaments? A mate of yours who joined that session later and ended up next to me for a while (I suspect you might know who it is) started bitching that Mr. Harmonica was confusing a session with a performance, as he was obviously trying to show off how brilliant he was, and clearly didn't the point of a session. The musician who was whinging about the harmonica player had a pretty clear picture of the difference and was very annoyed by someone who didn't.
Yes, SS so that clip is then a session.... despite the external paraphernalia that indicates its a gig. which it is, its also a session, and its a performance even though no one is 'performing'. Remember Im not the one saying there is some dividing line, a little box with its definitions that you can decide something is one or the other, Im saying there is no dividing line , its all simply making music.
Yes SS some people dont have much clue about making music together with others , but thats the case whether its a performance or a session or a performance that is also a session or a session that is also a performance These definitions yous are trying to impose on the process of making music will always be Inaccurate because you can not confine human activity in little boxes with little labels.
What J was really complaining about IMO, was that the guy didnt know how to fit in, after all he was not doing all that stuff for the audience, but for the other players right? or for himself def not putting on a show for the 'punters' .
If by 'performing' you mean ' putting on a show' then thats is a separate issue to the music. Not related, people can make a 'show' a 'performance' 'theatre' out of anything. I accept that sessions aren't about putting on a show for the audience.
Putting on a show, acting in a specific manner designed to elicit a reaction from a crowd is a separate issue that has nothing specifically to do with the music, though it could do.
But even if that is the case, and what you mean by ' performance' then the 3 lads on stage are not performing are they? they are not acting in a manner designed to elicit a reaction from the crowd are they? No they are simply playing a few tunes, pretty much as they would do if they were sat in their kitchin.
"Yes, SS so that clip is then a session.... despite the external paraphernalia that indicates its a gig. which it is, its also a session, and its a performance even though no one is 'performing'."
the clip ~ not a session.
It sounds like a session & if everyone else (including the cameras) stepped outside then the 3 could have a session. But that is not a session. Certainly they were cued for the exact moment they could begin playing, they were not allowed to play additional sets, THERE WERE NO PINTS! *******????^^^^%%%, fat chance someone walking in the door would be allowed to sit in . . .
Sessions, as we know them, & love them & live them are our reason for being. Nothing more.
Steeve, bleating isn't my primary means of expression, and I didn't begin this discussion as some sort of complaint at all;
I've merely pointed out that the question *does* arise, and as this thread seems to demonstrate, causes a great ammount of debate, if only because the subject is not, and has never been, settled.
Each of us makes (as I did) the choice when offered a session or a gig. Once again, the defining line between a session and a gig remains blurry; finding ground solid enough to make this decision in the respect of the tradition itself (ie the rest of the people who play this stuff) AND those who want to listen to it is, as the length of this thread indicates, a bit touchy.
Bogman's description of his session is parallel to my primary post, except his session seems easier to organise.
Rumpole, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with
<if youre in a session and it runs really late, and you look up and all the punters are gone and probably arent coming back,
does it make the slightest difference to you?
i hope not.
do you keep playing?
i hope so.>
Ionannas, as usual, your arguments are inane to me. There IS a difference between session and performance, and all I'd like to know is where the line is. Meanwhile you maintain there is no distinction. Your opinion may be that there isn't, but trying to convince the majority of us here to adopt your point of view is ridiculous. Your contribution to this debate makes it difficult to follow, and I encourage all to ignore you.
<How can there be "no difference" between "one extreme" and "the other"? If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different.
Comments such as this that directly contradict themselves must be a performance because they have no value beyond their potential for comic entertainment.>
Brilliant, Miss Lonelyheart!
<To me a performance implies planning ,payment and playing for others .
A session implies spontinaety ,crack and playing for playing sake enjoying the music for its own sake.
I am not really interested in the bit in the middle either its egos and/ or a poor performance>
Bingo! Bazouki Dave. If a session requires too much planning, is it really a session anymore?
There is much to digest here. In my humble opinion, Llig seems to have the simplest and most practical set of parameters to deal with this dilemma.
Thank you all for your contributions, your generosity.
<<There IS a difference between session and performance, and all I'd like to know is where the line is. Meanwhile you maintain there is no distinction. Your opinion may be that there isn't, but trying to convince the majority of us here to adopt your point of view is ridiculous. >>
You seem to think I have some interest in convincing a majority? not in the slightest, not even interested in convincing one person. It makes no difference to me what so ever, Im just pointing out a few glaring holes in your argument, for my own amusement. If thats sheds some light on the subject great, if not , no big deal. Why should it matter to me?
As far as inane,?<< If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different. >>
You cant see the fallacy in your reasoning there ?
For example a stick has two ends, one you hold, the other you hit with; [a ball] they are the 2 extremes of a single thing.
Frequency of sound, Bass and treble, same thing, different extremes.
However you can continue to look for a dividing line as long as you want. But you would be best to look inside yourself.
It's one thing to hold firm unwavering ideals. I think I do that with a lot of things, especially to do with music. But it's also importand to understand and accomodate others. It's bloody hard work with Ionannas though.
Everything is a performance with this guy. It's his main problem. And what about that creepy one where he's talking about sex and performing? Bloody hell.
I'm not saying he's doing it deliberately. There are basic things he doesn't understand, simple things like not realising that quite seperate definitions for the same words in dictionaries are numbered. He thinks that all definitions hold true always, for every situation, because they are in the disctionary.
In the long run, it's impossible to debate with. Even at its most coherant, it's still wildy contradictory.
And so it goes on. Most of us here like to muse about stuff, swap ideas. Where as he is only interested in himself. He's only here for his own amusement. It doesn't matter to him.
A stick has two ends
Playing music has two extreems
One you hold, the other you hit a ball with
Non-performance music and performance music.
Anyway, he thinks that his argument is above my head. And that because of the history of the meanings of words, I am completely mistaken. (he just e-mailed me that)
This character appears to be some sort of a "troll", in what my wife describes as internet lingo. A creature that derives a strange pleasure at disrupting what would be normal, enlightening exchanges between people communicating in good intelligence.
I repeat that the best way of dealing with this entity is by simply ignoring him/her/it.
'Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can't be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.'
I've just been reminded of this extract from George Monbiot's article in 'The Guardian' earlier this week.
Sigh. So the stick with two ends.... Okay, if that's the analogy in play for now. So I'm seeing the stick having two very different ends. One (the performance end) has sequins and ribbony streamers glued to it, and the end itself has been hollowed out not unlike a shaky egg, and is filled with beads to make a rattling noise when shook. The other end (the session end) is just a plain stick. The bark has been peeled back to reveal a beautiful grain pattern that's been polished to a high sheen just by being held by thousands of people.
Interestingly, this stick is in a museum. The showy end rests in a glass case in the main hall for all to see and admire. The plain end of the stick pokes through a hole in the back of the glass case into a mundane back room. People (mostly folks who volunteer at the museum) like to rub a hand over it when they pass by because the polished wood is pretty and feels smooth but substantial in their hand.
Where the stick passes through the wall is the "dividing line." It's a six-inch thick wall, so the "line" is fairly broad and filled with fuzzy insulation. But the end of the stick in the glass case is clearly different from the end in the back room.
Personally, I don't care much for the stick analogy. I think a session is one thing, and a performance is another. Which is why--shockers!--we have and use different words, one for "performance" and one for "session." People who confuse the two are prone to ruining both for the other participants in either.
Fanning, I'm familiar with the circumstances the would lead to your question about drawing a line between being paid to show up vs. being paid to perform. We've weighed the same thing locally over the years.
My local session pub doesn't pay us at all. Yet our weekly session often draws more people to the pub (on a Thursday night) than the hired music does on a Friday or Saturday. This has led some to say that the pub should pay us, since they're making money off our session.
But we'd rather not get paid. Here's why.
There's really no difference between being paid to show up vs. to perform--long and short of it is that you're being paid to sit there and make music because the publican thinks it will help sell drinks. So as soon as you accept that arrangement, you might as well don the performing monkey costume and get on with it.
(Mind you, I'm not against people earning some income from anchoring sessions. Just be clear about the ramifications. You are then obligated to show up and do at least a journeyman's job of keeping the music going. Long tuneless chats or smoke breaks, arriving late, leaving early, boozing your way into arrhythmia and dystonia, and bailing to visit with friends or that sexy thang at the bar are no longer options you can enjoy. The money creates expectations, and as long as you're aware of them and willing to meet them, all is copasetic.)
Everyone at my local session would rather not create those expectations and be obliged to live up to them. We all have day jobs (yes, mine is music, which is all the more reason I would rather play just for fun at the end of the day), so we don't need the money and the complications it brings.
Avoiding the money also lets us play what we want, when we want, as long as we want--regardless of whether it pleases the rest of the pub. As it happens, even in Amerikay, the vast majority of people who walk into Riley's Pub are happy to go with the flow and relax in the ambient session sounds. In short, everyone's happy with this arrangement--the patrons, the publican, and us musos. The whole thing is simply more ad hoc and relaxed and easy going than if money (and so "performing") were involved. I've gone that route before, and it always involves expectations of performing *for* someone else's entertainment. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. (We do such gigs every now and then--we're not anti-profit.) But it sure is nice to keep it simple once a week.
Because our session is fun and laid back, the same good players show up week after week. There's no need to pay an anchor to keep it going. We're all happy to be there. On average, the session is off for only about 3 weeks out of the year (most often during summer when it just happens that everyone leaves on vacation for the same week). And that's okay too.
I don't see the problem. If you want to get paid to play, tell them what your minimum price is. If you want to play for fun elsewhere, do that. If you'd rather sit at home than play with these people(meanwhile getting a bit of gas money and a free meal), then sit at home. Do what you want to do, it's as simple as that. Really.
Everything else is pure semantics. Nothing's black and white. This is all shades of grey, and really a pointless debate. There is no dividing line, only an idea in your head that you can't even pinpoint. Just do what you feel like doing.
Where I like to play, the establishment pays "anchors" for the 9 official sessions there every week. In all but the one session I frequent most often, the anchors are obvious. But I can't even remember who the anchors are in that one session. We just drink all the dosh. It's tradition.
awildman, I think we've pinpointed the difference quite clearly. One is where you present your music to an audience. The other is where you are not presenting to an audience. The distinction only really matters when you and your mates are happilly playing away not presenting, someone comes along who doesn't understand the difference and starts performing.
>But we'd rather not get paid. Here's why.
<snip>..
I agree 100% Miss Lonelyhearts. I don't want the hastle of worrying about how to split the money every week depending on who turned up. Or the predictably unpredictable side effects of sticking it in a jar as a drinks kitty. It's a night out with mates, and I want to relax and be hastle free.
It'd be nice if the free drinks that we got at first still apepared, but in a big bar with a staff of thousands, this seems to have got lost and I really don't care enough to take it up . hate dealing with money/barter issues). If someone else wants to then fine, but I'm not interested.
Doing the occasional paid gig or one off set is nice, but my regular night out: no thanks, for all the reasons that you listed.
1. If you are paid it is a gig and not a session.
2. If you are "exclusive" and keep certain people out it is not a session.
3. If it is unrehearsed it is a session.
4. If the players are playing really well and it *sounds like* it is rehearsed then it is a gig.
5. Sessions should be open to everyone of all stages and abilities. Anything goes. It is just a session.
Just because something is a gig there is no guarantee of quality. Just as I know plenty of musicians who are really excellent and don't gig there are others who make a living out of the music but who, in my opinion, have a bloody cheek doing so.
There are sessions I host where there is money involved and there are others with none. I don't treat them any differently from each other. I am not there to perform. I am there to play tunes with my friends. If I am hosting the session I will make sure I turn up on time, cash or not. It is just the done thing. The very occasional gig I have done is very different. As has already been said it is how you interact with the audience. You are performing and playing for their reaction. You are trying to entertain. Entertaining the people in the pub when you are in a session is great but it is not why you are there. It is nothing more than a by-product.
A gig is obviously a set situation where others can not come along and just join in. Sessions, by their nature are more inclusive. That does not mean that they have to be a free for all. I like open sessions. I don't like gaping sessions. I don't see what the problem is with having some tunes in the pub with your friends and keeping those out who are complete and utter langers!
It annoys me more than a little when folk come on this site and complain that if you don't want anyone joining in then you should just have a house session instead. If you are the folk who have gone out and found a welcoming pub for your session and turn up each week to play then you have some right of ownership over it. You have the right to ask, politely for someone to stop ruining it for everyone else.
In know that this little rant of mine drifts beyond the trend of the thread to date but I am not about to start a new thread myself and it is all ground that has been covered before.
Looking at the original question then if you are passing a hat around then you are busking, pure and simple. It is a performance/gig. You are there to entertain the heaving throngs. If you are paid by the pub whether that is in the form of money, food or drink then that does not make it a gig. If you are playing for purely your own enjoyment and that of your session mates, if you have no set breaks and can stop for a chat then it is a session pure and simple.
If you have three guys on a big theatre who start playing to rows and rows of applauding folk after being introduced then it is nothing but a gig.
A session is when a bunch of folk get together to play some tunes. Irrespective of whether they get paid, irrespective of where it is, irrespective of whether others are able to join in or not. Irrespective of whether it is a gig for some of the players or even all of the players. This discussion is NO about the difference between gig and session, but session and performance.
That is all well and good but I, and everyone else on here it seems, would argue that there is a difference between playing in a session and putting on a performance. If I am playing in a gig, paid or not, then I feel that there is more of a duty on me not to make any mistakes. You are working from a set list and what is performed is prearranged. The dynamic is completely different from a session where there is more spontineity and you are able to drop out as and when you want to go for a p*ss, to the bar or, if you are so inclined, outside for a cigarette.
I don't understand where your confusion is on this matter. It is so straight forward and obvious that a child of 10 could understand!
My confusion! ho ho. The fact is that all your points are full of holes. You extemporise from your experience to create a definition that is only correct for yourself yet then go on to blanketly apply it to every situation.
You are trying to draw a line where none exists. You are again confusing gigs and performances. A gig can be a performance, but not necessarily so, if by performance you mean ' putting on a show; acting in a manner designed to elicit a reaction from an audience'
This is crux of the matter. Jackie and co are not 'performing' but its a gig. it also is a session. Small minded attempts to somehow create a catch all definition are bound to fail, it is an indefensible position, which is why its so easy to knock holes in it. Which is why instead of attempting to defend this position the fall back position is to denigrate and insult.
It drives you bonkers doesn't it. It's like saying here's a lion, and here's a lioness. And everybody goes yeh, aren't they fabulous. And then someone puts their hand up and says, hang on a minute, but they are both lions. AAAAGGHH.
You can draw as many lines as you choose, but they are little more than personal markers, you cant justifiably then insist that other are obliged to act in compliance with your definitions. These lines you seem to like. They are purely imaginary and have no bearing in reality. Reality is always far more complex and convoluted and can not be constrained within your definitions.
The reality is, that when you and your mates are sat in your cosy local having a few drinks and playing non-performance music, and someone comes along who doesn't understand, and starts performing, it's really really fecking annoying.
When it's our session, we will insist that others oblige us by complying with whatever definitions of "session" we come up with. Whether you understand the definitions or not.
NCFA, very good post and right on the button. You've explained perfectly the difference between a session and a performance. Any have decent musician will realize that, and here that seems to be the case.
An attempt to start a seisiún/performance/gig distinction discussion at a pub seisiún last night was met with bafflement and disinterest all round: "you'd have to be a complete fecking eedjit not to know the difference" being the gist of it. It did however spin off into a "when is a seisiún not a seisiún" discussion, including:
It's not a seisiún if . . .
there are less than four musicians;
there are more than eight/ten/twelve/"too many to get around two tables"/"so many you can't see the whites of their eyes"/an inner and an outer circle" of musicians;
there are more guitars and bodhráns than melody instruments;
anyone gets paid (though no-one objected to drink and sandwiches!);
you play more than a couple of the sets you played the last time;
a couple of sets don't turn into solos through miscommunication;
several sets don't collapse under the weight of laughter all round;
everyone knows the name of every tune played;
everyone plays every tune;
singing a song or dancing a step would be frowned upon;
there are only fiddles;
no-one joins or leaves partway through;
someone isn't asked for a solo or an air;
it doesn't continue in some form after hours, either as a lock-in, in the street, or in someone's home;
As to what to call these non-seisiún seisiúns? Didn't get there, the football on Sunday and the harvest being the big topics here.
Don't agree with your session mates there. Also don't see the point of writing it as "seisiún" either. The rest of your post is in English after all.
I have been in sessions when it has been just 3 of us before, maybe even 2. I would still call it a session. I have also been in a session of 20 or 30 folk before and probably larger. I would still consider that a session, albeit slightly unwieldy. I suppose your definition of this would change depending on where you are and how many musicians are in the area.
You can have sessions where it is all guitars. They would likely be singing sessions though. You can also have sessions where there are five guitars accompanying one mandolin player. They are still sessions. They are just crap sessions.
Plenty of sessions have paid anchors. I am playing in one tonight. It is fine to disagree with this but it is still definately a session (in my mind).
I agree that variety of sets makes sessions interesting and it is good to mix it up. I suppose it depends on the level of the players though. Particularly if it is a learner's session there might not be that many sets to go round.
I also agree that sessions are meant to be fairly spontaneous. Therefore there is a reasonable chance that someone will mess up or someone mix up parts of tunes, etc. It is all part of being in a session. If you have a perfect night though with none of that then I don't think it stops it being a session. It is just a very good session.
We have no dancers in any of the sessions I play in and most of them will not have songs. It is just not what we are looking for. Having said that I enjoy sessions where there is the odd song. I even sing a few odd songs myself.
Are you going to tell the folk in the Lerwick Lounge that they are not in a session or do you want me to?
Sessions I am in hardly ever have solos or airs. We are there to play fasshtt and baaad!
I love lock-ins or house parties after a session. Sadly it is not always possible these days.
Anyway, I don't mean to nickpick. I suspect your post was fairly light-hearted anyway.
Apologies if it somehow offends you, there's no point to it at all, some words just come quickly to the mouth or fingers that way. Probably a result of not learning to write in English until I was at secondary school, and spending the much of each day speaking Irish with my children and neighbours.
I think if the distinction is that a performance is ; ''where a bunch of people put on a show; act in a manner designed and aimed at eliciting a reaction from an audience'' then that is a fair distinction which I can accept.
There will of course be sessions that are also performances and performances that are also sessions. Gigs that are sessions. Gigs on stage that are not performance, if we accept the above definition.
Even though one actual definition of the word performance[The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music }, and as used in common parlance is that , by its very nature, a public session, is a performance.
So then we have a performance [The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music },which is not a performance [a show, To act in a manner designed and aimed at eliciting a reaction from an audience. Hmmm...
So now, how do we differentiate between these sessions that are , for some a performance, and some that are not? What physical acts are necessary to define a session as a performance, or one member of the session 'performing?
After it it could easily be said that the act of playing music in public is itself a performance. The Act of playing music in public is itself a performance. Hmmm Which is in fact a definition of performance....
Perhaps it might be easier if we were to use a separate word to describe ; performance;The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music and performance; the act of putting on a show specifically designed to elicit a reaction and to please an audience[entertain ]
Is a session then a non-performance, performance? To wit; a performance that is not a performance.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
"...The nature of trolls is to slip from any definition intended to constrain their actions and to find new and innovative ways to annoy...
...When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Do not conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others..."
Allright, can't say I didn't give fair warning in the title to this thread.
I did expect this to be a hot debate, but not to this extent.
At this point, my primary question is largely answered, and if this debate is to continue in a constructive way, perhaps some things should be defined before any more elements are brought in.
Llig's parameters (as I've mentionned) appear to be the most coherent and practically applicable to me, so here they are again for the sake of clarity:
<There are three ways of looking at it.
1. Every attempt at playing music in public is a performance. .. Clearly a pointless position because it turns a blind eye to those who disagree. I feel sorry for people who hold this view because they are disallowing themselves the pleasure of playing for themselves.
2. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is not the people playing, but the punters in the pub. In other words, if they think it's a performance, then it is. This position is annoying because it takes away responsibility from the player. It forces the player to respect the opinions of the punters, which of course is the true definition of whether it's a performance or not.
3. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is the people playing.
Pragmatically, 3 is the only workable way of looking at it. If all things are going well, then the assembled company can collectively decide there is no performance. And if things are not so good, at least it can accommodate people who insist that either points 1 or 2 are correct.>
Logically then, if: a) the musicians show up spontaneously to play just for the fun of it, b) the owner of the establishment recognises his/her luck and c) the punters don't mind, then we have a session without a shadow of a doubt.
For these conditions to coincide naturally in Ireland, Scotland and England seems a likely scenario to me (although I've never been to these countries).
Now, because we all live and work in different geographical, social and cultural contexts, there are certain aspects that must be added (in my humble opinion), namely;
i) The number of musicians in a given area that show a consistent desire to get together and play ITM (or other) together.
ii) The (sometimes great) distances covered in order to get together consistently.
iii) The establishment owner's will to make his/her establishment attractive to these musicians.
iv) Keeping the investment of both parties to a strict minimum (time and money) in order to insure the easy-going nature of what we shall assume to be a session (as opposed to a performance).
Does anyone out here in mustard-board land feel the need to deal with these issues, and how do you go about resolving them?
I'm beginning to feel I'm beating a dead horse now... Perhaps these questions shouldn't even be raised?
What's your question?
"So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?
1. Specific time period, so many hours with so many regular breaks
2. I expect to get paid for performances, not sessions
3. Advertise to bring in an audience, a specific time and place
4. If I'm hired to do a performance, I get to say who appears with me.
5. My performances usually have a set list.
6. When I've performed, I usually also get drinks and sometimes dinner (if it's at a restaurant). At our sessions, we all pay for our own drinks.
And, I don't really need to deal with these issues as the difference between sessions and performance are quite clear in my mind and the folks that I play with.
and yes, the horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp.
Once again, by being obstinate and obtuse, Ionannas goads us into some very cogent thoughts and arguments. I guess every protagonist needs an antagonist to keep things interesting! Heck, even Will Harmon came out of semi-retirement for the brouhaha--and did a fine job taking that stick analogy to a wonderful conclusion.
For myself, while the distinction gets blurry in the middle, I agree that the difference is in the heart of the musicians--if my goal is to lose myself in the music, it is a session, and if my goal is to please the audience, it is a performance.
We had this discussion before and it reverberated through 3 threads with over 400 posts each and all we managed to accomplish was to agree that it was like the 3 blind men encountering an elephant from different sides. It's still an elephant regardless of how you perceive it based on your perspective. Call it what you want, but playing music is performing -- you can't get away from that. You might get sh*t on you if you stand too close to the wrong side.
What brought me out of my snooze was Fanning's original question. Debunking WIll Evan's bs about the stick was just for fun.
Jack, that may be all you got out of the previous discussions, but some of us actually gained real insight and understanding of how clearly a session can differ from any sort of performance, and how much more rewarding they are when that happens.
P.S. What's the point of you characterizing what the collective we accomplishes here, when you don't even understand the distinction some of us have made? You're not the arbiter of the yella board's agreements, eh?
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that playing music isn't performing. I've hear people expound on what they perceive their experience to be when playing, but no one has convinced me that it isn't performing. When we had this discussion in the past the only consensus was similar to the analogy of the blind men and the elephant... we agreed to disagree even though we were talking about the same thing.
What's the point of trying to convince someone who is not presenting their music to an audience, that in fact, they are?
What's the point of trying to convince someone who doesn't understand, that its possible to merely play for yourself while disregarding punters in earshot?
These aren't questions of mere semantics. And they are not questions regarding any spurious Descartian philosophical existentialism either. They are purely practical.
If you are in the first camp, and believe that you are doomed to be forever a performer, I suppose it must really annoy you when you come across people who so obviously are such crap performers, with their terribly rude disregard for their audiences.
But on the other hand, who can hold their hands up to the pleasures of plying for yourself?
Do you really apply this in all cases, or were you cutting to the chase? Is it really performing for example when you are in yourself just playing? I can't believe anyone would hold to playing music being a performance in every case, unless they believed life itself was a performance.
But leaving that aside I can't sypathise at all with the notion that playing music in any public space is performing. Again I'm applying or assuming a context here that may not have been intended, but assunming that ANY playing in public is the contention. (If the context was intended to be limited to playing in a pub, I'd still disagree but at least see the pov as a possibility.)
It isn't just semantics about a session v gig, it comes down to a fairly fundamental outlook on life. I'm not playing a part when I'm in public or private, I'm just going about life, music happens to be part of life in my case.
Dancing, singing, playing football, running, a conversation all of these are on occasion entertainment and performances (the last mentione e.g. in a play improvised or otherwise). Is every game of football, of practical necessity carried out in a public place, a performance? When I'm running to catch a bus, is that really a performance in matter of kind, if not quite quality, with Mr Bolt winning his medals?
There are plenty of activities that constitute performances in certain contexts but not in others. Merely taking place in a public space is not enough to make something a performance. The idea that it is implies a world outlook so at odds with my experience that I can barely believe anyone really holds it to be true. I feel sorry for anyone thus trapped in the body of a 24-hour perfromance artiste
But getting back to trad music and sessions. What I like about this music is that it is an organic part of everyday life. You pick up your instrtument and give it a go in passing at home in a spare minute. You can meet someone at a bus stop and ask them to play that reel again on their whistle. When your in the pub at the session, the sessioneers (never mind the rest of the pub) don't fall into a reverential silence when someone starts a tune. They'll finish their joke, or talk to their neighbour while the music goes on around them. The music isn't kept apart from life in some display cabinet, it's a part of everyday life.
Playing music is performing a task that you learned to make music. If you want to think of it as practicing then you can claim it as such, but it's still headed in the same direction. The reasons you perform can be as varied as you can imagine, but it's still performing that task. When you go to a session you perform together and for each other as well as yourself--it's a very enjoyable experience. If it's in a public space then there are likely people their who will either enjoy, be annoyed or feel indifferent about your performance. They don't care what your experience is... they only understand their own. You can tell them you're only practicing or whatever if you want, or that you're ignoring them... but they'll respond to your performance regardless.
It's clear that Mr Button suffers from the same inability to use a dictionary as Ionnanass. The reason dictionaries put numbers next to definitions is because they are different definitions of the same word.
1. Perform: to present before an audience
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
These are two quite seperate definitions.
We are talking about the first. You, don't understand the difference.
Ah, you are using perform in the sense of "perfroming a task" or simply "doing" something.
Well you you are obviously "doing" soming when you play music, but that is hardly the same thing as performing in the sense of "putting on a display" which is what I suspect most people consider the discussion to be about.
It does seem to me that to use "perform" in the sense of "doing" is a little pointless as no-one could maintain they are not indeed "doing" something or "performing a task" when they play music. But then iyou are also "performing" in this sense when walking, running, talking, standing up, using a hanky to blow your nose etc. These are all learned tasks that are performed in the sense you use.
I doubt many people consider any of these activities to be "performances" in the sense of public displays for the consumption of an audience.
;; Definition;;>>the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music<<
If you are paid to play in a pub this is without doubt a public performance. After all the landlord is paying you for some reason , Whether you like it or not, you are being paid to perform/play in public to amuse an audience and attract a crowd
You can argue until you are blue in the mouth but this simple definition in the English Language is absolutely clear.
Now if, as I said above, you wish to use the word to mean something else specifically amongst a subculture of trad musicians, thats fair enough.
Either you are interested in the applause, crowd Girls, Boys Money etc, or you are not. If you are not then the simple remedy is to play in private, bring your own drinks , that way you can play to your hearts content. Why do you play in public? To meet other musicians? who were audience... etc etc. Of course it wont stop boy banjo playing to impress girl fiddle! [performing]
Chris, very interesting points there, well thought out. When does a performance[ performing a task] in public, become a public performance[ amusing an audience] ? The simple answer is; When there is an audience, when people are watching. No other actions need be taken by the players, they simply play.
If you are running for the bus, and a bunch of lads are watching , laughing at your waddle and sweaty state, inadvertently you are [making]a public performance[of yourself]. You are performing a task, in public, and its amusing an audience.
Its simple, there's no need to invent all sorts of sub definitions to support your contention that somehow, by making a choice to view a situation in a particular way that your choice therefore defines the occasion that is happening. Try that in a court of law and you will be laughed out.
By the way llig, you are wrong, you simply dont understand Zen. It is eminently practical.
There certainly is a sound when the branch falls. You may not hear it. Perhaps the chipmunks do. Maybe the bears do. The birds of said tree will hear it. A sound is still made. However, the tree is not performing for the denizens of the forrest.
Which part of >> the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music<< dont you understand?
or lets have a look at a music dictionary to make it clearer;
Performer>>An artist who brings a work of creative art to reality>>
to perform>>The process of realizing a work of art, primarily genres such as music, dance, poetry, theatre, etc. In music, it is the realization of a composition or in other words to "play" music with one or more musicians <<
Plaintiff: "You Honour, it is clear that my evening was ruined by the dreadful performance of the defendant. He sat in the corner of the bar and even refused point blank to acknowledge me."
Judge: "Sir, your case does not make it clear whether you use the word perform to mean a. to present before an audience. Or b. to carry out an act."
Plaintiff: "There is no difference ma Lud"
Judge: "The dictionary clearly says there is, they are numbered."
Judge, to the defendant: "Sir, where you carrying out the act of playing the violin?"
Defendant: "Yes ma Lud."
Judge: "Were you presenting your playing to the audience?"
Defendant: "No ma Lud"
Judge: "But I have evidence that you were being paid to play."
Defendant: "Yes ma Lud, but I was being paid NOT to play to the audience."
Judge: "Case dismissed. And I fine the plaintiff for wasting the feckin time of all those on thesession.org."
Session - I can go for a smoke whenever and for however long I please
Paid Performance/Gig - I can't
This thing is like a zombie from a bad horror movie. How do you kill zombies again?
Ion, PB, etc. - Yes, it's about US, not the punters. Your perspective is valid for them, but we're talking about us. We're the ones making the music, we're the ones getting paid or not, yes, we're selfish, it's all about OUR perspective, not theirs.
...and that, IMO, is quite right. We're the ones who learn the tunes, we love the music, we expend the effort, the dedication, yes, it's all about us. Nothing wrong with that.
So, I bought myself a pint and says to the landlord 'is it alright if I play a few tunes'? As he is a friend and knows I can hold a tune together he says fine, nice to see you.
So off I go and sit meself down, tune up the fiddle whilst exchanging a word or two with the people sitting in the bar.
I play away doing tunes I like in any order I like for as long as I like and as many times as I like.
Selfish? you betcha! After a while a guy comes over and says how much he likes hearing some music and could he buy me a drink, why, thank you, says I.
Now then. A session - what me? on me lonesome? nah. A performance - playing as I described above, you got to be joking. Was it a practice? Do you think I wanted to p*ss off the other folks in the bar? For free drinks then? I was driving wasn't I - besides drinking and fiddling requires three hands otherwise you'll spill it. When I was packing up to go home the landlord asks when will I be coming in again, don't know is the reply.
When I play for me (with or without other musicians) that's it. When I'm paid it's for them and at their beck and call. It's the same music either way.
If you are worrying about whether it's a performance or not you maybe are not paying enough attention to the music.
Cannot say I am surprised. Most of the people I play with make little or no distinction between a performance & a session.
I am eternally gratefully to the handful of players who seek out the latter & pleased they let me play with them.
I do not begrudge the players who could care less. Though . . .
I hope they appreciate players such as Will H. & Michael.
Against my better judgement, I'm going to add my two cents.
When it's my turn to lead a set of tunes, I am performing--but I am performing for my session mates, not for those other people. I choose tunes that I think the other players will enjoy, or will find interesting, play them as best I can, and really don't give a toss what the punters think about them. Although I am not offended if they like them too.
I think maybe the distinction that Michael & co. are making is the difference between showing off your skills for a non-playing audience, versus playing for the other players. But they will probably disagree, if only for the sake of disagreeing. If we all agreed on everything all the time... where's the fun in that?
Oh, I was just hoping it could go recursive;
1. Perform: to carry out an act.
2. Perform: to carry out an act before an audience
Then it could dissapear up its own...
If Jack honestly believes some of us are in denial, then he clearly is always presenting his music before an audience. So his sessions are always of the performance kind, which jibes well with everything he's posted here over the years, and with reports I've heard from friends who've gone to Jack's local and watched the performance unfold.
He thinks we're in denial only because he apparently cannot imagine what it must be like to make music purely for the sake of the music itself.
And the irony there is that "living inside the tunes" and making music for its own sake has long been at the very heart of this particularly music, and tradition. To miss that is to miss a great deal of the intent and joy many, many people bring to sessions and playing this music at all.
I just don't see any difference between playing in my kitchen with friends and playing in a pub with friends.
Now maybe you're blessed by playing in a fancy establishment where you feel you have to put on a bit of the dog. My favorite sesh is in a seedy, furtive neighborhood, where the muggers in the parking lot are so busy they have to promise to come back later to take your money. Its yawning gloom reeks of whisky and stale tobacco. A handful of ancient, crooked-tooth Hibernians mutter private counsels at the bar. And a the far end of the room, next to the table of people silently playing cards and the old couple finishing up their fish fry, familiar faces sit in a circle next to the electric hearth and we play chunes into the night.
Marvelous, bloddy marvelous. I was warned, and even looked at the little slider thingy beside the box to see how small it was...great fun and good discussion.
My toonies worth (Canajun here ya know) has to do with playing music for someone who is actively dying, in which case I don't play tunes at all, I improvise - on a double strung harp tuned to a pentatonic it's often (not always) better than tunes on any instrument for THAT particular purpose. But my point is not the instrument or tune vs improv, it's the setting: my patient and caregivers might think I'm performing, and they can think what they like, but my intent is to provide a service. And I don't discount what they think or feel at all, but my intent to be of service is the most important thing to me, and it IS the entire context of my being there (paid or unpaid, more often paid than not).
The improv is then beneficial as it allows me to watch what's going on in the room; and if it seems as though tunes would be better for that setting, then I change gears (or levers!) and play tunes with melody and chords and rhythm, but then I can't look up as easily.
None of which relates to sessions at all, but it can be germane to what constitutes a public performance in another setting...just a toonie's worth (2 bux here)!
If you're playing music you're performing be it in your kitchen or at a "fancy establishment." You can call performing whatever you like to make yourself feel better--but you're still performing. If you want to produce a big show and perform there--more power to you, but even in a lowly and humble trad session--it's still a performance.
Having said that, I think this debate is OT in the context of the thread. The question was where do you draw the line. You have to decide if you want to commit to a session... that's the stickler. Most sessioneers like to just show up because they want to and happen to have the time. If you're paid, it's basically for committing yourself to showing up and feeling compensated to whatever degree for doing so. That's where I draw the line anyway.
I make a distinction between 1) performing in the sense of physically doing an action, and 2) performing in the sense of presenting an action to a non-participating audience with the aim of entertaining them. Yes, playing music is always performing in the first sense. Not in the second sense though.
I think the very fact that people can strongly hold completely opposed viewpoints on the "performance" issue actually clinches the fact that it all comes down to the individual players personality and attitude.
Yes. It seems as if the people not making fidkid's distinction are firmly saying that for the them the dictionary is wrong in separating the definitions. Draws my mind back to your comment made above - 'unless they believed life itself was a performance' .
As llig says, some people seem incapable of properly understanding dictionary definitions and why they're numbered.
Look up "bass." The fish and the musical instrument may share the same word, but any dictionary will clearly distinguish between the two things. And just because they're spelled the same doesn't mean that both definitions must always be applied simultaneously to one thing and the other.
Jack's insistence on this is akin to saying that "you can call the bass viol a musical instrument if it makes you feel better, but it's still a fish." Discussing this here on the mustard board, that just gives me the giggles. But in a meatspace session, that kind of dogmatic doggerel is the sort of buzzkill that ruins the music and the craic. In fact, I recently at in at a session that was so clearly NOT a performance that everyone in the pub "got it," and later the same evening sat in a session that WAS so clearly a performance that everyone in the room "got it" (e.g., applauding after every set).
Thank goodness many, many people understand this distinction and behave accordingly. Sad when people don't--it can wreck sessions and performances alike.
The trouble is that unlike 'bass' the two usages of 'performance' are related. We go to a concert to see a performance in both its meanings. Other words that could be used to refer to the act of playing a tune include 'execution' and 'rendition' but those have other meanings (on of them a recent one) that stem from using them instead of a more explicit word.
No-one is going to get into, or argue about states of denial, over a fish and a musical instrument. Performances, executions and renditions are a different matter. No matter how obvious it is to most people.
And yes, the differences and the subtle shades in between are really easy to see.
I disagree. The differences between entertaining an audience and making music for its own sake are as substantial to me as what distinguishes a large stringed wooden sound box from a lively fish.
Will invents what I said and quotes me: "Jack's insistence on this is akin to saying that "you can call the bass viol a musical instrument if it makes you feel better, but it's still a fish.""
~~~
And there it is: in his typical style Will has assigned a quote to me that I never said and then attacked me for saying it and blames me for taking the joy out of trad music for everyone. Wow... some people never grow up. Sorry, Will, but when you show up at your session and play trad for whatever reason it is that compels you to do it--it's still a performance. This fact doesn't ruin the music for anyone except yourself... sad.
Jack, if you can't understand that I wasn't quoting you but giving an analogy based on your rather interesting abuse of logic, then you're mad. Go get your dictionary. You'll find one definition of mad along the lines of "angry," and another something like "crazy as bat sh*te." I'm using the latter sense of the word. But go ahead and be angry, too, if it helps alleviate the symptoms of being crazy....
BTW, it's hilarious that you've done exactly what you accuse me of. I never blamed you "for taking the joy out of trad music for everyone." Those are your words.
Jack is using the same "baseless-accusations-in-place-of-addressing-the-point" that birthers and intelligent design eejits use to derail reasonable conversations. And he's the one telling me to grow up. Funny.
Jack's misrepresentation of my posts and then getting personal with it ("some people never grow up") is the same sort of thing that gets the likes of WIll Evans repeatedly banned. All I did was try to move the discussion along by using a funny analogy to show how silly it can be when people insist on always applying all the definitions a single word can have.
without getting involved in what appears to be a rather personal side arguement...
I think it should be pretty clear to most people that a statement such as "X's insistence on Y is akin to saying that 'Z'" is an analogy.
Of course the analogy in any such statement MAY be ludicrous and unfair (or it MAY be absolutely apt), and can always be objected to. But it is clear that 'Z' is not being passed off as an actual quote from 'X'. The word "akin" makes it pretty obvious.
Well, you might enjoy Will putting words in your mouth and then criticizing you for it, but I find it pretty pathetic and boring. He want's to continue to deny any music he's playing is in any way a performance regardless of the facts and that's fine, but people around him in the pub aren't going to be sharing his view on reality necessarily and will likely determine it was a nice performance. Somehow in Will's head "performance" became a four letter word, but I don't see any reason to demonize it so. A performance is what happens when you play a musical instrument... especially if anyone is listening... sorry to pop your bubbles.
"I just don't see any difference between playing in my kitchen with friends and playing in a pub with friends." - fidkid
Neither do I, but there is a difference if we were to be "performing." (Like up on the stage at the coffee shop instead of sitting around the table, next to the stage)
This can't be about language can it ? Is it something about some peoples view of themselves, their world and their music ? I have a friend with an ego the size of a small planet and when he is playing music (not trad) I think he probably is performing even when he is on his own. And I can't imagine him not 'playing to the crowd' if there is one.
In most performance situation I can think of (and other than someone simply 'showing off') there is some sense of obligation to someone other than (as well as) fellow performers; an audience who have given time and/or money, an organiser who has put some sort of show together, a pub landlord, a respected teacher etc.
Does the free pint carry with it any sense of obligation other than would have for a mate buying it or the landlord being sociable at the end of an evening as in 'have this one on me' ? Saying 'I would go even without the free pint' is not quite enough to change the situation.
Again Jack, you continue--despite my many plain and clear posts on this--to misrepresent my views.
I enjoy performing--*when I am performing.* I play occasional gigs.
And I enjoy sessions, particularly when they *aren't* performances.
I've said so again and again.
So who's putting words in other people's mouths?
It is astonishing that Jack can't understand that simple point of view. It would be tiresome to the point of gross incivility that he keeps repeating the same old baseless lip flapping instead of addressing the issues. Except that he's made such a rib-splitting performance of it
When I play to an audience (which I refer to as performing) I want the audience to receive the best possible sound.
When I play in session (which I refer to as sessioning) there is little, if any, reason to make the same effort. My mates are the ones' I want to hear. Non-players are free to go about there business; conversing, drinking, listening. . .
Occasionally, all the focus may shifts toward the musicians. Much nicer when there is a balance. We are part of the crack.
Or not.
I'm rambling. Will, you are clear & have a grand sense of humour. Clearest of all, though, was Michael's synopsis.
Way,
way
up
top
^
"My advice is to go flip burgers like the rest of us. Then you'll be able to afford the the luxury of going out for the sake of having a good time."
Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Fair and true point, wyogal. But it’s the one I was trying to make. There are definitely “performing sessions” where the players are expected to provide ambience or outright entertain an audience, like on stage at a coffeehouse. But there are also non-performing sessions (like the one I go to most frequently) where you are not on stage, it doesn’t matter if there’s anyone else besides the players (well, except for the barmaid) and it’s very much like playing cards or having a conversation.
But singing in a session, and playing a solo slow air, those are performances. But the performance ends when that song or air does and the session reverts to being just a session.
But they may be performances in the way that telling a joke to your mates is a performance. All eyes are on you and you want to make a good job of it otherwise it would spoil the effect. Other people who tell jokes may like to think of themselves as - performers.
There's a difference between telling a joke as part of a set on stage at a comedy club, and telling a joke to your buddies when you're sitting around the pub, though...
I do think both telling a joke from on stage and telling a joke to mates could be considered a performance. It's just a matter of scale.
I also could see how someone might consider practicing at home alone a performance, if one is imagining an audience while doing so. It's a matter of intent, I think.
I wasn't clear. The point Reverend makes is what I was meaning. Telling a joke to mates can be in the spirit of sharing. I have friends who go to song clubs and take it in turn to sing, solo, english folk songs. They insist that they are not performances, that they are sharing something that honours a tradition. Its good to listen to. So I am an audience and I think 'but hang on a minute surely there often was an audience for these songs'. Similarly the fiddler going down to the bar to play a few tunes so as not to wake the kids, and sharing the craic with his mates. And the landord standing him a drink occasionally ...
fidkid's post in the google translation thread got me thinking. I did some translation:
English: Sessions are not performances
Irish: Nach bhfuil Seisiúin léirithe
Back to English: Sessions are not shown
And that's the crux of the difference. Performing has elements of showing off. Playing in a session is sharing the music and the craic with your friends very specifically *without* showing off. (Granted, there will be occasional show pieces, songs, and airs in a session...)
Maybe for a song or a slow air in a session with mates to be a performance it has to be so in the minds to the partcipants. I think the argument of the song session people is that it is something that by its nature has to be solo.
Are the solos in a bluegrass jam 'perfomances' ? Or in jazz amonst mates gathered together to play. Or is it just the way that sharing the music in those genres works ? Sharing ideas in sequence ?
Haha. Counting seraphim on pinheads is what we do here.
Performance need not always have an element of “showing off” in the pejorative sense of boasting or being too clever by half. A performance can be an earnest offering and sharing, too. Just pointing that out.
But I come back to the conviction that sessions are some sort of special entity. There is no performance. Irish session music is communal. A bluegrass break is a kind of performance. As is a jazz solo, I think. Sessions are like a choir in a church with no congregation. A church that serves beer. Mm. Beer.
I see a very clear line, semantic definition of the word 'performance' put aside.
Does the publican want me to organize a session, or do they want to book my band for a gig?
Fanning started this thread by asking about just that in particular.
Yes, I suggest drawing the line, it’s exactly how I do it.
I can organize a session, it’s this. You’re offering what now?
I can book you a performance from my band, it costs this and we need this, etc.
I have product A and I have product B.
It’s gruesome and disgusting that we need to be such flagrant capitalists, but that’s what publicans understand, and it’s VITAL that we do that so we don’t get taken advantage of, meaning, we don’t let someone sucker us into a ‘session’ that’s really a ‘performance’ without getting PAID.
Brought to you by the IWW Irish Musicians Union, SW FL Chapter.
Now that this ugliness is taken care of, can we go back to ephemeral and poetic discussions of music with large doses of wit and wisdom?
SWFL, I know Barack Obama, and you are no Barack Obama...
See, you didn't even invite them to the Whitehouse lawn for beers.
Truth is this thing is worthy of a Camp David summit with handshakes and smiles for the photographers. And even then the bloodshed will resume eventually. No Surrender!
"Now that this ugliness is taken care of" ...indeed.
Reverend writes: "well done, well done! 200 posts arguing semantics about performing vs. sessions. It's just like old times around here!"
~~~
Yep... the recipe is an endless debate where one side of the argument relies on reinventing the English language and denying physical reality whilst ridiculing anyone else who isn't willing to share their delusions. As for me, "performing" is simply playing music with friends in either public or private areas. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, and it doesn't mean I'm destroying the music or not "getting it." All it does is use the word "perform" the way it was intended to be used according to the English language.
This sort of problem with the language and definitions isn't limited to trad music discussions; it's also prevalent in political debates where terms like "socialism" loose their meaning because of one side's determination to demonize the word to suit their misinformed hyperbole.
So sit back and relax as the next round of absurd denunciations and finger-pointing adds posts to an already irrelevant convolution of a thread about sessions.
Nice bunch of absurd denunciations and finger pointing you've done there, Jack. Still missing the point and misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with you.
Odd how it can be soooo obvious to everyone else who's posted here.
I mean, is there *anyone* else here who didn't get the analogy/not-a-quote thingy? Or who still doesn't see the distinction between perform (as in entertain an audience) and session (as in play music together for the sake of a few tunes and the craic)?
I'm sorry Jack. I'd be embarrassed and mortified if I made the mistake of attacking someone for fabricating quotes when all they did was offer a similie. And I'd be groveling with apologies if I thought the word "several" meant "seven" and then used that misunderstanding to attack a kid's honesty about how many tunes he knows. And I'd plead temporary insanity if I left the burner on and accidentally melted together the numbered, separate definitions under a dictionary entry and then based my whole case on that tarry mess.
We all agreed a loooong time ago (and in what feels like a galaxy all too near) that *any* action is a performance in the sense of "to execute a skill or action." So the rub is whether any and all music making *must* also be a performance in the sense of "entertaining an audience." And nearly everyone here gets that distinction.
Reminds me of George Carlin's priceless line about it being okay to prick your finger but not to finger your prick. (Will be curious to see what Jeremy's censor function does with THAT. ) See--same word, two very different, separate, distinct meanings.
Dear Jack, it's absolutely fine by me if you perform every time you play music. All I'm asking is that you return the favor and let me perform when I play gigs, and not perform when I play at my local session. Is that too much to ask?
The joke-telling analogy may help cut through some of the curds here.
Playing tunes together in a session *isn't* like telling a joke to your mates because the joke telling is a a solo act. Except for the odd party piece or song, the majority of music at a typical session is a shared effort of the group. And it's this sense of community that distinguishes such a session from the entertainer/audience dynamic of a performance.
I'm sorry Jack, but you're the only one here who doesn't get it. I'm not "demonizing" the word. As I've said over and over, I enjoying performing. I also enjoy sessioning. Two different things, two different situations.
Too bad you're more interested in making juvenile insults than in understanding anyone else's perspective. Your choice, of course.
I'm not sure what Random's point was, but if you combine "performance" with another word like "art" then it doesn't mean you have chanced the meaning of the word... sorry.
I know the difference between playing in a session and doing a stage show, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word either. Why some of you insist on reinventing the English language to exclude a word that you have determined doesn't sound right in the context of your vision of a session, is perplexing enough, but your adamance that others who don't follow your logic are "not getting it" or ruining what a session is supposed to be is akin to some sort of twisted mob mentality.
Let's look at some examples of how the word is used in context with a session. On an Irish travel website they attempt to edify tourists on how to behave in sessions. Here they acknowledge that it isn't a performance in the "traditional sense," but they don't deny that people are performing or try to change the meaning of the word all together. I wouldn't be having this debate if posters here were asserting the distinction as follows.
"The first thing you should know is Irish sessions are not a performance in the traditional sense, they are more of a social gathering. Concerts are things performed on a stage facing one’s audience; Irish sessions are not a concert."
Notice that instead of changing the meaning in order to exclude it, they just distinguish how a session is different from a stage performance. This is far more reasonable and doesn't have the dogmatic overtones of the debate on this thread.
On the CD Baby Boulder Session page a response to the recorded session they're selling says, "Just like being there for the live performance. A great disc for practice if you think you want to play in a session yourself." Should Mark Pottinger be admonished for misusing the word and maybe have the CD revoked since he's "not getting it"? No, he's simply using the word based on its meaning and has no idea it has been altered by sessioneers who have reinvented the word according to their dogma regarding sessions.
On Wikipedia it says, "The objective in a session is not to provide music for an audience of passive listeners; although the punters (non-playing attendees) often come for the express purpose of listening, the music is most of all for the musicians themselves. "Audience" requests for a particular song or tune of the players can be considered rude. The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold."
Again, distinguishing the type of performance and not attempting to change the meaning of the word.
I could go on posting examples, but they all underline my point that most people don't find it necessary to reinvent the word "perform" in order to suit your dogmatic view of what a session is. So carry on distinguishing what makes a session different, and I'll be right there with you, but when you start reinventing the English language to do so--I draw the line. This doesn't mean I'm "not getting it" and I understand very well what a session is, it simply means I feel no need to follow you any further down your dogmatic path... get it?
Wait... 230 posts to rehash the argument so that we can all agree (again) that we're talking about the same thing, but we're too stubborn to stop arguing semantics?
I'm sure we'll get a point by point refuting of your last post, Jack, but maybe we should just let it drop, because it's tiresome...
Jack, no one here has reinvented the word. We're simply saying that one of the meanings of "performance" doesn't always apply to sessions. Which is *precisely* what your two examples say, as well: "The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold." Exactly my point, over and over and over.
So what the hey are you arguing with us about if you agree with the examples you cite above? That's what we've been saying all along.
Sorry, Will, they said sessions were a different kind of performance. The first said, "not a performance in the traditional sense." They didn't say it wasn't performing, but rather distinguished they type of performance it was. The second example said, "The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold." They didn't say it wasn't a performance, just distinguished how it was different.
The argument that a session isn't a performance has to reinvent the meaning of the word to make that claim--none of these examples attempt anything so absurd. The fact remains that when you play music on a musical instrument you are performing, and if it's in a public place it's a public performance--you can't escape that fact regardless of your intent or whether you deny that anyone else is there or happens to be listening.
And there you have it: I don't agree to change the meaning of the word, "perform" to suit Will's dogma, therefore I'm not welcome at Will's session. Talk about not getting it... geesh... lol
Has Wikipedia really been used as evidence on here for what a traditional music session is? Odds on the article was actually written by one of the many noggins that post on here too!
Besides which what you quoted from the article does not refute Will's argument (or anyone elses in any way). I would disagree that asking for a request is necessarily rude. Not at all. It is someone showing an interest in the music you are playing (or the music that they think you are playing). It rarely will get a positive result but I am not offended by the request!
I know. And Wiki so often gets things so badly wrong. Take this, for example:
"The art of putting together a set is hard to put into words, but the tunes must flow from one to another in terms of key and melodic structure, without being so similar as to all sound the same."
Who wrote that Wikipedia article on Irish sessions? It looks as though someone pulled together bits and pieces from the discussion boards of this website and hammered them into an article. Especially where it uses an "evening of playing card games" as an analogy -- hasn't Michael or someone done that? I also like the random and not entirely accurate claims, like most sessions occur on Sundays because that's when professional musicians are most likely to be available.
The word "must" in the sentence quoted by ethical blend is concerning. I must have missed the day in class where they said you will be fined £100 and your firstborn if your tunes do not flow in terms of key and melodic structure.
I was just searching for random uses of the word "perform" or "performance" related to the topic being sessions. Nowhere did I find corroboration for Will's and other people's assertion that playing Irish music in a session isn't a performance. What I found was that there was a distinction for the type of performance, but no exclusion. Some people take the subject so seriously that I have now been banned from their session simply for arguing in favor of the actual meaning of the word "perform." Amazing!
If someone in a session were a living statue*, seemingly playing a whistle, fiddle or what have you, would that be a performance (as in performance art)? How long would that living statue have to be in position so as to be calcified as such - the first 8 bars until he is certain what the tune is, for example?
What if your mate couldn't make it to the session, but you felt that the session just couldn't deal with his absence so you bought a life size inflatable doll and put it in his seat holding the instrument of choice. Would the blow up doll be performing?
Wikipedia itself isn't happy about this article because it has in the heading:
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)"
Jack, now you're being a troll of the worst sort. Either you're incapable of understanding a simple sentence, or you're willfully, grossly mangling and misrepresenting what others are posting. Seems like you don't care about understanding what others think, you just want to fuel the argument.
You're welcome at my session. But if you perform (play with the intent to entertain an audience) at my session, it won't fit in with what the rest of us are doing. And sooner than later, someone will ask you to ease off and just play for the sake of making music together.
ramblingpitchfork writes: "Just a minor point Phantom, but if you google for a word you are not going to get many hits from people who don't use that word"
~~~
True, but I was in fact searching to see if there was any corroboration that a session wasn't a performance. If I didn't use the word there's no way I could have found people making the claim against the definition as they do in this thread.
Well there we have it again: Will, after banning me from his session just because I argue in favor of the actual definition of a word in the English language, calls me a "troll of the worst sort" and then backs away from banning me from his session, but with a completely irrelevant warning: "You're welcome at my session. But if you perform (play with the intent to entertain an audience) at my session, it won't fit in with what the rest of us are doing. And sooner than later, someone will ask you to ease off and just play for the sake of making music together."
~~~
Will, your assumption here is that because I refuse to buy your useless modification of a word, that I will be conducting myself incorrectly at your session. Do you even think about what you write before you post it? Your statements aren't just oozing, but more like running over with pompous arrogance. You have taken a discussion of the meaning of a word way too seriously dude.
Here's the thing: I know the difference between performing in a pre-arranged and rehearsed program of music that's presented from a stage to an audience, and a spontaneous performance around a table at a pub with my friends and musical colleagues. To do the latter doesn't require me to deny that I'm performing on my chosen instrument the skills I have managed to garner through practice, and I have no reason to deny there is anyone around who might be listening and, heaven forbid, even enjoying it. I see every aspect of the performance we do at sessions as part and parcel to a celebration of what Irish trad music is. Why some people are so adverse to admitting they are performing the music they love on their chosen instrument is enigmatic, and after following discussions like this the denials seem absurd. Sure, a session isn't a pre-arranged stage show, but it IS a performance, and even a public performance if it takes place in a public place--like a pub.
Get over it, there's nothing wrong with accepting that fact and it won't change anything about the way you and your friends conduct yourself at your session. I actually don't care if you don't use the word "perform" when taking about your session... it's a free country, but if you start insisting that I have to also deny that it's a performance, and that if I don't it means I'm "not getting it" and ruining what a session is and not welcome at your session etc., then I think you're just taking the whole thing too serious and too personal, and besides that, you have no right to dictate to other people what concepts are acceptable and unacceptable for people who "get it," because all "it" is, is your twisted session dogma.
So are you claiming it isn't, Bogman? Are you also rejecting the meaning of the word? If so, please explain how the word "performance" can't apply to what you do at a session. I assume you must just be sitting at the table and not playing. Is that what you do?
Truly sad that the raving continues. I wish someone would put a stop to it, but there are only two people who can do that. Jack could stop himself, but he's apparently all lathered up and ready to go on and on and on until we all agree he's right and none of the rest of us knows that the p word means or how to use a dictionary. And Jeremy, despite banning jig/Ion/Will Evans for the same sort of raving, has yet to step in and put this thread out of its misery.
Thank goodness there are other cans of worms to read elsewhere on the mustard board....
Well, if you're playing an instrument you are performing what you have practiced. If you are in a pub there's likely to be someone listening, and if your any good they might even be enjoying it. These are all facts that indicate you are engaged in a performance of some sort. I hope you're enjoying yourself when you're doing it.
Lol... now Will's denial is so intrenched he can't even say "perform" and uses a P word instead while accusing me of being "lathered up." lol You're a funny man.
=====
Will writes: "And Jeremy, despite banning jig/Ion/Will Evans for the same sort of raving"
~~~
Will, I might be mistaken, but you seem to be suggesting I should be banned for not sharing in your denial of the word "perform." Are you serious?
Jack, you've misread and misrepresented everything I've posted on this thread. You repeatedly put words in my mouth that I never said and ascribe motives to me that aren't mine.
Yes, I would like to see Jeremy kick you off of here, not for your cluelessness about the various meanings of perform, but for your relentlessly atrocious behavior. Flaming, baiting, and otherwise being an obstruction to a decent conversation aren't usually tolerated on web forums such as this. In due time, I suppose, we'll see how the mustard board is moderated.
Interesting... you have called me a "troll of the worst sort," and why? Because I refuse to accept that when you're playing your instrument at a session you aren't performing. Besides being called a "troll," you have insulted my intelligence and asserted that I am "clueless" and have no place in any real session--all because I refuse to join in with your aversion to an innocent word in the English language. And you think I should be banned? Take a good look at your own behavior here, Will, you've gone way over the top.
You're telling me that if I don't accept your denial that you aren't performing in any way at a session then I'm not "getting it" and not having a real session, and that my session is a "performance" and you used the word in some sort of self-imposed derogative context, and you even went as far as to indicate I'm not welcome at your session because I don't accept your terminology and wouldn't fit in. I don't care what you say you're doing at your session or when you're playing music, but to make statements that I am doing it wrong, not getting it and ruining what sessions are just because I don't reject an innocent word in the English language is going way over the top. Go ahead and tell Jeramy I'm a "troll of the worst sort" all because I merely didn't accept your terminology and see how far you get in having me banned.
Fanning, I attempted to leave the pointless part of the discussion long ago and responded to your original question (below) but it no doubt became obscured by the OT discussion.
"Having said that, I think this debate is OT in the context of the thread. The question was where do you draw the line. You have to decide if you want to commit to a session... that's the stickler. Most sessioneers like to just show up because they want to and happen to have the time. If you're paid, it's basically for committing yourself to showing up and feeling compensated to whatever degree for doing so. That's where I draw the line anyway."
At our Tuesday session, which we go to for the pleasure of playing music together, the pub management locates us in the window adjacent the street. People passing by hear and see us, come in to hear and see more, buy a drink or two, and may applaud at the end of a set. As far as they are concerned we're providing entertainment for them, and perhaps would call it a performance from their perspective. For us, the musicians, it is not a "performance"; we are playing the music for our enjoyment, although we cannot be unaware that the punters are also enjoying it, and would continue to enjoy playing if the pub were empty. The only conclusion I can come to is that "performance" in this situation lies only in the mind of the punter, the external listener.
PB:
>True, but I was in fact searching to see if there was any >corroboration that a session wasn't a performance. If I didn't >use the word there's no way I could have found people >making the claim against the definition as they do in this >thread.
That's true. There generally isn't an option to include "avoided words" in a search engine
This thread reminds me of the Single jigs = slides arguement. Basically coming down to to how elastic your definition of "single jig" or "performance is".
Everyone (i think) saw that single jig and slide were not equivalent terms. Some people considered that slides were *a particular specialised subset* of single jig. Others thought it was better to consider them not to be single jigs. But in practice as long as slides are recognised to be played differently from other jigs then it doesn't matter too much if the term jig is expanded to cover these tunes or not.
In the current debate everyone appears to agree that "session" and "performance" are not interchangeable equivalent terms. Some (most it appears) don't consider sessions to be performances at all, others e.g. Phantom Button would describe sessions as a particular subset of performance not equivalent to a gig performance.
But if everyone can see that there is a practical difference between a gig and a session, then it doesn't matter very much at all if some people would use a more encompassing definition of perormance than others.
Really the arguement appears to be about the scope of word definitions than about what a session actually is.
Fanning," So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?"
I have searched through previous threads on the matter & found at times this subject has been enlightening & at times contentious. It cycles with ebbs & flows.
Random_notes;
to me, the question has been answered throughout this thread, and the only conclusion I can make is that there are as many ways of answering my question as there are members in this forum.
I'll abstain from publishing my own take on it here, if only to avoid this discussion going any further.
I did expect my topic to raise some ire and knew that there might be some mud-slinging, but not to the extent it has gone to.
Perhaps the questions here should be raised in meat-space more readily and without taboo, if only because they would be asked in a shared context. Nothing will easily be resolved here it appears.
As Miss LonelyHearts says ~ welcome to the best & the worst Irish music site.
Me, I dig through the archives (& not always randomly) so it's difficult to keep secrets from me, unless I miss something (I miss plenty) or your name is Jeremy & you have the final say.
My only interest, in this obsession, is to find the good tunes, the good clips, the crack. Nothing really profound. I prefer simple & humble.
So, after reading through lots of various tongue play between the (once upon a time) most vocal of mustard boarders, I realize anyone & everyone has willing to come off as an edjit & then defend their right to carry on & on & on.
From the rubble I have scavenged 2 responses, from Jack, which I thought worthy of repetition.
Thanks Jack! ;)
Sorry for the hijack Fanning, though I hope you check out the comments.
All I've ever said is that when you get you instrument out at a session and play music on it -- you are performing the skills you've learned, and usually with some sort of audience. The difference between your performance in a session and what you would do on a stage or in a formal setting are obvious. To claim that you aren't performing when you play in a session isn't based on facts, but instead on feelings. If that were acknowledged instead of insisting on changing the actual meaning of words--there would be no debate.
Michael writes: "ets not continue to be divisive for the sake of disagreeing on how to read a dictionary."
~~~
Fair enough...
Audience (according to dictionary.com):
- the group of spectators at a public event; listeners or viewers collectively, as in attendance at a theater or concert: The audience was respectful of the speaker's opinion.
- the persons reached by a book, radio or television broadcast, etc.; public: Some works of music have a wide and varied audience.
- a regular public that manifests interest, support, enthusiasm, or the like; a following: Every art form has its audience.
- the act of hearing, or attending to, words or sounds.
I'd say people who happen to be in the pub and who happen to be listening and, heaven forbid, enjoying the music -- are clearly an audience. If what they are listening to is you and your mates performing what you have learned on your chosen instruments--then they become YOUR audience.
If you want to ignore the audience and you don't FEEL like you're "performing," fair enough, but that still doesn't change the facts--all that changes is how you feel about the facts.
Facetious? And quite right too. If ever a thread deserves it it's this one.
But it's clear from the logic of the non-performance deniers that an audience of one is all it takes. For as they are in a constant state of performing actions for themselves, they are simultaneously and unavoidably forever in performance mode. Even when they are asleep. Let alone enjoying a nice soak in the hot tub, juust themselves and a Bb tin whistle.
Went to a rock concert on Saturday night ... the tickets stated that the promoters wouldn't be liable for any ear damage sustained ... it was very very loud. Bringing your own ear plugs was suggested.
I actually am a bit deaf from too much over-loud performing. Top end gone. I used to be able to hear pipistrelle bats, but sadly, no more. Maybe that has something to do with my enjoyment of non-performance music.
I'd say it's pretty fundamental. That's why I'm still on about it.
It's a fundamental question which requires addressing:
Is it OK to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience?
Michael, whatever you perceive your performance to be is up to you. Even if you think it isn't a performance--that's fine--but it won't change the facts.
Button, leave it. However your or my perception relates to the facts. Leave it. It ain't gonna be resolved. It's not important. I'm trying to move it on ... Is it OK to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience?
(lazy, I lost those frequencies well before my advancing years. Only myself to blame)
But if there is a long tradition in a particular bar of being paid by the bar to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience, is it still rude?
So, the folks at the book club, sitting around a table, discussing a book, are performing because they are within earshot of others?
A group sitting around the table next to them are using instruments to "discuss" tunes within earshot of others are performing?
Ridiculous.
since when do pubs pay people to sit round discussing books to draw a crowd?
since when do people applaud a bunch of people sitting round discussing books?
When do book clubs discuss books loudly enough to be heard throughout a pub?
Since when does a dictionary define 'people discussing books in public' as a public performance?
What exactly are they performing?
A session is a session, we are paid and encouraged to play music in public for to amuse an audience and draw people into the pubs. We chose top go and play in these pubs for many reasons that are entirely personal.
A far more productive line of discussion might be private sessions: Is a session, in a kitchen ,a performance? with no 'audience' apart from those playing? According the the music dictionary quoted above it is. Its not however a public performance.
Can we even agree on a definition of performance? It seems a completely pointless discussion when the dictionary definitions are discarded in favour of an undefined, amorphous, concept of performance that isnt in any dictionary of the English language. If one side wishes to invent make up definitions to support their argument then how can discussion be of value to anyone?
Wow, what a thread. Lots of tap dancing around the issue too. Or step dancing around the issue, as the case may be.
To #*$* with the ‘facts’ and ‘definition’.
The rub is: How do you, the musician, carry on in these two OBVIOUSLY different situations?
When at a session, do you act like you’re on a stage with a microphone and an audience hanging on your every word?
If you do, you’re a freak and this is exactly what we’re talking about here, so everyone quit being so damn clever and disingenuous and cut to the chase already. HA!
I dont think anyone here acts like that SWFL. I certainly dont, in fact even when Im on stage I dont! I prefer to hang out at the back if I can.
Sessions are sessions, they are what they are. Im sure I've been in thousands of sessions over my life time and they are remarkably unanimous in what they are; a bunch of folk sitting round a table playing tunes, that it, nothing more ,nothing less.
"The conclusion seems to be that even though it is a public performance to most punters, it isn't to the musicians -- unless they choose to make it so. What a session is to musicians has to be understood by punters before they can realize what a session is or isn't. Until they endeavor to find out, or someone volunteers an explanation, they will likely think it's some sort of public performance."
When did the word "perform" take on such negative connotations? The way it's used in this thread makes it synonymous with showing off, being an asshole and not "getting it", but that's not what it means. I have witnessed people showing off in sessions, and it's not pretty, but most people perform what they learned in context with what brought us all together in the first place.
Sometimes I think certain people in this discussion might benefit from a 12-step program where they have to use the word "perform" in sentences involving positive comments about sessions.
"Hello, I'm ________ and I have abused the word, "perform."
How do you act differently then? Ionannas and Button? What do you do that is different in a session from a gig? (and try not to use the word performance, because we won't know what you are talking about)
I think Ionannas answered that already in his last post above:
"Sessions are sessions, they are what they are. Im sure I've been in thousands of sessions over my life time and they are remarkably unanimous in what they are; a bunch of folk sitting round a table playing tunes, that it, nothing more ,nothing less."
I like that a lot. "Sessions are sessions." Exactly. No other word is needed.
Ive already answered that question, but just to be clear I dont do anything different, I play music.
Gigs could be a number of different instruments or genres of course, and for that matter so could a session. Basically I be myself and hang out and play music with my mates. Sometimes sessions are wild, sometimes gigs are wild, sometimes sessions are laid back, sometimes gigs are laid back.
There is , to me, little difference, we play music, and sometimes people are there and sometimes not.
I certainly dont actively ignore or disregard people who wish to be involved in the Happening, who ever they might be, and there has never been any need to.
There is no distinction between player and audience, we are all one, it just so happens some of us are playing tunes and some are dancing or listening, it could be the other way round just as easily.
I find sessions and playing music in public a great way to break down barriers. After a few pints and a few tunes we are all friends even though we never met before! I travelled a lot when I was younger and sat in sessions all over Ireland, Almost Universally within two or three tunes we are befriending each other in our own ways.
I do not have negative connotations of performance. It is a noble profession, and those who can do it, can connect with an audience, they should be respected for their skills. When I try to do it I get nervous, I guess because of the connecting with the audience part. Look everywhere but at the audience, stare at my fingers, etc. No such problem at a session, I can literally turn my back to the people in the pub and play music. They often enjoy the music, but there is no performing involved--at least as far as I am concerned. You can call it misusing the language, call it splitting hairs, but to me it is a world of difference.
I'm usually hoping to perform what I learned satisfactorily be it at a session or gig. Sessions are easier because the expectations aren't as high and it's more of a sharing of the music rather than presenting it to an audience that has expectations. But I have no problem applying a word that is in context with what we're talking about, and I will continue to do so. It doesn't mean I'm not "getting it" or don't know what a session is; what it does mean is that I understand the actual meaning of the word and I'm not afraid to use it or avoid it because it doesn't suit the dogma of certain people on this website.
OK then, so Button makes no distinction between sessions and gigs either. Or does he? I'm a bit confused. One performs at both, but sessions are easier? The expectations aren't as high at a session because you are not presenting to an audience? What expectations aren't as high? Your expectations or the audience's?
It's confusing not least because of the two distinct definitions of the word perform:
1. to carry out an act
2. to present to an audience
You seem to agree, but then you don't
But I'm also confused about the expectations bit? Personally, my expectations of the quality of the music I play are higher in a non-performance setting and it's one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. And, of course, as for the expectations of those who may or may not consider themselves as audience, I disregard them.
OhMiGod. It looks like we are discussing the difference between a "session" and a "concert". To my mind, they are both "performances". Worse, within each session, there is room for individual "performances", when someone (or a small group) perform pre-prepared material for the people at the session. This is the stuff of nightmare of logic teachers.
Even worse, there have been several statements about how "inclusive" sessions are, as opposed to "performances" (aka "concerts"). My experience states that concerts can be more inclusive than ITM sessions, as (IME) ITM sessions are the most exclusive form of traditional music imaginable. In an ITM session if you cannot play the tunes fast, and in the same style, as those already running the session - go away. (See sessions at Maldon FF, or the Australian National FF for examples). Conversely, I've often stood on stage and found people I did not know joining me for a tune or song in a concert (even paid gig).
In the Original Post Fanning asked "My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform?". Is that the line between a "session" and a "gig" ?
Dictionary won't help there because they are both musicians words. From an audience perspective is it the same as the line between a "session" (where if they knew the word they would not be offended by being ignored) and a "concert" (where they might be offended)
After reading through the arguments put forward in this discussion I think I shall now go away and ponder how many angels can dance reels or jigs on the point of a needle.
Random_notes up above posted OOOOXXXXX. To show how much of a trad geek I am, my first thought was not 'hugs and kisses,' it was 'look, a whistle fingering pattern,' followed quickly by 'why does his whistle have nine holes?'
WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Hi all,
An acquaintance of mine contacted me recently to play a session with him.
Thing is, the owner of this restaurant/bar contacted him in the first place to organise a session, weighing in a meal for the musicians plus the difference of up to a hundred euros after the hat was passed around.
Now, that hardly covers the cost of getting there, so if four of us manage to make it, it's really because it's no steam off our piss.
My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform?
Personally, I declined the offer on the basis that it was simply too much of a hassle in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of going out for the sake of having a good time, just like practically everybody else around here. So if I am to play this music I'm familiar with, it's got to be worth my while. Otherwise I might as well go flip burgers (like the rest of us).
Perhaps the debate around such an instance might be caused by the number of players in a given area capable of fulfilling such a task as what I've described above. A given desire (for ITM) is emmitted by the proprietor of a public establishment; and a limited number of people are capable of filling this gap in the "market".
So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Pass a hat round! your kidding right? Chancer.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
My advice is to go flip burgers like the rest of us. Then you'll be able to afford the the luxury of going out for the sake of having a good time.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Sessions and Performances: Telling the Difference
If you're expected to turn up at a set time and play until a set time, that's probably a performance. If you can drop in as you like and play or not, as you like, that's most likely a session.
If you're facing the audience and using microphones, that's looking more like a performance. If you're siting in a circle and using no microphones, that's more sessiony.
If you're comfortable with taking half an hour in between tunes to chat, that's very like a session. If all the players take a break every hour or so, you're looking more like a gig.
If you can get fired, it's a gig. If you find that you turn up and the good players have failed to show for the third week in a row, it was a session.
If you have to think about it during the rest of the week, it's something like a gig. If it's just there when you need it, it's more like a session.
If you don't mind running through that last one again a bit slower so I can get the turn off you, it might very well be a session. If you have a set list, it's definitely a gig.
If there's more guitarists than tune players, it's probably a session, unless you're with Lynyrd Skynrd.
If there's a digeridon't player, it's either a gig or a session, but it's likely the last one you're having, whichever it is.
Does that help?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
A session IS a public performance. heh heh
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If you have to be bribed to play, it's a performance. if you play because you love the music, it's a session.
If you'll play anything if they pay you, it's a performance. If you play what you love, it's a session.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by c.g.
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I used to think that sessions weren't performances ... and though the best of them most certainly aren't, the blanket statement that they are all not performances doesn't take into account the many numpties who, despite overwhelming derision, continue to insist that they are. And of course, there's nothing more tedious than trying to have a tune with someone who's performing.
There are three ways of looking at it.
1. Every attempt at playing music in public is a performance. .. Clearly a pointless position because it turns a blind eye to those who disagree. I feel sorry for people who hold this view because they are disallowing themselves the pleasure of playing for themselves.
2. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is not the people playing, but the punters in the pub. In other words, if they think it's a performance, then it is. This position is annoying because it takes away responsibility from the player. It forces the player to respect the opinions of the punters, which of course is the true definition of whether it's a performance or not.
3. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is the people playing.
Pragmatically, 3 is the only workable way of looking at it. If all things are going well, then the assembled company can collectively decide there is no performance. And if things are not so good, at least it can accommodate people who insist that either points 1 or 2 are correct.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
grammatically 3 is upta (should be "are the people playing"
however all are correct, of course it is a performance even if you do the "do you want to play a few tunes, no audience, just us special people having fun and enjoying the music?"
You are still performing. Jointly and severally performing. For each other and yourselves. No escape.
Good evening Michael I trust all is well with you and yours..
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by mcknowall
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Good stuff, I deem, Llig.
Although...
Point 2 and 3: The people who define whether anything is a performance are any and all who happen to be speaking at the moment. The word "performance" tends, even here, to be a bit of an elephant.
Unlike the word "art".
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Rook
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You are right rook. In that if someone, anyone, calls anything art, then it is. Whether the artist knows it or not. But if a punter describes a session as a performance, it may well make it so for them, but it doesn't make it so for the players.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Wrong mcknowall, though it's a common mistake. "the people" is singular.
But the point of the three examples of how people define performance is to illustrate, for example, that mcknowall's (No1) possition excludes No 3, myself. Where as No3 is inclusive of No1.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I though this disagreement might be semantic, so I check in a few dictionaries. They do however make it quite clear, unanimously, that performance means.
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
1. the act of performing; execution, accomplishment, fulfillment, etc.
2 something done or performed; deed or feat
3
A. a formal exhibition or presentation before an audience, as a play, musical program, etc.; show
B. one's part in this
performance
1 the action or process of performing.
2 an act of performing a play, concert, song, etc.
C] the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music
noun: the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it ("They criticised his performance as mayor")
▸ noun: the act of presenting a play or a piece of music or other entertainment ("We congratulated him on his performance at the rehearsal")
▸ noun: a dramatic or musical entertainment ("They listened to ten different performances")
So how do the 'non-performance camp' define performance ?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
simple, music not presented to an audience
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry, I meant that performance music is that which is presented to an audience.
And than non-performance music is music not presented to an audience.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
We've been over this before, the No1 camp say that if there are people their then they are an audience, whether we like it or not. And so, non-performance cannot exist. For even ourselves can be considered the audience.
But it's not the existence or non existence of an audience that is the issue. It's one's choice not to present.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
How do you present music to an audience? in what way is tha different to playing in front of an audience? .
OK, you are using performance in a manner which is different to the common definitions.You are looking at it as your performance means to present / gift /show, [as in powerpoint presentation] non performance means to not present/gift/ show the 'audience? Ie Ignore, turn your back etc.
A session is a session whether it is in a kitchin or bar right. According to the dictionary definition , in public or private you are performing the act of making music. However the dictionary also goes on to define performance as ''the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music'' An act.
Do you therefore mean that if the audience is not entertained, then it is not a performance?
I understand your definition as' the choice whether to present or not' this is an individual or group choice. Its not however the meaning of the word, None the less your meaning is clear.
But By plaYING in a public space you have no choice, you are performing the act of music in public.
For example, making love , you can choose to do this in public, you can also say/feel that you were not performing, you were simply doing it for your own amusement. Nonethe less the law is quite clear that the individuals motivation is Irrelevant, what is relevant is that you performed the act in public. whether others were watching or not is also Irrelevant , you could in a fit of angst confess to an officer of the law and be found guilty of a lewd act in a public place.
Like wise in performing the act of playing musical instruments in a public place, your motivation is Irrelevant, it the the act that counts.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
> My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform? <
Fer fecksake Loic... what a daft question. Just make up your own effing mind when an offer is made whether you can be arsed to do it - which you seem to have done in this case anyway, so why bleat about it on here?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Jeeves Tones
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas, missing it completely as usual. And not even able to use a dictionary. The reason dictionaries put numbers next to definitions is because they are different definitions of the same word.
1. Perform: to present before an audience
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
These are two quite seperate definitions.
We are talking about the first. You, don't understand the difference.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I invite people to come and listen to our session at the coffee shop, but I also tell them this is not a performance, just a group of friends, sitting around a table playing tunes.
If it were a performance, we'd be up on the small stage, lined up, looking towards the "audience." We, in fact, did a "performance" of our tunes at a local farmer's market. It was different. We didn't get up for another cup of coffee, we didn't talk or visit much between tunes, we were kind of lined up, not facing each other, but the audience. I found out later we were to get $50 for the "gig" but since none of us are in charge, I don't think anyone collected it.
When we play at our session, no one gets paid, and we have to pay full price for our coffee drinks. Sometimes there are folks listening to us, and sometimes the book club is seated next to us and talk over the whole thing.
Just because we play tunes in public doesn't mean we are "performing" in the sense that we are providing entertainment for others. Heck, there's lots of stuff that happens in public that entertains others that could never be construed as "performance." (O.K., think about it, come up with your own examples)
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Disingenuous Ionannas. You know exactly what we're talking about. You just LOVE to argue!
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
At the end of the day a session will only last and be a true session if you are doing it because you want to and you enjoy it. If you have a good bar and the contribute to beer and travel all the better (tell them to stick their hat ** their ****)
FWIW three of us get £60 for drinks and taxis to host the session and pints for £1. Obviously that's not why we do it but it makes the whole affair friendly and nobody is out of pocket. We do it because we enjoy it and we could not care less if anyone thinks it's a performance or otherwise. Doesn't make the remotest bit of difference.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Exactly, which is why I thought the argument might be semantic. we use the word differently.; Performing an act, or making a performance out of an action. Without clarifying the usage of the word how can we even discuss it? as we are discussing different things.
So you are using the word to mean :making a performance out of an action, a show, theatre, acting in a manner specifically to draw a reaction from a separate group of people defined loosely as 'audience'.
But where does that leave a session where there is no dividing line between Audience and actors? Where someone from the audience gets up and does their thing, say a song. are they performing? are they performing for the Actors, themselves, the audience ,all, none of the above?
Where does this dividing line exist?does it in fact even exist anywhere bar the minds of people who decide what they are doing is or is not a performance. If the actors are not performing [in their minds], but are nonetheless on stage in front of a paying audience, is this a performance?
Im not being disingenuous at all SWFL.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"we are discussing different things."
no kidding.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas, where does the term session fit into your observation about public performances? any distinction?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWkpfi6m63M
Performance? or session? both? IMO its a session on stage. yes its a performance because they are on stage in public, but they do nothing that would be different than the local session. How do you look inside their minds to decide whether they view it as a performance or a non-performance. What are the material requirements for a session to become a performance Irrespective of the personal views of the players?
<< Just because we play tunes in public doesn't mean we are "performing" in the sense that we are providing entertainment for others.>>
Are you or are you not providing entertainment for others? Is that your definition of 'performing'?
So then a full band putting on a spectacular show, in an empty theatre are not performing? or they are? Does a performance require an audience?
Conversely does an audience mean a performance is taking place irrespective of the personal views of the players?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
get over it. You are arguing just to see your words in print...
I listed some things that are different when our session group plays a "session" and when we've done a performance.
It's pretty obvious to all but you.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sure you are!
What do YOU do personally at these two different things?
I know what I do. At gigs/performances/whatever I announce each set and song, say a few words, a joke or two. The 'band' takes breaks but when there is no break, we are constantly playing music, or talking to the audience in between, introducing the next piece of music, etc. The audience is the focus. The band has received payment in cash (keep your bouncy checks over there, publican) to entertain an audience.
You do all of this at a session? For free?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5bCOIQd2nk
Session? performance? can you read their minds?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Isn't it strange that Irish Trad Musicians seem to be only performers who seem to jump at the chance of playing in a pub for free. Sometimes even risking life and limb to do so..........! I recently joined in a session myself were we bought our own drinks. I was in the same pub the following night and had the head blown off me by a mediocre singer with a guitar and backing tracks, who read all the words from a book. At the end of the night I was at the bar when the barman took what appeared to be over one hundred euro from the till and handed it to him. Maybe it's the didiley didliey bit they don't like?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Free Reed
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas, are you going to answer the question? What do YOU do differently? What do YOU do during a performance that is the same or different from a session? I don't care to look at youtube videos to support or refute your so-called argument. You always seem to rest on the laurel of others when you spout your point of view.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Wyogal, Ive asked about 20 question now, none of which have been answered, now 1 question is directed at me and you insist I answer it! faire is fair now. why dont you answer some or even just one of mine?
What do I do? I play music, I dont concern myself with any distinction , Its all quite Irrelevant.
As far as focus, that a very good point; So at a performance, gig, your focus is on the audience and in 'looking good/sounding good' for the audience. Fair enough and thats a good distinction. I personally rarely make any particular change in my actions. If the craic is mighty then all sorts of crazy stuff happens irrespective of where we are playing, spirits are high the music is wild and so are we. If the music is so- so, then so is the energy of the crowd ' group consciousness' .
I dont make any distinction between player and audience, we are all one. I just do my thing and that is; I put my heart and soul into my music when in public. While at home, in private I tend to be more analytical and less spontaneous, more preparatory stuff, learning tunes etc.
I consider the people about me whether they are players or not. We are all people sharing the same space.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You don't want answers, you want to be right.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Its all quite irrelevant ~
perhaps the site could simply be www.theperformance.org?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
ye gods but this is tiresome
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by tuckered out
*
Yes, it is a melodramatic. Not the making of a session with a few good mates.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
in a dark corner of Oxford, yet another lexicographer kicks his own face off in disgust.
last time i went to a musical performance,
someone jumped off the stage and crowdsurfed.
if i ever see this at a session i will die a contented man.
if youre in a session and it runs really late, and you look up and all the punters are gone and probably arent coming back,
does it make the slightest difference to you?
i hope not.
do you keep playing?
i hope so.
there is an answer in there somewhere.
it is true that there are certain people who cannot, for reasons of ego and vanity, muster the energy to do anything unless they feel they have an audience. there is no doubt a non vulgar word for such individuals.
its quite possible these are of a similar nature to those who cannot accept that sessions are not perormances.
if its a performance, its a consession
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by rumpole
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Not the music, for crying out loud! Way to duck the question! Wyogirl's caught you red-handed!
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
rumpole, I try to never look up. I stare at my feet the whole time. ;)
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Random, you're in the wrong genre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoegazing
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by tuckered out
they weren't the 1st
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
SWFL, what on earth do you mean? please clarify? to reiterate I dont do anything different, I play the music. To me there is no difference, session, gig, performance, its all about the music, if you want to wear green face paint thats up to you, but I do not. I have never needed to do anything other than play. I play music because I love it.
Now rather than your tit for tat, arguing for the sake of it, why not consider the questions I haver asked and the issues I have raised. Otherwise its really pointless discussing these issues with you. You appear firmly and emotionally attached to your belief system and no amount of common sense or logic will open your minds. So be it. up to you, presumably it serves some function for you and thats fair enough.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You said, "I consider the people about me whether they are players or not. We are all people sharing the same space."
Therefore, you are always performing. This limits your focus on the music.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
I.e.
1. Perform: to present before an audience
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas
can i boomerang this at you, its from your last post
"You appear firmly and emotionally attached to your belief system and no amount of common sense or logic will open your mind.
So be it. up to you, presumably it serves some function for you and thats fair enough."
i can hear whipcrack on deceased stallion all over shop here
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by rumpole
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
It is not always easy to have a session in a public place.
You & your mates can only do so much to keep from drawing an audience. But, when the session is more about playing with your mates than playing to an audience (or playing for applause); then you might realize why this distinction matters.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Yes you can, but I have answered and considered all these issues and points you raise, while no one has yet answered any of my questions or even appear to have thought about them. The best you can do it seems is repeatedly reiterate your contention that a session is not a performance . If you have some well thought out answer to any of the questions I raise then lets here them otherwise your position appears to be untenable. My contention is that there is no difference. If there is, where is it? is it in the minds of the players? the minds of the audience? the actions of the players? the actions of the audience? Where exactly is this difference to be found. Where is this dividing line to be drawn? Until you or anyone con convincingly answer these questions Im afraid your argument does not appear to even exist. Just as in fact this 'dividing line' does not exist. There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Relativity
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Llig actually agreed that a session is a performance.
I repeated his answer directly above.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry, I was wrong.
Llig agreed, a session is a performance in definition #2:
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
This has also been answered. Many times over.
"My contention is that there is no difference. If there is, where is it?"
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
~
imho you are right on this point;
"There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other."
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
;)
Now are you happy?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"There is no dividing line between session and performance"
Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
So Ionannas, at the session you follow one set/song with another, and introduce each one to the audience? Do you take requests? Put out the tip jar? Take pre-timed breaks? "We'll play from 9-11 with a 10 minute break at 10..." Receive cash for payment at the end?
Come on man. Seriously.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Exactly SWFL.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
...and yes, the difference is in the mind of the players.
"Oh no, this gig is at X and they always want to hear a buncha goofy drinking songs. Well, time to go to WORK..."
"Oh good, it's session day."
...and, as we're making the music, that's all the difference in the world.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
There's also a difference in the minds of educated punters.
So let's see, there's the musicians and the punters who actually care.
Is there anyone else we need worry about? At least without receiving payment?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Well, the publican, obviously. HA!
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Fair play. 2nd attempt
imho you are right on this point;
". . . , if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other."
No one defined the phrase * dividing line*.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I knew an old feller once used to play dominoes in a pub team in a public place. I doubt he ever considered he was putting on a performance in the sense of playing for an audience.
I've played pool in public without it being a performance.
Been in pubs with punters playing darts with thier mates. They wouldn't have considered it a performance.
I've played in fitba matches in public parks and pitches, never considered I was putting on a performance. (Nor I suspect would any hypothetical spectators)
Merely doing something in public doesn't make it a performance.
Whether or not someone is "performing" in a session comes down to the mind set of the people playing. If you consider yourself to be putting on a performance and pitch your playing at an (imagined?) audience then to my mind you are putting on a performance. Others in the same session may be oblivious to the needs and perceptions of any audience and just enjoying a night out with musical mates, and not putting on a performance.
If you consider all sessions to be performances, what about the situation where there are no punters in the pub, no actual audience. The session can otherwise go on the same as another week when the bar is full, but is it still a performance in the absence of an audience.
What about the exact same compliment of players getting togther on another night in someone's kitchen. Playing from the same repertiore of tunes in the same manner and with the same attitudes. This is obviously still a session. But is it really a performance? If the players feel and act exactly the same way they do when in the pub, but one is a performance and the other not, then that definition is based on the listener not on the player, which seems absurd. Or maybe the kitchen session is considered "practice".
- chris
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
throwing in my towel. cheers
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
nah, "practice" involves scales and arpeggios...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What, you don't play scales and arpeggios at your session wyogal?
I can only imagine how dull that must be *yawn*
- chris
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Three people sit in a pub, playing tunes. One is playing for the crowd and he intends to entertain them. For him, it’s a performance. The other two are playing for the joy of mutual music-making and really don’t care if anybody else listens. For them, it’s not a performance.
The other folks in the pub don’t know the intentions of the individual musicians. Half of them are watching and listening to the musicians. To some of them, it’s a performance. The rest of the crowd are chatting and paying no more attention to the musicians than if they were playing bridge instead of music. To them, it’s not a performance; it’s just part of the ambience.
Or am I missing something?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
>>Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.<<
Rubbish, you might do this but I certainly dont. I agree its wise in a gig that somebody interacts with the audience,but that is rarely me. For example in one band I played in no one did, we just played and got riotous applause, which rather surprised me, but there you go, they liked the music, not the theatrics that you seem to think is expected.
very good points chris.
and bob , well said, where does this dividing line exist? IMO it is purely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of people who for whatever reason wish to make this distinction.
Now if the discussion is ''gig versus session'' its probably easier to define and delineate a difference. But still there are so many holes and inconsistencies as to make the whole process meaningless.
Many sessions have a core of paid musicians who turn up because they feel a responsibility, Its a gig. No stage no actions that they do differently from an unpaid informal sesh in their kitchin. Some players turn up but dont get paid, is this session a performance? or not. ?
To reiterate, there is no dividing line it is purely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of people who for whatever reason wish to make this distinction.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I can't believe people are arguing about this again. It went on for more than 400 posts the last time.
But this current thread isn't really a debate because one side isn't supportable by reason. To wit, Ion says: "There is no dividing line between session and performance, if anything there is a broad continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. "
How can there be "no difference" between "one extreme" and "the other"? If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different.
Comments such as this that directly contradict themselves must be a performance because they have no value beyond their potential for comic entertainment.
Some sessions *are* performances because the participants want them to be so. Some sessions are just friends playing tunes together with none of the expectations common to performances. If a punter (or even another musician) thinks the latter are performances, s/he'd be mistaken, just as much as a person wandering into a gig would be mistaken to sit in as tho it were a session.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Floss
Unfortunetly I have to admit to knowing people who met jig/ionannas/tradpiper/ will evans at Willie Clancy Week He is a real person evidently and there is only one of them.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Bob, the bit missing from the scenario you paint above is a point that llig and I cited repeatedly in the previous threads on this topic. When someone treats a session like a performance, it skews the whole thing away from playing music for music's sake toward trying to please or impress others. Sure some sessions are like that, but some of us prefer our sessions to be guided by the music, not by an "audience's" expectations or player's egos. It's easier to do this if the participants (players and listeners alike) are aware of the distinctions between session and performance.
Of course there's no sharp dividing line between sessions and performances--that's a straw man, easily blown down. But there is a wide fuzzy gray area between the two concepts, and the two concepts can be distinguished from one another, as has been done to death on earlier threads here.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
" >>Rubbish. During a gig you are expected and expect to interact in some way and communicate with the audience. In a session you don't, certainly not in a 'performance' sense.<<
Rubbish, you might do this but I certainly dont. I agree its wise in a gig that somebody interacts with the audience,but that is rarely me. For example in one band I played in no one did, we just played and got riotous applause, which rather surprised me, but there you go, they liked the music, not the theatrics that you seem to think is expected. "
- that post just says so much.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
To me a performance implies planning ,payment and playing for others .
A session implies spontinaety ,crack and playing for playing sake enjoying the music for its own sake.
I am not really interested in the bit in the middle either its egos and/ or a poor performance
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HXdt1ZB8U
Gig? session? performance? whats the difference here?
Three lads sit and play some tunes together, no acting no theatrics... its a session to my mind , no doubt. yet its also a performance. If its so easy to distinguish the 2 concepts, do so here and make clear what criteria you use to make your definition.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Man, you really don't get it.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Are you daft, man?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jesus would often sit with His disciples around a table at an inn. Sometimes a merchant or a potter or a weaver would overhear Jesus and would approach the table to listen.
So Luke asked Jesus, "What saith you of those not here seated with us? Are they also meant to hear thee?"
Jesus answered, "I play this banjo loud. I play every one of my custom banjos super hard. If people here—especially some of the ladies, okay, and I know you're with me on this, Luke—want to stroll on over and give a little listen, well, I don't mind so much. No, siree."
And you could smoke indoors back then, so He put His feet up on the table and blew out a smoke ring that drifted up and over a roof beam then slowly came back down to float like a halo over Peter's head. Everyone got a huge kick out of that, even the one-eyed centurion.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas
Your clip hows three blokes on the stage with mics playing tunes for an audience 10 meters away and on TV too and they are in suits Its an obvious performance I think the announcer at the start of the clip is a clue too..
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas,
Do you remember that session at Willie Clancy Week, the one with the bloke on the harmonica who kept playing ridiculously complex solo tunes at warp speed and going a bit mad with the ornaments? A mate of yours who joined that session later and ended up next to me for a while (I suspect you might know who it is) started bitching that Mr. Harmonica was confusing a session with a performance, as he was obviously trying to show off how brilliant he was, and clearly didn't the point of a session. The musician who was whinging about the harmonica player had a pretty clear picture of the difference and was very annoyed by someone who didn't.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Yes, SS so that clip is then a session.... despite the external paraphernalia that indicates its a gig. which it is, its also a session, and its a performance even though no one is 'performing'. Remember Im not the one saying there is some dividing line, a little box with its definitions that you can decide something is one or the other, Im saying there is no dividing line , its all simply making music.
Yes SS some people dont have much clue about making music together with others , but thats the case whether its a performance or a session or a performance that is also a session or a session that is also a performance
These definitions yous are trying to impose on the process of making music will always be Inaccurate because you can not confine human activity in little boxes with little labels.
What J was really complaining about IMO, was that the guy didnt know how to fit in, after all he was not doing all that stuff for the audience, but for the other players right? or for himself def not putting on a show for the 'punters' .
If by 'performing' you mean ' putting on a show' then thats is a separate issue to the music. Not related, people can make a 'show' a 'performance' 'theatre' out of anything. I accept that sessions aren't about putting on a show for the audience.
Putting on a show, acting in a specific manner designed to elicit a reaction from a crowd is a separate issue that has nothing specifically to do with the music, though it could do.
But even if that is the case, and what you mean by ' performance' then the 3 lads on stage are not performing are they? they are not acting in a manner designed to elicit a reaction from the crowd are they? No they are simply playing a few tunes, pretty much as they would do if they were sat in their kitchin.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Um, is there a translator in the house?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I give up , pity we cannot ask those three blokes if they thought it a performance or session.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"Yes, SS so that clip is then a session.... despite the external paraphernalia that indicates its a gig. which it is, its also a session, and its a performance even though no one is 'performing'."
so on and so forth...
wtf?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
the clip ~ not a session.
It sounds like a session & if everyone else (including the cameras) stepped outside then the 3 could have a session. But that is not a session. Certainly they were cued for the exact moment they could begin playing, they were not allowed to play additional sets, THERE WERE NO PINTS! *******????^^^^%%%, fat chance someone walking in the door would be allowed to sit in . . .
Sessions, as we know them, & love them & live them are our reason for being. Nothing more.
Excellent clip!
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Steeve, bleating isn't my primary means of expression, and I didn't begin this discussion as some sort of complaint at all;
I've merely pointed out that the question *does* arise, and as this thread seems to demonstrate, causes a great ammount of debate, if only because the subject is not, and has never been, settled.
Each of us makes (as I did) the choice when offered a session or a gig. Once again, the defining line between a session and a gig remains blurry; finding ground solid enough to make this decision in the respect of the tradition itself (ie the rest of the people who play this stuff) AND those who want to listen to it is, as the length of this thread indicates, a bit touchy.
Bogman's description of his session is parallel to my primary post, except his session seems easier to organise.
Rumpole, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with
<if youre in a session and it runs really late, and you look up and all the punters are gone and probably arent coming back,
does it make the slightest difference to you?
i hope not.
do you keep playing?
i hope so.>
Ionannas, as usual, your arguments are inane to me. There IS a difference between session and performance, and all I'd like to know is where the line is. Meanwhile you maintain there is no distinction. Your opinion may be that there isn't, but trying to convince the majority of us here to adopt your point of view is ridiculous. Your contribution to this debate makes it difficult to follow, and I encourage all to ignore you.
<How can there be "no difference" between "one extreme" and "the other"? If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different.
Comments such as this that directly contradict themselves must be a performance because they have no value beyond their potential for comic entertainment.>
Brilliant, Miss Lonelyheart!
<To me a performance implies planning ,payment and playing for others .
A session implies spontinaety ,crack and playing for playing sake enjoying the music for its own sake.
I am not really interested in the bit in the middle either its egos and/ or a poor performance>
Bingo! Bazouki Dave. If a session requires too much planning, is it really a session anymore?
There is much to digest here. In my humble opinion, Llig seems to have the simplest and most practical set of parameters to deal with this dilemma.
Thank you all for your contributions, your generosity.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
<<There IS a difference between session and performance, and all I'd like to know is where the line is. Meanwhile you maintain there is no distinction. Your opinion may be that there isn't, but trying to convince the majority of us here to adopt your point of view is ridiculous. >>
You seem to think I have some interest in convincing a majority? not in the slightest, not even interested in convincing one person. It makes no difference to me what so ever, Im just pointing out a few glaring holes in your argument, for my own amusement. If thats sheds some light on the subject great, if not , no big deal. Why should it matter to me?
As far as inane,?<< If there *is* a "one extreme" and "the other," then obviously, there are two things that are different. >>
You cant see the fallacy in your reasoning there ?
For example a stick has two ends, one you hold, the other you hit with; [a ball] they are the 2 extremes of a single thing.
Frequency of sound, Bass and treble, same thing, different extremes.
However you can continue to look for a dividing line as long as you want. But you would be best to look inside yourself.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Thanks Fanning.
It's one thing to hold firm unwavering ideals. I think I do that with a lot of things, especially to do with music. But it's also importand to understand and accomodate others. It's bloody hard work with Ionannas though.
Everything is a performance with this guy. It's his main problem. And what about that creepy one where he's talking about sex and performing? Bloody hell.
I'm not saying he's doing it deliberately. There are basic things he doesn't understand, simple things like not realising that quite seperate definitions for the same words in dictionaries are numbered. He thinks that all definitions hold true always, for every situation, because they are in the disctionary.
In the long run, it's impossible to debate with. Even at its most coherant, it's still wildy contradictory.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And so it goes on. Most of us here like to muse about stuff, swap ideas. Where as he is only interested in himself. He's only here for his own amusement. It doesn't matter to him.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
This seems to be too true about Ionannas Llig.
Ionannas, if I were to take that stick you mention, and hit you with it, who would it hurt most?
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
try this though:
A stick has two ends
Playing music has two extreems
One you hold, the other you hit a ball with
Non-performance music and performance music.
Anyway, he thinks that his argument is above my head. And that because of the history of the meanings of words, I am completely mistaken. (he just e-mailed me that)
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Looks like a non-argument to me...
This character appears to be some sort of a "troll", in what my wife describes as internet lingo. A creature that derives a strange pleasure at disrupting what would be normal, enlightening exchanges between people communicating in good intelligence.
I repeat that the best way of dealing with this entity is by simply ignoring him/her/it.
# Posted on September 16th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
'Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can't be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.'
I've just been reminded of this extract from George Monbiot's article in 'The Guardian' earlier this week.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by biggus dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Some absolutely stunning performances here!
I am applauding as I type.
Bravo! Bravo!
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by mcknowall
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sigh. So the stick with two ends.... Okay, if that's the analogy in play for now. So I'm seeing the stick having two very different ends. One (the performance end) has sequins and ribbony streamers glued to it, and the end itself has been hollowed out not unlike a shaky egg, and is filled with beads to make a rattling noise when shook. The other end (the session end) is just a plain stick. The bark has been peeled back to reveal a beautiful grain pattern that's been polished to a high sheen just by being held by thousands of people.
Interestingly, this stick is in a museum. The showy end rests in a glass case in the main hall for all to see and admire. The plain end of the stick pokes through a hole in the back of the glass case into a mundane back room. People (mostly folks who volunteer at the museum) like to rub a hand over it when they pass by because the polished wood is pretty and feels smooth but substantial in their hand.
Where the stick passes through the wall is the "dividing line." It's a six-inch thick wall, so the "line" is fairly broad and filled with fuzzy insulation. But the end of the stick in the glass case is clearly different from the end in the back room.
Personally, I don't care much for the stick analogy. I think a session is one thing, and a performance is another. Which is why--shockers!--we have and use different words, one for "performance" and one for "session." People who confuse the two are prone to ruining both for the other participants in either.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
My, my. You gentles have been busy since my entry of this A.M. Good stuff, many of you (IMHO only), and a few have me scratching my head.
Business as usual, obviously.
Q: If a performance is given in the forest, and there are none to hear it, is it a session?
Not to stir anything up, mind you.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by Rook
Sigh
Sessions ARE public performances
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/3705
Posted on June 3rd 2004
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Fanning, I'm familiar with the circumstances the would lead to your question about drawing a line between being paid to show up vs. being paid to perform. We've weighed the same thing locally over the years.
My local session pub doesn't pay us at all. Yet our weekly session often draws more people to the pub (on a Thursday night) than the hired music does on a Friday or Saturday. This has led some to say that the pub should pay us, since they're making money off our session.
But we'd rather not get paid. Here's why.
There's really no difference between being paid to show up vs. to perform--long and short of it is that you're being paid to sit there and make music because the publican thinks it will help sell drinks. So as soon as you accept that arrangement, you might as well don the performing monkey costume and get on with it.
(Mind you, I'm not against people earning some income from anchoring sessions. Just be clear about the ramifications. You are then obligated to show up and do at least a journeyman's job of keeping the music going. Long tuneless chats or smoke breaks, arriving late, leaving early, boozing your way into arrhythmia and dystonia, and bailing to visit with friends or that sexy thang at the bar are no longer options you can enjoy. The money creates expectations, and as long as you're aware of them and willing to meet them, all is copasetic.)
Everyone at my local session would rather not create those expectations and be obliged to live up to them. We all have day jobs (yes, mine is music, which is all the more reason I would rather play just for fun at the end of the day), so we don't need the money and the complications it brings.
Avoiding the money also lets us play what we want, when we want, as long as we want--regardless of whether it pleases the rest of the pub. As it happens, even in Amerikay, the vast majority of people who walk into Riley's Pub are happy to go with the flow and relax in the ambient session sounds. In short, everyone's happy with this arrangement--the patrons, the publican, and us musos. The whole thing is simply more ad hoc and relaxed and easy going than if money (and so "performing") were involved. I've gone that route before, and it always involves expectations of performing *for* someone else's entertainment. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. (We do such gigs every now and then--we're not anti-profit.) But it sure is nice to keep it simple once a week.
Because our session is fun and laid back, the same good players show up week after week. There's no need to pay an anchor to keep it going. We're all happy to be there. On average, the session is off for only about 3 weeks out of the year (most often during summer when it just happens that everyone leaves on vacation for the same week). And that's okay too.
Just $0.02 based on my own experience.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I don't see the problem. If you want to get paid to play, tell them what your minimum price is. If you want to play for fun elsewhere, do that. If you'd rather sit at home than play with these people(meanwhile getting a bit of gas money and a free meal), then sit at home. Do what you want to do, it's as simple as that. Really.
Everything else is pure semantics. Nothing's black and white. This is all shades of grey, and really a pointless debate. There is no dividing line, only an idea in your head that you can't even pinpoint. Just do what you feel like doing.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by awildman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Where I like to play, the establishment pays "anchors" for the 9 official sessions there every week. In all but the one session I frequent most often, the anchors are obvious. But I can't even remember who the anchors are in that one session. We just drink all the dosh. It's tradition.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
awildman, I think we've pinpointed the difference quite clearly. One is where you present your music to an audience. The other is where you are not presenting to an audience. The distinction only really matters when you and your mates are happilly playing away not presenting, someone comes along who doesn't understand the difference and starts performing.
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
>But we'd rather not get paid. Here's why.
<snip>..
I agree 100% Miss Lonelyhearts. I don't want the hastle of worrying about how to split the money every week depending on who turned up. Or the predictably unpredictable side effects of sticking it in a jar as a drinks kitty. It's a night out with mates, and I want to relax and be hastle free.
It'd be nice if the free drinks that we got at first still apepared, but in a big bar with a staff of thousands, this seems to have got lost and I really don't care enough to take it up . hate dealing with money/barter issues). If someone else wants to then fine, but I'm not interested.
Doing the occasional paid gig or one off set is nice, but my regular night out: no thanks, for all the reasons that you listed.
- chris
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
When posting to a discussion forum are you:
a) having a casual conversation with fellow forumites
b) putting on a public performance in writing
c) depends on the forum
d) depends on the individual posting
e) all (or some, or parts of all) of the above
- chris
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I forgot
f) depends if I'm being paid
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
a)
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Can I be paid please
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Are forumites the ones that project from the ceiling,
or the ones that stick up from the floor?
Ah, there's my coffee -
CHEERS, ALL!
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by Rook
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Thank goodness we got that out of the way
Ovaltine time!
# Posted on September 17th 2009 by mcknowall
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Some misconceptions:
1. If you are paid it is a gig and not a session.
2. If you are "exclusive" and keep certain people out it is not a session.
3. If it is unrehearsed it is a session.
4. If the players are playing really well and it *sounds like* it is rehearsed then it is a gig.
5. Sessions should be open to everyone of all stages and abilities. Anything goes. It is just a session.
Just because something is a gig there is no guarantee of quality. Just as I know plenty of musicians who are really excellent and don't gig there are others who make a living out of the music but who, in my opinion, have a bloody cheek doing so.
There are sessions I host where there is money involved and there are others with none. I don't treat them any differently from each other. I am not there to perform. I am there to play tunes with my friends. If I am hosting the session I will make sure I turn up on time, cash or not. It is just the done thing. The very occasional gig I have done is very different. As has already been said it is how you interact with the audience. You are performing and playing for their reaction. You are trying to entertain. Entertaining the people in the pub when you are in a session is great but it is not why you are there. It is nothing more than a by-product.
A gig is obviously a set situation where others can not come along and just join in. Sessions, by their nature are more inclusive. That does not mean that they have to be a free for all. I like open sessions. I don't like gaping sessions. I don't see what the problem is with having some tunes in the pub with your friends and keeping those out who are complete and utter langers!
It annoys me more than a little when folk come on this site and complain that if you don't want anyone joining in then you should just have a house session instead. If you are the folk who have gone out and found a welcoming pub for your session and turn up each week to play then you have some right of ownership over it. You have the right to ask, politely for someone to stop ruining it for everyone else.
In know that this little rant of mine drifts beyond the trend of the thread to date but I am not about to start a new thread myself and it is all ground that has been covered before.
Looking at the original question then if you are passing a hat around then you are busking, pure and simple. It is a performance/gig. You are there to entertain the heaving throngs. If you are paid by the pub whether that is in the form of money, food or drink then that does not make it a gig. If you are playing for purely your own enjoyment and that of your session mates, if you have no set breaks and can stop for a chat then it is a session pure and simple.
If you have three guys on a big theatre who start playing to rows and rows of applauding folk after being introduced then it is nothing but a gig.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
And it beggers belief why there's any feckin controversy about it. Especially on a feckin websit called "thesession" for feck's sake. I mean .. Jeez
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
A session is when a bunch of folk get together to play some tunes. Irrespective of whether they get paid, irrespective of where it is, irrespective of whether others are able to join in or not. Irrespective of whether it is a gig for some of the players or even all of the players. This discussion is NO about the difference between gig and session, but session and performance.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
or more specifically ;>>My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform?<<
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
That is all well and good but I, and everyone else on here it seems, would argue that there is a difference between playing in a session and putting on a performance. If I am playing in a gig, paid or not, then I feel that there is more of a duty on me not to make any mistakes. You are working from a set list and what is performed is prearranged. The dynamic is completely different from a session where there is more spontineity and you are able to drop out as and when you want to go for a p*ss, to the bar or, if you are so inclined, outside for a cigarette.
I don't understand where your confusion is on this matter. It is so straight forward and obvious that a child of 10 could understand!
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And that question has been answered numerous times, including in my post there. ^
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
My confusion! ho ho. The fact is that all your points are full of holes. You extemporise from your experience to create a definition that is only correct for yourself yet then go on to blanketly apply it to every situation.
You are trying to draw a line where none exists. You are again confusing gigs and performances. A gig can be a performance, but not necessarily so, if by performance you mean ' putting on a show; acting in a manner designed to elicit a reaction from an audience'
This is crux of the matter. Jackie and co are not 'performing' but its a gig. it also is a session. Small minded attempts to somehow create a catch all definition are bound to fail, it is an indefensible position, which is why its so easy to knock holes in it. Which is why instead of attempting to defend this position the fall back position is to denigrate and insult.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
It drives you bonkers doesn't it. It's like saying here's a lion, and here's a lioness. And everybody goes yeh, aren't they fabulous. And then someone puts their hand up and says, hang on a minute, but they are both lions. AAAAGGHH.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You can draw as many lines as you choose, but they are little more than personal markers, you cant justifiably then insist that other are obliged to act in compliance with your definitions. These lines you seem to like. They are purely imaginary and have no bearing in reality. Reality is always far more complex and convoluted and can not be constrained within your definitions.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
The reality is, that when you and your mates are sat in your cosy local having a few drinks and playing non-performance music, and someone comes along who doesn't understand, and starts performing, it's really really fecking annoying.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
When it's our session, we will insist that others oblige us by complying with whatever definitions of "session" we come up with. Whether you understand the definitions or not.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Fair enough, no argument there.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Thank god for that
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If a person has a viewpoint and there is no one there to disagree, can there still be an argument?
Llig, I believe we have discovered "train wreck" posting -
"Look away! Look away!"
I'm off to the Highland Games.
With my saxophone.
Cheers.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Rook
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
NCFA, very good post and right on the button. You've explained perfectly the difference between a session and a performance. Any have decent musician will realize that, and here that seems to be the case.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
An attempt to start a seisiún/performance/gig distinction discussion at a pub seisiún last night was met with bafflement and disinterest all round: "you'd have to be a complete fecking eedjit not to know the difference" being the gist of it. It did however spin off into a "when is a seisiún not a seisiún" discussion, including:
It's not a seisiún if . . .
there are less than four musicians;
there are more than eight/ten/twelve/"too many to get around two tables"/"so many you can't see the whites of their eyes"/an inner and an outer circle" of musicians;
there are more guitars and bodhráns than melody instruments;
anyone gets paid (though no-one objected to drink and sandwiches!);
you play more than a couple of the sets you played the last time;
a couple of sets don't turn into solos through miscommunication;
several sets don't collapse under the weight of laughter all round;
everyone knows the name of every tune played;
everyone plays every tune;
singing a song or dancing a step would be frowned upon;
there are only fiddles;
no-one joins or leaves partway through;
someone isn't asked for a solo or an air;
it doesn't continue in some form after hours, either as a lock-in, in the street, or in someone's home;
As to what to call these non-seisiún seisiúns? Didn't get there, the football on Sunday and the harvest being the big topics here.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by PJ Doherty
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Don't agree with your session mates there. Also don't see the point of writing it as "seisiún" either. The rest of your post is in English after all.
I have been in sessions when it has been just 3 of us before, maybe even 2. I would still call it a session. I have also been in a session of 20 or 30 folk before and probably larger. I would still consider that a session, albeit slightly unwieldy. I suppose your definition of this would change depending on where you are and how many musicians are in the area.
You can have sessions where it is all guitars. They would likely be singing sessions though. You can also have sessions where there are five guitars accompanying one mandolin player. They are still sessions. They are just crap sessions.
Plenty of sessions have paid anchors. I am playing in one tonight. It is fine to disagree with this but it is still definately a session (in my mind).
I agree that variety of sets makes sessions interesting and it is good to mix it up. I suppose it depends on the level of the players though. Particularly if it is a learner's session there might not be that many sets to go round.
I also agree that sessions are meant to be fairly spontaneous. Therefore there is a reasonable chance that someone will mess up or someone mix up parts of tunes, etc. It is all part of being in a session. If you have a perfect night though with none of that then I don't think it stops it being a session. It is just a very good session.
We have no dancers in any of the sessions I play in and most of them will not have songs. It is just not what we are looking for. Having said that I enjoy sessions where there is the odd song. I even sing a few odd songs myself.
Are you going to tell the folk in the Lerwick Lounge that they are not in a session or do you want me to?
Sessions I am in hardly ever have solos or airs. We are there to play fasshtt and baaad!
I love lock-ins or house parties after a session. Sadly it is not always possible these days.
Anyway, I don't mean to nickpick. I suspect your post was fairly light-hearted anyway.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If your session is a debate why bring instruments?
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Random_notes
~
reality is for people who cannot play the tunes. ;)
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Apologies if it somehow offends you, there's no point to it at all, some words just come quickly to the mouth or fingers that way. Probably a result of not learning to write in English until I was at secondary school, and spending the much of each day speaking Irish with my children and neighbours.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by PJ Doherty
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I think if the distinction is that a performance is ; ''where a bunch of people put on a show; act in a manner designed and aimed at eliciting a reaction from an audience'' then that is a fair distinction which I can accept.
There will of course be sessions that are also performances and performances that are also sessions. Gigs that are sessions. Gigs on stage that are not performance, if we accept the above definition.
Even though one actual definition of the word performance[The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music }, and as used in common parlance is that , by its very nature, a public session, is a performance.
So then we have a performance [The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music },which is not a performance [a show, To act in a manner designed and aimed at eliciting a reaction from an audience.
Hmmm...
So now, how do we differentiate between these sessions that are , for some a performance, and some that are not? What physical acts are necessary to define a session as a performance, or one member of the session 'performing?
After it it could easily be said that the act of playing music in public is itself a performance. The Act of playing music in public is itself a performance. Hmmm Which is in fact a definition of performance....
Perhaps it might be easier if we were to use a separate word to describe ; performance;The action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music and performance; the act of putting on a show specifically designed to elicit a reaction and to please an audience[entertain ]
Is a session then a non-performance, performance? To wit; a performance that is not a performance.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by the wicked hacker
~
definitions are enumerated for a reason.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ionannas - you are making my head hurt and my eyes bleed!
PJ - Sorry no offence intended. I have also noticed that I said nickpick instead ot nitpick. I am surprised no one picked me up on that!
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
... and you said 'ot' instead of 'of' ... sorry to picnic ...
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by ethical blend
~
welcome back ;)
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"...The nature of trolls is to slip from any definition intended to constrain their actions and to find new and innovative ways to annoy...
...When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Do not conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others..."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Nobody can argue with that. (surely)
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Just figured I'd highlight that last portion again:
"...complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others..."
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Now THIS is trolling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBUp9zhEy9U
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by biggus dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Great, everyone should have that tune in their heads while reading (if tempted) to the posts of the troll.
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Allright, can't say I didn't give fair warning in the title to this thread.
I did expect this to be a hot debate, but not to this extent.
At this point, my primary question is largely answered, and if this debate is to continue in a constructive way, perhaps some things should be defined before any more elements are brought in.
Llig's parameters (as I've mentionned) appear to be the most coherent and practically applicable to me, so here they are again for the sake of clarity:
<There are three ways of looking at it.
1. Every attempt at playing music in public is a performance. .. Clearly a pointless position because it turns a blind eye to those who disagree. I feel sorry for people who hold this view because they are disallowing themselves the pleasure of playing for themselves.
2. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is not the people playing, but the punters in the pub. In other words, if they think it's a performance, then it is. This position is annoying because it takes away responsibility from the player. It forces the player to respect the opinions of the punters, which of course is the true definition of whether it's a performance or not.
3. The people responsible for defining whether there is a performance happening is the people playing.
Pragmatically, 3 is the only workable way of looking at it. If all things are going well, then the assembled company can collectively decide there is no performance. And if things are not so good, at least it can accommodate people who insist that either points 1 or 2 are correct.>
Logically then, if: a) the musicians show up spontaneously to play just for the fun of it, b) the owner of the establishment recognises his/her luck and c) the punters don't mind, then we have a session without a shadow of a doubt.
For these conditions to coincide naturally in Ireland, Scotland and England seems a likely scenario to me (although I've never been to these countries).
Now, because we all live and work in different geographical, social and cultural contexts, there are certain aspects that must be added (in my humble opinion), namely;
i) The number of musicians in a given area that show a consistent desire to get together and play ITM (or other) together.
ii) The (sometimes great) distances covered in order to get together consistently.
iii) The establishment owner's will to make his/her establishment attractive to these musicians.
iv) Keeping the investment of both parties to a strict minimum (time and money) in order to insure the easy-going nature of what we shall assume to be a session (as opposed to a performance).
Does anyone out here in mustard-board land feel the need to deal with these issues, and how do you go about resolving them?
I'm beginning to feel I'm beating a dead horse now... Perhaps these questions shouldn't even be raised?
# Posted on September 18th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What's your question?
"So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?
1. Specific time period, so many hours with so many regular breaks
2. I expect to get paid for performances, not sessions
3. Advertise to bring in an audience, a specific time and place
4. If I'm hired to do a performance, I get to say who appears with me.
5. My performances usually have a set list.
6. When I've performed, I usually also get drinks and sometimes dinner (if it's at a restaurant). At our sessions, we all pay for our own drinks.
And, I don't really need to deal with these issues as the difference between sessions and performance are quite clear in my mind and the folks that I play with.
and yes, the horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Once again, by being obstinate and obtuse, Ionannas goads us into some very cogent thoughts and arguments. I guess every protagonist needs an antagonist to keep things interesting! Heck, even Will Harmon came out of semi-retirement for the brouhaha--and did a fine job taking that stick analogy to a wonderful conclusion.
For myself, while the distinction gets blurry in the middle, I agree that the difference is in the heart of the musicians--if my goal is to lose myself in the music, it is a session, and if my goal is to please the audience, it is a performance.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
We had this discussion before and it reverberated through 3 threads with over 400 posts each and all we managed to accomplish was to agree that it was like the 3 blind men encountering an elephant from different sides. It's still an elephant regardless of how you perceive it based on your perspective. Call it what you want, but playing music is performing -- you can't get away from that. You might get sh*t on you if you stand too close to the wrong side.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What brought me out of my snooze was Fanning's original question. Debunking WIll Evan's bs about the stick was just for fun.
Jack, that may be all you got out of the previous discussions, but some of us actually gained real insight and understanding of how clearly a session can differ from any sort of performance, and how much more rewarding they are when that happens.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
P.S. What's the point of you characterizing what the collective we accomplishes here, when you don't even understand the distinction some of us have made? You're not the arbiter of the yella board's agreements, eh?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that playing music isn't performing. I've hear people expound on what they perceive their experience to be when playing, but no one has convinced me that it isn't performing. When we had this discussion in the past the only consensus was similar to the analogy of the blind men and the elephant... we agreed to disagree even though we were talking about the same thing.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What's the point of trying to convince someone who is not presenting their music to an audience, that in fact, they are?
What's the point of trying to convince someone who doesn't understand, that its possible to merely play for yourself while disregarding punters in earshot?
These aren't questions of mere semantics. And they are not questions regarding any spurious Descartian philosophical existentialism either. They are purely practical.
If you are in the first camp, and believe that you are doomed to be forever a performer, I suppose it must really annoy you when you come across people who so obviously are such crap performers, with their terribly rude disregard for their audiences.
But on the other hand, who can hold their hands up to the pleasures of plying for yourself?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Let's see... there are punters... but you deny they are either there or listening... do I have to point out who's in denial here? lol
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
not deny, disregard. It's an important distinction
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Oh for the sound of one hand clapping
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Hold one hand up, slap your fingers into your palm. da dar
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
That's not very zen of you
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
zen's not practical
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
When the tree falls in the forest unnoticed does it make a noise?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Since when has that been a deciding factor on some of the opinions on this site
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Phantom Button
>playing music is performing.
Do you really apply this in all cases, or were you cutting to the chase? Is it really performing for example when you are in yourself just playing? I can't believe anyone would hold to playing music being a performance in every case, unless they believed life itself was a performance.
But leaving that aside I can't sypathise at all with the notion that playing music in any public space is performing. Again I'm applying or assuming a context here that may not have been intended, but assunming that ANY playing in public is the contention. (If the context was intended to be limited to playing in a pub, I'd still disagree but at least see the pov as a possibility.)
It isn't just semantics about a session v gig, it comes down to a fairly fundamental outlook on life. I'm not playing a part when I'm in public or private, I'm just going about life, music happens to be part of life in my case.
Dancing, singing, playing football, running, a conversation all of these are on occasion entertainment and performances (the last mentione e.g. in a play improvised or otherwise). Is every game of football, of practical necessity carried out in a public place, a performance? When I'm running to catch a bus, is that really a performance in matter of kind, if not quite quality, with Mr Bolt winning his medals?
There are plenty of activities that constitute performances in certain contexts but not in others. Merely taking place in a public space is not enough to make something a performance. The idea that it is implies a world outlook so at odds with my experience that I can barely believe anyone really holds it to be true. I feel sorry for anyone thus trapped in the body of a 24-hour perfromance artiste
But getting back to trad music and sessions. What I like about this music is that it is an organic part of everyday life. You pick up your instrtument and give it a go in passing at home in a spare minute. You can meet someone at a bus stop and ask them to play that reel again on their whistle. When your in the pub at the session, the sessioneers (never mind the rest of the pub) don't fall into a reverential silence when someone starts a tune. They'll finish their joke, or talk to their neighbour while the music goes on around them. The music isn't kept apart from life in some display cabinet, it's a part of everyday life.
- chris
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Playing music is performing a task that you learned to make music. If you want to think of it as practicing then you can claim it as such, but it's still headed in the same direction. The reasons you perform can be as varied as you can imagine, but it's still performing that task. When you go to a session you perform together and for each other as well as yourself--it's a very enjoyable experience. If it's in a public space then there are likely people their who will either enjoy, be annoyed or feel indifferent about your performance. They don't care what your experience is... they only understand their own. You can tell them you're only practicing or whatever if you want, or that you're ignoring them... but they'll respond to your performance regardless.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
It's clear that Mr Button suffers from the same inability to use a dictionary as Ionnanass. The reason dictionaries put numbers next to definitions is because they are different definitions of the same word.
1. Perform: to present before an audience
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
These are two quite seperate definitions.
We are talking about the first. You, don't understand the difference.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Hi PB,
Ah, you are using perform in the sense of "perfroming a task" or simply "doing" something.
Well you you are obviously "doing" soming when you play music, but that is hardly the same thing as performing in the sense of "putting on a display" which is what I suspect most people consider the discussion to be about.
It does seem to me that to use "perform" in the sense of "doing" is a little pointless as no-one could maintain they are not indeed "doing" something or "performing a task" when they play music. But then iyou are also "performing" in this sense when walking, running, talking, standing up, using a hanky to blow your nose etc. These are all learned tasks that are performed in the sense you use.
I doubt many people consider any of these activities to be "performances" in the sense of public displays for the consumption of an audience.
We are talking about different things.
- chris
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
oops Llig beat me to it
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Oh a tree falling in the forrest undoubtably makes a "noise".
Although without anyone to hear it, you could argue that there is no "sound".
At least that's how I see it - chris
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
;; Definition;;>>the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music<<
If you are paid to play in a pub this is without doubt a public performance. After all the landlord is paying you for some reason , Whether you like it or not, you are being paid to perform/play in public to amuse an audience and attract a crowd
You can argue until you are blue in the mouth but this simple definition in the English Language is absolutely clear.
Now if, as I said above, you wish to use the word to mean something else specifically amongst a subculture of trad musicians, thats fair enough.
Either you are interested in the applause, crowd Girls, Boys Money etc, or you are not. If you are not then the simple remedy is to play in private, bring your own drinks , that way you can play to your hearts content. Why do you play in public? To meet other musicians? who were audience... etc etc. Of course it wont stop boy banjo playing to impress girl fiddle!
[performing]
Chris, very interesting points there, well thought out. When does a performance[ performing a task] in public, become a public performance[ amusing an audience] ? The simple answer is; When there is an audience, when people are watching. No other actions need be taken by the players, they simply play.
If you are running for the bus, and a bunch of lads are watching , laughing at your waddle and sweaty state, inadvertently you are [making]a public performance[of yourself]. You are performing a task, in public, and its amusing an audience.
Its simple, there's no need to invent all sorts of sub definitions to support your contention that somehow, by making a choice to view a situation in a particular way that your choice therefore defines the occasion that is happening. Try that in a court of law and you will be laughed out.
By the way llig, you are wrong, you simply dont understand Zen. It is eminently practical.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
There certainly is a sound when the branch falls. You may not hear it. Perhaps the chipmunks do. Maybe the bears do. The birds of said tree will hear it. A sound is still made. However, the tree is not performing for the denizens of the forrest.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by shanty
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You may think that if there are people watching you, you owe a duty to them. I don't.
But I 'm not interested in discussing deffinitions with someone who can't read a dictionary.
Prctically speaking though, where I play, you would be asked to stop playig to the crowd. Or stop playing completely. How Zen is that?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Which part of >> the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting or playing music<< dont you understand?
or lets have a look at a music dictionary to make it clearer;
Performer>>An artist who brings a work of creative art to reality>>
to perform>>The process of realizing a work of art, primarily genres such as music, dance, poetry, theatre, etc. In music, it is the realization of a composition or in other words to "play" music with one or more musicians <<
Anything there that confuses you? Sigh...
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Plaintiff: "You Honour, it is clear that my evening was ruined by the dreadful performance of the defendant. He sat in the corner of the bar and even refused point blank to acknowledge me."
Judge: "Sir, your case does not make it clear whether you use the word perform to mean a. to present before an audience. Or b. to carry out an act."
Plaintiff: "There is no difference ma Lud"
Judge: "The dictionary clearly says there is, they are numbered."
Judge, to the defendant: "Sir, where you carrying out the act of playing the violin?"
Defendant: "Yes ma Lud."
Judge: "Were you presenting your playing to the audience?"
Defendant: "No ma Lud"
Judge: "But I have evidence that you were being paid to play."
Defendant: "Yes ma Lud, but I was being paid NOT to play to the audience."
Judge: "Case dismissed. And I fine the plaintiff for wasting the feckin time of all those on thesession.org."
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Session - I can go for a smoke whenever and for however long I please
Paid Performance/Gig - I can't
This thing is like a zombie from a bad horror movie. How do you kill zombies again?
Ion, PB, etc. - Yes, it's about US, not the punters. Your perspective is valid for them, but we're talking about us. We're the ones making the music, we're the ones getting paid or not, yes, we're selfish, it's all about OUR perspective, not theirs.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
...and that, IMO, is quite right. We're the ones who learn the tunes, we love the music, we expend the effort, the dedication, yes, it's all about us. Nothing wrong with that.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
So, I bought myself a pint and says to the landlord 'is it alright if I play a few tunes'? As he is a friend and knows I can hold a tune together he says fine, nice to see you.
So off I go and sit meself down, tune up the fiddle whilst exchanging a word or two with the people sitting in the bar.
I play away doing tunes I like in any order I like for as long as I like and as many times as I like.
Selfish? you betcha! After a while a guy comes over and says how much he likes hearing some music and could he buy me a drink, why, thank you, says I.
Now then. A session - what me? on me lonesome? nah. A performance - playing as I described above, you got to be joking. Was it a practice? Do you think I wanted to p*ss off the other folks in the bar? For free drinks then? I was driving wasn't I - besides drinking and fiddling requires three hands otherwise you'll spill it. When I was packing up to go home the landlord asks when will I be coming in again, don't know is the reply.
When I play for me (with or without other musicians) that's it. When I'm paid it's for them and at their beck and call. It's the same music either way.
If you are worrying about whether it's a performance or not you maybe are not paying enough attention to the music.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by john knoss
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
It seems to me that the answer (not to the OP but to most of the aforegoing) is blindingly obvious. But matters not one little bit.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by ethical blend
Slipping through the worms
Cannot say I am surprised. Most of the people I play with make little or no distinction between a performance & a session.
I am eternally gratefully to the handful of players who seek out the latter & pleased they let me play with them.
I do not begrudge the players who could care less. Though . . .
I hope they appreciate players such as Will H. & Michael.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Michael writes:
1. Perform: to present before an audience
2. Perform: to carry out an act.
These are two quite seperate definitions.
We are talking about the first. You, don't understand the difference.
~~~
You go to a pub and play tunes you're doing both regardless of your denial.
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What does 'present before' mean ?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Against my better judgement, I'm going to add my two cents.
When it's my turn to lead a set of tunes, I am performing--but I am performing for my session mates, not for those other people. I choose tunes that I think the other players will enjoy, or will find interesting, play them as best I can, and really don't give a toss what the punters think about them. Although I am not offended if they like them too.
I think maybe the distinction that Michael & co. are making is the difference between showing off your skills for a non-playing audience, versus playing for the other players. But they will probably disagree, if only for the sake of disagreeing. If we all agreed on everything all the time... where's the fun in that?
# Posted on September 19th 2009 by tuckered out
Dead horses
may you someday rest in peace.
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Oh, I was just hoping it could go recursive;
1. Perform: to carry out an act.
2. Perform: to carry out an act before an audience
Then it could dissapear up its own...
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If Jack honestly believes some of us are in denial, then he clearly is always presenting his music before an audience. So his sessions are always of the performance kind, which jibes well with everything he's posted here over the years, and with reports I've heard from friends who've gone to Jack's local and watched the performance unfold.
He thinks we're in denial only because he apparently cannot imagine what it must be like to make music purely for the sake of the music itself.
And the irony there is that "living inside the tunes" and making music for its own sake has long been at the very heart of this particularly music, and tradition. To miss that is to miss a great deal of the intent and joy many, many people bring to sessions and playing this music at all.
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I just don't see any difference between playing in my kitchen with friends and playing in a pub with friends.
Now maybe you're blessed by playing in a fancy establishment where you feel you have to put on a bit of the dog. My favorite sesh is in a seedy, furtive neighborhood, where the muggers in the parking lot are so busy they have to promise to come back later to take your money. Its yawning gloom reeks of whisky and stale tobacco. A handful of ancient, crooked-tooth Hibernians mutter private counsels at the bar. And a the far end of the room, next to the table of people silently playing cards and the old couple finishing up their fish fry, familiar faces sit in a circle next to the electric hearth and we play chunes into the night.
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And that's just my kitchen.
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Marvelous, bloddy marvelous. I was warned, and even looked at the little slider thingy beside the box to see how small it was...great fun and good discussion.
My toonies worth (Canajun here ya know) has to do with playing music for someone who is actively dying, in which case I don't play tunes at all, I improvise - on a double strung harp tuned to a pentatonic it's often (not always) better than tunes on any instrument for THAT particular purpose. But my point is not the instrument or tune vs improv, it's the setting: my patient and caregivers might think I'm performing, and they can think what they like, but my intent is to provide a service. And I don't discount what they think or feel at all, but my intent to be of service is the most important thing to me, and it IS the entire context of my being there (paid or unpaid, more often paid than not).
The improv is then beneficial as it allows me to watch what's going on in the room; and if it seems as though tunes would be better for that setting, then I change gears (or levers!) and play tunes with melody and chords and rhythm, but then I can't look up as easily.
None of which relates to sessions at all, but it can be germane to what constitutes a public performance in another setting...just a toonie's worth (2 bux here)!
Linda
# Posted on September 20th 2009 by khandro
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If you're playing music you're performing be it in your kitchen or at a "fancy establishment." You can call performing whatever you like to make yourself feel better--but you're still performing. If you want to produce a big show and perform there--more power to you, but even in a lowly and humble trad session--it's still a performance.
Having said that, I think this debate is OT in the context of the thread. The question was where do you draw the line. You have to decide if you want to commit to a session... that's the stickler. Most sessioneers like to just show up because they want to and happen to have the time. If you're paid, it's basically for committing yourself to showing up and feeling compensated to whatever degree for doing so. That's where I draw the line anyway.
# Posted on September 21st 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I make a distinction between 1) performing in the sense of physically doing an action, and 2) performing in the sense of presenting an action to a non-participating audience with the aim of entertaining them. Yes, playing music is always performing in the first sense. Not in the second sense though.
# Posted on September 21st 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I think the very fact that people can strongly hold completely opposed viewpoints on the "performance" issue actually clinches the fact that it all comes down to the individual players personality and attitude.
- chris
# Posted on September 21st 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Yes. It seems as if the people not making fidkid's distinction are firmly saying that for the them the dictionary is wrong in separating the definitions. Draws my mind back to your comment made above - 'unless they believed life itself was a performance' .
# Posted on September 21st 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
As llig says, some people seem incapable of properly understanding dictionary definitions and why they're numbered.
Look up "bass." The fish and the musical instrument may share the same word, but any dictionary will clearly distinguish between the two things. And just because they're spelled the same doesn't mean that both definitions must always be applied simultaneously to one thing and the other.
Jack's insistence on this is akin to saying that "you can call the bass viol a musical instrument if it makes you feel better, but it's still a fish." Discussing this here on the mustard board, that just gives me the giggles. But in a meatspace session, that kind of dogmatic doggerel is the sort of buzzkill that ruins the music and the craic. In fact, I recently at in at a session that was so clearly NOT a performance that everyone in the pub "got it," and later the same evening sat in a session that WAS so clearly a performance that everyone in the room "got it" (e.g., applauding after every set).
Thank goodness many, many people understand this distinction and behave accordingly. Sad when people don't--it can wreck sessions and performances alike.
# Posted on September 22nd 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
The trouble is that unlike 'bass' the two usages of 'performance' are related. We go to a concert to see a performance in both its meanings. Other words that could be used to refer to the act of playing a tune include 'execution' and 'rendition' but those have other meanings (on of them a recent one) that stem from using them instead of a more explicit word.
No-one is going to get into, or argue about states of denial, over a fish and a musical instrument. Performances, executions and renditions are a different matter. No matter how obvious it is to most people.
And yes, the differences and the subtle shades in between are really easy to see.
# Posted on September 22nd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I disagree. The differences between entertaining an audience and making music for its own sake are as substantial to me as what distinguishes a large stringed wooden sound box from a lively fish.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Will invents what I said and quotes me: "Jack's insistence on this is akin to saying that "you can call the bass viol a musical instrument if it makes you feel better, but it's still a fish.""
~~~
And there it is: in his typical style Will has assigned a quote to me that I never said and then attacked me for saying it and blames me for taking the joy out of trad music for everyone. Wow... some people never grow up. Sorry, Will, but when you show up at your session and play trad for whatever reason it is that compels you to do it--it's still a performance. This fact doesn't ruin the music for anyone except yourself... sad.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, if you can't understand that I wasn't quoting you but giving an analogy based on your rather interesting abuse of logic, then you're mad. Go get your dictionary. You'll find one definition of mad along the lines of "angry," and another something like "crazy as bat sh*te." I'm using the latter sense of the word. But go ahead and be angry, too, if it helps alleviate the symptoms of being crazy....
BTW, it's hilarious that you've done exactly what you accuse me of. I never blamed you "for taking the joy out of trad music for everyone." Those are your words.
Jack is using the same "baseless-accusations-in-place-of-addressing-the-point" that birthers and intelligent design eejits use to derail reasonable conversations. And he's the one telling me to grow up. Funny.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack's misrepresentation of my posts and then getting personal with it ("some people never grow up") is the same sort of thing that gets the likes of WIll Evans repeatedly banned. All I did was try to move the discussion along by using a funny analogy to show how silly it can be when people insist on always applying all the definitions a single word can have.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
without getting involved in what appears to be a rather personal side arguement...
I think it should be pretty clear to most people that a statement such as "X's insistence on Y is akin to saying that 'Z'" is an analogy.
Of course the analogy in any such statement MAY be ludicrous and unfair (or it MAY be absolutely apt), and can always be objected to. But it is clear that 'Z' is not being passed off as an actual quote from 'X'. The word "akin" makes it pretty obvious.
- chris
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ah, but what if "akin" has more than one definition?
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by ethical blend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ow my akin head
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Well, you might enjoy Will putting words in your mouth and then criticizing you for it, but I find it pretty pathetic and boring. He want's to continue to deny any music he's playing is in any way a performance regardless of the facts and that's fine, but people around him in the pub aren't going to be sharing his view on reality necessarily and will likely determine it was a nice performance. Somehow in Will's head "performance" became a four letter word, but I don't see any reason to demonize it so. A performance is what happens when you play a musical instrument... especially if anyone is listening... sorry to pop your bubbles.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I am sorry but it can't be a performance if nobody is listening at all!
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"I just don't see any difference between playing in my kitchen with friends and playing in a pub with friends." - fidkid
Neither do I, but there is a difference if we were to be "performing." (Like up on the stage at the coffee shop instead of sitting around the table, next to the stage)
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
This can't be about language can it ? Is it something about some peoples view of themselves, their world and their music ? I have a friend with an ego the size of a small planet and when he is playing music (not trad) I think he probably is performing even when he is on his own. And I can't imagine him not 'playing to the crowd' if there is one.
In most performance situation I can think of (and other than someone simply 'showing off') there is some sense of obligation to someone other than (as well as) fellow performers; an audience who have given time and/or money, an organiser who has put some sort of show together, a pub landlord, a respected teacher etc.
Does the free pint carry with it any sense of obligation other than would have for a mate buying it or the landlord being sociable at the end of an evening as in 'have this one on me' ? Saying 'I would go even without the free pint' is not quite enough to change the situation.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Are a lot of people recording tunes for youtube playing to an imaginary audience even when the camera is not running ?
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And are some of the people putting tunes up on the internet doing it in the spirit of sharing with others of like mind, despite the audience.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry , It should have been "If so, saying 'I would go even without the free pint' "
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Again Jack, you continue--despite my many plain and clear posts on this--to misrepresent my views.
I enjoy performing--*when I am performing.* I play occasional gigs.
And I enjoy sessions, particularly when they *aren't* performances.
I've said so again and again.
So who's putting words in other people's mouths?
It is astonishing that Jack can't understand that simple point of view. It would be tiresome to the point of gross incivility that he keeps repeating the same old baseless lip flapping instead of addressing the issues. Except that he's made such a rib-splitting performance of it
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Making compost
When I play to an audience (which I refer to as performing) I want the audience to receive the best possible sound.
When I play in session (which I refer to as sessioning) there is little, if any, reason to make the same effort. My mates are the ones' I want to hear. Non-players are free to go about there business; conversing, drinking, listening. . .
Occasionally, all the focus may shifts toward the musicians. Much nicer when there is a balance. We are part of the crack.
Or not.
I'm rambling. Will, you are clear & have a grand sense of humour. Clearest of all, though, was Michael's synopsis.
Way,
way
up
top
^
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Random_notes
~
"My advice is to go flip burgers like the rest of us. Then you'll be able to afford the the luxury of going out for the sake of having a good time."
Posted on September 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
well done, well done! 200 posts arguing semantics about performing vs. sessions. It's just like old times around here!
Half way there!
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Fair and true point, wyogal. But it’s the one I was trying to make. There are definitely “performing sessions” where the players are expected to provide ambience or outright entertain an audience, like on stage at a coffeehouse. But there are also non-performing sessions (like the one I go to most frequently) where you are not on stage, it doesn’t matter if there’s anyone else besides the players (well, except for the barmaid) and it’s very much like playing cards or having a conversation.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
But singing in a session, and playing a solo slow air, those are performances. But the performance ends when that song or air does and the session reverts to being just a session.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
But they may be performances in the way that telling a joke to your mates is a performance. All eyes are on you and you want to make a good job of it otherwise it would spoil the effect. Other people who tell jokes may like to think of themselves as - performers.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
There's a difference between telling a joke as part of a set on stage at a comedy club, and telling a joke to your buddies when you're sitting around the pub, though...
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I do think both telling a joke from on stage and telling a joke to mates could be considered a performance. It's just a matter of scale.
I also could see how someone might consider practicing at home alone a performance, if one is imagining an audience while doing so. It's a matter of intent, I think.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I wasn't clear. The point Reverend makes is what I was meaning. Telling a joke to mates can be in the spirit of sharing. I have friends who go to song clubs and take it in turn to sing, solo, english folk songs. They insist that they are not performances, that they are sharing something that honours a tradition. Its good to listen to. So I am an audience and I think 'but hang on a minute surely there often was an audience for these songs'. Similarly the fiddler going down to the bar to play a few tunes so as not to wake the kids, and sharing the craic with his mates. And the landord standing him a drink occasionally ...
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
fidkid's post in the google translation thread got me thinking. I did some translation:
English: Sessions are not performances
Irish: Nach bhfuil Seisiúin léirithe
Back to English: Sessions are not shown
And that's the crux of the difference. Performing has elements of showing off. Playing in a session is sharing the music and the craic with your friends very specifically *without* showing off. (Granted, there will be occasional show pieces, songs, and airs in a session...)
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Maybe for a song or a slow air in a session with mates to be a performance it has to be so in the minds to the partcipants. I think the argument of the song session people is that it is something that by its nature has to be solo.
Are the solos in a bluegrass jam 'perfomances' ? Or in jazz amonst mates gathered together to play. Or is it just the way that sharing the music in those genres works ? Sharing ideas in sequence ?
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You're performing, whether you want to or not!" (paraphrase)
$#$%@# that! I only perform when I get PAID, homey. Ducats. Moolah. Greenbacks. Simoleons. No, we do not take checks.
So funny to me that this is rocket science. Truly amusing.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Haha. Counting seraphim on pinheads is what we do here.
Performance need not always have an element of “showing off” in the pejorative sense of boasting or being too clever by half. A performance can be an earnest offering and sharing, too. Just pointing that out.
But I come back to the conviction that sessions are some sort of special entity. There is no performance. Irish session music is communal. A bluegrass break is a kind of performance. As is a jazz solo, I think. Sessions are like a choir in a church with no congregation. A church that serves beer. Mm. Beer.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I see a very clear line, semantic definition of the word 'performance' put aside.
Does the publican want me to organize a session, or do they want to book my band for a gig?
Fanning started this thread by asking about just that in particular.
Yes, I suggest drawing the line, it’s exactly how I do it.
I can organize a session, it’s this. You’re offering what now?
I can book you a performance from my band, it costs this and we need this, etc.
I have product A and I have product B.
It’s gruesome and disgusting that we need to be such flagrant capitalists, but that’s what publicans understand, and it’s VITAL that we do that so we don’t get taken advantage of, meaning, we don’t let someone sucker us into a ‘session’ that’s really a ‘performance’ without getting PAID.
Brought to you by the IWW Irish Musicians Union, SW FL Chapter.
Now that this ugliness is taken care of, can we go back to ephemeral and poetic discussions of music with large doses of wit and wisdom?
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
SWFL, I know Barack Obama, and you are no Barack Obama...
See, you didn't even invite them to the Whitehouse lawn for beers.
Truth is this thing is worthy of a Camp David summit with handshakes and smiles for the photographers. And even then the bloodshed will resume eventually. No Surrender!
"Now that this ugliness is taken care of" ...indeed.
# Posted on September 23rd 2009 by grego
Risk free offer
SWFL, you're ready for sure. You can safely quit your day job for all the money to be made playing dance tunes.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Reverend writes: "well done, well done! 200 posts arguing semantics about performing vs. sessions. It's just like old times around here!"
~~~
Yep... the recipe is an endless debate where one side of the argument relies on reinventing the English language and denying physical reality whilst ridiculing anyone else who isn't willing to share their delusions. As for me, "performing" is simply playing music with friends in either public or private areas. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, and it doesn't mean I'm destroying the music or not "getting it." All it does is use the word "perform" the way it was intended to be used according to the English language.
This sort of problem with the language and definitions isn't limited to trad music discussions; it's also prevalent in political debates where terms like "socialism" loose their meaning because of one side's determination to demonize the word to suit their misinformed hyperbole.
So sit back and relax as the next round of absurd denunciations and finger-pointing adds posts to an already irrelevant convolution of a thread about sessions.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Phantom Button
It only seems endless
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Nice bunch of absurd denunciations and finger pointing you've done there, Jack. Still missing the point and misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with you.
Odd how it can be soooo obvious to everyone else who's posted here.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
SWFL, as a free-market Irish trad fiddler, you'll easily make *tens* of dollars.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Lol @ "soooo obvious to everyone else who's posted here"
What's obvious are the delusions... lol
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ah, at last we agree, Jack.
I mean, is there *anyone* else here who didn't get the analogy/not-a-quote thingy? Or who still doesn't see the distinction between perform (as in entertain an audience) and session (as in play music together for the sake of a few tunes and the craic)?
I'm sorry Jack. I'd be embarrassed and mortified if I made the mistake of attacking someone for fabricating quotes when all they did was offer a similie. And I'd be groveling with apologies if I thought the word "several" meant "seven" and then used that misunderstanding to attack a kid's honesty about how many tunes he knows. And I'd plead temporary insanity if I left the burner on and accidentally melted together the numbered, separate definitions under a dictionary entry and then based my whole case on that tarry mess.
We all agreed a loooong time ago (and in what feels like a galaxy all too near) that *any* action is a performance in the sense of "to execute a skill or action." So the rub is whether any and all music making *must* also be a performance in the sense of "entertaining an audience." And nearly everyone here gets that distinction.
Reminds me of George Carlin's priceless line about it being okay to prick your finger but not to finger your prick. (Will be curious to see what Jeremy's censor function does with THAT.
) See--same word, two very different, separate, distinct meanings.
Dear Jack, it's absolutely fine by me if you perform every time you play music. All I'm asking is that you return the favor and let me perform when I play gigs, and not perform when I play at my local session. Is that too much to ask?
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
The joke-telling analogy may help cut through some of the curds here.
Playing tunes together in a session *isn't* like telling a joke to your mates because the joke telling is a a solo act. Except for the odd party piece or song, the majority of music at a typical session is a shared effort of the group. And it's this sense of community that distinguishes such a session from the entertainer/audience dynamic of a performance.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Dude... you really need some sort of 12-step program for people who have word phobias.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Get a room, you two....
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by tuckered out
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
http://www.oed.com/about/
Third paragraph. Read. Think about.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, would it be fair to say anytime you are playing in as session you are entertaining an audience?
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Random_notes
- playing in a session -
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Thanks for that, david_h.
I'm sorry Jack, but you're the only one here who doesn't get it. I'm not "demonizing" the word. As I've said over and over, I enjoying performing. I also enjoy sessioning. Two different things, two different situations.
Too bad you're more interested in making juvenile insults than in understanding anyone else's perspective. Your choice, of course.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
What is Session Art?
Just a bit of random Googling here,
What is Performance Art?
http://www.ehow.com/video_2372267_what-performance-art.html
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
She seems a little strange. Perhaps she spent too long in the bin bag and was starved of oxygen.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I'm not sure what Random's point was, but if you combine "performance" with another word like "art" then it doesn't mean you have chanced the meaning of the word... sorry.
I know the difference between playing in a session and doing a stage show, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word either. Why some of you insist on reinventing the English language to exclude a word that you have determined doesn't sound right in the context of your vision of a session, is perplexing enough, but your adamance that others who don't follow your logic are "not getting it" or ruining what a session is supposed to be is akin to some sort of twisted mob mentality.
Let's look at some examples of how the word is used in context with a session. On an Irish travel website they attempt to edify tourists on how to behave in sessions. Here they acknowledge that it isn't a performance in the "traditional sense," but they don't deny that people are performing or try to change the meaning of the word all together. I wouldn't be having this debate if posters here were asserting the distinction as follows.
"The first thing you should know is Irish sessions are not a performance in the traditional sense, they are more of a social gathering. Concerts are things performed on a stage facing one’s audience; Irish sessions are not a concert."
http://www.irelandlogue.com/about-ireland/irish-session-rules.html
Notice that instead of changing the meaning in order to exclude it, they just distinguish how a session is different from a stage performance. This is far more reasonable and doesn't have the dogmatic overtones of the debate on this thread.
On the CD Baby Boulder Session page a response to the recorded session they're selling says, "Just like being there for the live performance. A great disc for practice if you think you want to play in a session yourself." Should Mark Pottinger be admonished for misusing the word and maybe have the CD revoked since he's "not getting it"? No, he's simply using the word based on its meaning and has no idea it has been altered by sessioneers who have reinvented the word according to their dogma regarding sessions.
On Wikipedia it says, "The objective in a session is not to provide music for an audience of passive listeners; although the punters (non-playing attendees) often come for the express purpose of listening, the music is most of all for the musicians themselves. "Audience" requests for a particular song or tune of the players can be considered rude. The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold."
Again, distinguishing the type of performance and not attempting to change the meaning of the word.
I could go on posting examples, but they all underline my point that most people don't find it necessary to reinvent the word "perform" in order to suit your dogmatic view of what a session is. So carry on distinguishing what makes a session different, and I'll be right there with you, but when you start reinventing the English language to do so--I draw the line. This doesn't mean I'm "not getting it" and I understand very well what a session is, it simply means I feel no need to follow you any further down your dogmatic path... get it?
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Wait... 230 posts to rehash the argument so that we can all agree (again) that we're talking about the same thing, but we're too stubborn to stop arguing semantics?
I'm sure we'll get a point by point refuting of your last post, Jack, but maybe we should just let it drop, because it's tiresome...
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, no one here has reinvented the word. We're simply saying that one of the meanings of "performance" doesn't always apply to sessions. Which is *precisely* what your two examples say, as well: "The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold." Exactly my point, over and over and over.
So what the hey are you arguing with us about if you agree with the examples you cite above? That's what we've been saying all along.
# Posted on September 24th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
So then a session IS a performance... fair enough... glad we finally got that sorted.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You two! Honestly!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, did you read the examples you cite? They both clearly say that sessions are different from performances.
This really is pointless if you can't understand the "evidence" you yourself bring to the table.
Silly to defend the English language when you clearly have no understanding of its usage.
Go on then, with your nonsense. I've got much better things to do.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Hi y'all
Jack, the video bit was a simple sidebar; no point was being made. Apologies if I misled you.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry, Will, they said sessions were a different kind of performance. The first said, "not a performance in the traditional sense." They didn't say it wasn't performing, but rather distinguished they type of performance it was. The second example said, "The session is an experience that's shared, not a performance that's bought and sold." They didn't say it wasn't a performance, just distinguished how it was different.
The argument that a session isn't a performance has to reinvent the meaning of the word to make that claim--none of these examples attempt anything so absurd. The fact remains that when you play music on a musical instrument you are performing, and if it's in a public place it's a public performance--you can't escape that fact regardless of your intent or whether you deny that anyone else is there or happens to be listening.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Well if you put it like that who would dare disagree.
That would be sheer madness.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"Not a performance in the traditional sense." Key turn of phrase: "NOT A PERFORMANCE."
"...not a performance that's bought and sold." Key turn of phrase: "NOT A PERFORMANCE."
Jack, if you can't understand that, and you want to keep floggin this mummy of a horse's carcass, you're way, way beyond my ability to help.
It staggers the mind....
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And I'm extremely glad that you don't perform at my session. No worries--I'll never come session at your performance, either.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"Not in the traditional sense" doesn't mean it isn't, and they aren't saying it isn't. You guys never give up. lol
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
And there you have it: I don't agree to change the meaning of the word, "perform" to suit Will's dogma, therefore I'm not welcome at Will's session. Talk about not getting it... geesh... lol
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
I can almost hear the stock prices for popcorn plummeting.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Just imagine the fights these guys had when they were a couple!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by leoj
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Has Wikipedia really been used as evidence on here for what a traditional music session is? Odds on the article was actually written by one of the many noggins that post on here too!
Besides which what you quoted from the article does not refute Will's argument (or anyone elses in any way). I would disagree that asking for a request is necessarily rude. Not at all. It is someone showing an interest in the music you are playing (or the music that they think you are playing). It rarely will get a positive result but I am not offended by the request!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I know. And Wiki so often gets things so badly wrong. Take this, for example:
"The art of putting together a set is hard to put into words, but the tunes must flow from one to another in terms of key and melodic structure, without being so similar as to all sound the same."
I mean, honestly!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Who wrote that Wikipedia article on Irish sessions? It looks as though someone pulled together bits and pieces from the discussion boards of this website and hammered them into an article. Especially where it uses an "evening of playing card games" as an analogy -- hasn't Michael or someone done that? I also like the random and not entirely accurate claims, like most sessions occur on Sundays because that's when professional musicians are most likely to be available.
The word "must" in the sentence quoted by ethical blend is concerning. I must have missed the day in class where they said you will be fined £100 and your firstborn if your tunes do not flow in terms of key and melodic structure.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I was just searching for random uses of the word "perform" or "performance" related to the topic being sessions. Nowhere did I find corroboration for Will's and other people's assertion that playing Irish music in a session isn't a performance. What I found was that there was a distinction for the type of performance, but no exclusion. Some people take the subject so seriously that I have now been banned from their session simply for arguing in favor of the actual meaning of the word "perform." Amazing!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If someone in a session were a living statue*, seemingly playing a whistle, fiddle or what have you, would that be a performance (as in performance art)? How long would that living statue have to be in position so as to be calcified as such - the first 8 bars until he is certain what the tune is, for example?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_statue
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
oops, "classified", not "calcified"!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If the 'audience' do not notice that it is not a real statue is it still a perfomance ?
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Just a minor point Phantom, but if you google for a word you are not going to get many hits from people who don't use that word
- chris
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
What if your mate couldn't make it to the session, but you felt that the session just couldn't deal with his absence so you bought a life size inflatable doll and put it in his seat holding the instrument of choice. Would the blow up doll be performing?
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Depends ... anatomically correct doll?
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"Has Wikipedia really been used as evidence here ...?"
The reference is presumably to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_traditional_music_session
Wikipedia itself isn't happy about this article because it has in the heading:
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)"
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
>> Should Mark Pottinger be admonished for misusing the word and maybe have the CD revoked since he's "not getting it"?
Well he IS a bodhran player, after all...
(sorry Mark)
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Reverend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, now you're being a troll of the worst sort. Either you're incapable of understanding a simple sentence, or you're willfully, grossly mangling and misrepresenting what others are posting. Seems like you don't care about understanding what others think, you just want to fuel the argument.
You're welcome at my session. But if you perform (play with the intent to entertain an audience) at my session, it won't fit in with what the rest of us are doing. And sooner than later, someone will ask you to ease off and just play for the sake of making music together.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
"The session is an experience that's shared"
yes!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
ramblingpitchfork writes: "Just a minor point Phantom, but if you google for a word you are not going to get many hits from people who don't use that word"
~~~
True, but I was in fact searching to see if there was any corroboration that a session wasn't a performance. If I didn't use the word there's no way I could have found people making the claim against the definition as they do in this thread.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Well there we have it again: Will, after banning me from his session just because I argue in favor of the actual definition of a word in the English language, calls me a "troll of the worst sort" and then backs away from banning me from his session, but with a completely irrelevant warning: "You're welcome at my session. But if you perform (play with the intent to entertain an audience) at my session, it won't fit in with what the rest of us are doing. And sooner than later, someone will ask you to ease off and just play for the sake of making music together."
~~~
Will, your assumption here is that because I refuse to buy your useless modification of a word, that I will be conducting myself incorrectly at your session. Do you even think about what you write before you post it? Your statements aren't just oozing, but more like running over with pompous arrogance. You have taken a discussion of the meaning of a word way too seriously dude.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Can't we all just get along?
Like these guys, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5XemAqSe9M
I don't care what you call it, I just want to do it, because it looks and sounds enjoyable. The word--any word--is not the thing.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by tuckered out
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Here's the thing: I know the difference between performing in a pre-arranged and rehearsed program of music that's presented from a stage to an audience, and a spontaneous performance around a table at a pub with my friends and musical colleagues. To do the latter doesn't require me to deny that I'm performing on my chosen instrument the skills I have managed to garner through practice, and I have no reason to deny there is anyone around who might be listening and, heaven forbid, even enjoying it. I see every aspect of the performance we do at sessions as part and parcel to a celebration of what Irish trad music is. Why some people are so adverse to admitting they are performing the music they love on their chosen instrument is enigmatic, and after following discussions like this the denials seem absurd. Sure, a session isn't a pre-arranged stage show, but it IS a performance, and even a public performance if it takes place in a public place--like a pub.
Get over it, there's nothing wrong with accepting that fact and it won't change anything about the way you and your friends conduct yourself at your session. I actually don't care if you don't use the word "perform" when taking about your session... it's a free country, but if you start insisting that I have to also deny that it's a performance, and that if I don't it means I'm "not getting it" and ruining what a session is and not welcome at your session etc., then I think you're just taking the whole thing too serious and too personal, and besides that, you have no right to dictate to other people what concepts are acceptable and unacceptable for people who "get it," because all "it" is, is your twisted session dogma.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Can't see how Will can be dictating and dogmatic when nobody else in this mad discussion other than jig thought that a session is a performance.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
So are you claiming it isn't, Bogman? Are you also rejecting the meaning of the word? If so, please explain how the word "performance" can't apply to what you do at a session. I assume you must just be sitting at the table and not playing. Is that what you do?
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Yes and Nope.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by bogman
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I'll never forget a line I once read, in some novel I think:
"Shut up," he explained.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by tuckered out
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Truly sad that the raving continues. I wish someone would put a stop to it, but there are only two people who can do that. Jack could stop himself, but he's apparently all lathered up and ready to go on and on and on until we all agree he's right and none of the rest of us knows that the p word means or how to use a dictionary. And Jeremy, despite banning jig/Ion/Will Evans for the same sort of raving, has yet to step in and put this thread out of its misery.
Thank goodness there are other cans of worms to read elsewhere on the mustard board....
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
LOL, Forest, that's a beautifully put sentiment!
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Well, if you're playing an instrument you are performing what you have practiced. If you are in a pub there's likely to be someone listening, and if your any good they might even be enjoying it. These are all facts that indicate you are engaged in a performance of some sort. I hope you're enjoying yourself when you're doing it.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Lol... now Will's denial is so intrenched he can't even say "perform" and uses a P word instead while accusing me of being "lathered up." lol You're a funny man.
=====
Will writes: "And Jeremy, despite banning jig/Ion/Will Evans for the same sort of raving"
~~~
Will, I might be mistaken, but you seem to be suggesting I should be banned for not sharing in your denial of the word "perform." Are you serious?
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, you've misread and misrepresented everything I've posted on this thread. You repeatedly put words in my mouth that I never said and ascribe motives to me that aren't mine.
Yes, I would like to see Jeremy kick you off of here, not for your cluelessness about the various meanings of perform, but for your relentlessly atrocious behavior. Flaming, baiting, and otherwise being an obstruction to a decent conversation aren't usually tolerated on web forums such as this. In due time, I suppose, we'll see how the mustard board is moderated.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Interesting... you have called me a "troll of the worst sort," and why? Because I refuse to accept that when you're playing your instrument at a session you aren't performing. Besides being called a "troll," you have insulted my intelligence and asserted that I am "clueless" and have no place in any real session--all because I refuse to join in with your aversion to an innocent word in the English language. And you think I should be banned? Take a good look at your own behavior here, Will, you've gone way over the top.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I don't care a whit whether you accept that some sessions (like mine and many others I've been to) aren't performances.
I'm just really, really tired of you telling me (at every chance you get) that I'm in denial and delusional because I don't agree with your opinions.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You're telling me that if I don't accept your denial that you aren't performing in any way at a session then I'm not "getting it" and not having a real session, and that my session is a "performance" and you used the word in some sort of self-imposed derogative context, and you even went as far as to indicate I'm not welcome at your session because I don't accept your terminology and wouldn't fit in. I don't care what you say you're doing at your session or when you're playing music, but to make statements that I am doing it wrong, not getting it and ruining what sessions are just because I don't reject an innocent word in the English language is going way over the top. Go ahead and tell Jeramy I'm a "troll of the worst sort" all because I merely didn't accept your terminology and see how far you get in having me banned.
# Posted on September 25th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
The horse is not only dead, it's already dog food...
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Performo-Chum! Guaranteed cheval!
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by mutatis mutandis
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Good grief.
I'm now quite sorry to have begun this.
Thank you SWFL Fiddler for your pragmatic post answering my original question.
The rest of you should give it a rest. This thread has become pointless.
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Fanning, I attempted to leave the pointless part of the discussion long ago and responded to your original question (below) but it no doubt became obscured by the OT discussion.
"Having said that, I think this debate is OT in the context of the thread. The question was where do you draw the line. You have to decide if you want to commit to a session... that's the stickler. Most sessioneers like to just show up because they want to and happen to have the time. If you're paid, it's basically for committing yourself to showing up and feeling compensated to whatever degree for doing so. That's where I draw the line anyway."
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
At our Tuesday session, which we go to for the pleasure of playing music together, the pub management locates us in the window adjacent the street. People passing by hear and see us, come in to hear and see more, buy a drink or two, and may applaud at the end of a set. As far as they are concerned we're providing entertainment for them, and perhaps would call it a performance from their perspective. For us, the musicians, it is not a "performance"; we are playing the music for our enjoyment, although we cannot be unaware that the punters are also enjoying it, and would continue to enjoy playing if the pub were empty. The only conclusion I can come to is that "performance" in this situation lies only in the mind of the punter, the external listener.
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by lazyhound
& what happens to dog food after it has been consumed?
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by Random_notes
Kitchen Session
Hope you enjoy this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhA-PeKbMn0
# Posted on September 26th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Is that a performance?
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by leoj
all I know is some people on the site seemed to enjoy it when it was posted earlier
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Just whisper...It's OK... Jack went out for a smoke.
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by leoj
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
PB:
>True, but I was in fact searching to see if there was any >corroboration that a session wasn't a performance. If I didn't >use the word there's no way I could have found people >making the claim against the definition as they do in this >thread.
That's true. There generally isn't an option to include "avoided words" in a search engine
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
This thread reminds me of the Single jigs = slides arguement. Basically coming down to to how elastic your definition of "single jig" or "performance is".
Everyone (i think) saw that single jig and slide were not equivalent terms. Some people considered that slides were *a particular specialised subset* of single jig. Others thought it was better to consider them not to be single jigs. But in practice as long as slides are recognised to be played differently from other jigs then it doesn't matter too much if the term jig is expanded to cover these tunes or not.
In the current debate everyone appears to agree that "session" and "performance" are not interchangeable equivalent terms. Some (most it appears) don't consider sessions to be performances at all, others e.g. Phantom Button would describe sessions as a particular subset of performance not equivalent to a gig performance.
But if everyone can see that there is a practical difference between a gig and a session, then it doesn't matter very much at all if some people would use a more encompassing definition of perormance than others.
Really the arguement appears to be about the scope of word definitions than about what a session actually is.
- chris
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Fanning," So *what* should be asked for in counterpart before the whole thing is deemed to be a "performance"?"
I have searched through previous threads on the matter & found at times this subject has been enlightening & at times contentious. It cycles with ebbs & flows.
# Posted on September 27th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Random_notes;
to me, the question has been answered throughout this thread, and the only conclusion I can make is that there are as many ways of answering my question as there are members in this forum.
I'll abstain from publishing my own take on it here, if only to avoid this discussion going any further.
I did expect my topic to raise some ire and knew that there might be some mud-slinging, but not to the extent it has gone to.
Perhaps the questions here should be raised in meat-space more readily and without taboo, if only because they would be asked in a shared context. Nothing will easily be resolved here it appears.
# Posted on September 28th 2009 by Fanning
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Is it safe to come out of my foxhole yet?
# Posted on September 29th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Do you have to?
# Posted on September 29th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Burying the hatchet
Welcome back Mr. Button! ;)
As Miss LonelyHearts says ~ welcome to the best & the worst Irish music site.
Me, I dig through the archives (& not always randomly) so it's difficult to keep secrets from me, unless I miss something (I miss plenty) or your name is Jeremy & you have the final say.
My only interest, in this obsession, is to find the good tunes, the good clips, the crack. Nothing really profound. I prefer simple & humble.
So, after reading through lots of various tongue play between the (once upon a time) most vocal of mustard boarders, I realize anyone & everyone has willing to come off as an edjit & then defend their right to carry on & on & on.
From the rubble I have scavenged 2 responses, from Jack, which I thought worthy of repetition.
Thanks Jack! ;)
Sorry for the hijack Fanning, though I hope you check out the comments.
Re: Live performances vs sessions
December 5th 2006 by Phantom Button
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/11897/comments#comment242436
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
June 3rd 2004 - January 11th 2007 by Phantom Button
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/3705/comments#comment250540
# Posted on October 4th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
tee he
# Posted on October 4th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
All I've ever said is that when you get you instrument out at a session and play music on it -- you are performing the skills you've learned, and usually with some sort of audience. The difference between your performance in a session and what you would do on a stage or in a formal setting are obvious. To claim that you aren't performing when you play in a session isn't based on facts, but instead on feelings. If that were acknowledged instead of insisting on changing the actual meaning of words--there would be no debate.
# Posted on October 4th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
The feelings are the rub of it, I acknowledge it. Lets not continue to be divisive for the sake of disagreeing on how to read a dictionary.
My feelings centre on the question of whether I disregard the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ditto what michael said.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Michael writes: "ets not continue to be divisive for the sake of disagreeing on how to read a dictionary."
~~~
Fair enough...
Audience (according to dictionary.com):
- the group of spectators at a public event; listeners or viewers collectively, as in attendance at a theater or concert: The audience was respectful of the speaker's opinion.
- the persons reached by a book, radio or television broadcast, etc.; public: Some works of music have a wide and varied audience.
- a regular public that manifests interest, support, enthusiasm, or the like; a following: Every art form has its audience.
- the act of hearing, or attending to, words or sounds.
I'd say people who happen to be in the pub and who happen to be listening and, heaven forbid, enjoying the music -- are clearly an audience. If what they are listening to is you and your mates performing what you have learned on your chosen instruments--then they become YOUR audience.
If you want to ignore the audience and you don't FEEL like you're "performing," fair enough, but that still doesn't change the facts--all that changes is how you feel about the facts.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Leave it with "the facts" nonsense. I'm tying to move this on.
I'm trying to establish if the non-performance deniers think it's a good idea to disreguard what they perceive as an audience.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Like if no one is listening is it still a performance?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
la de dah dee dah ... and so it continues!
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Clear Drops
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Facetious? And quite right too. If ever a thread deserves it it's this one.
But it's clear from the logic of the non-performance deniers that an audience of one is all it takes. For as they are in a constant state of performing actions for themselves, they are simultaneously and unavoidably forever in performance mode. Even when they are asleep. Let alone enjoying a nice soak in the hot tub, juust themselves and a Bb tin whistle.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
If you perform too much do you go deaf?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by bazouki dave
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Yes!
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Clear Drops
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
No need to shout, I'm not ... sorry, what was that?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Went to a rock concert on Saturday night ... the tickets stated that the promoters wouldn't be liable for any ear damage sustained ... it was very very loud. Bringing your own ear plugs was suggested.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Clear Drops
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Aye, what'd you say?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Clear Drops
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I actually am a bit deaf from too much over-loud performing. Top end gone. I used to be able to hear pipistrelle bats, but sadly, no more. Maybe that has something to do with my enjoyment of non-performance music.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
You all are still on about this? Good lord.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I'd say it's pretty fundamental. That's why I'm still on about it.
It's a fundamental question which requires addressing:
Is it OK to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Michael, whatever you perceive your performance to be is up to you. Even if you think it isn't a performance--that's fine--but it won't change the facts.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Michael, losing top-end frequencies is common with advancing years - welcome to the club!
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Button, leave it. However your or my perception relates to the facts. Leave it. It ain't gonna be resolved. It's not important. I'm trying to move it on ... Is it OK to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience?
(lazy, I lost those frequencies well before my advancing years. Only myself to blame)
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
No. Its rude.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by MartinJongleur
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I agree, it could be rude.
But if there is a long tradition in a particular bar of being paid by the bar to play music in a public place while disregarding the people who may or may not perceive themselves as an audience, is it still rude?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Rudeness usually related to cultural convention. It is common to make allowances, both ways, where cultures mix.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
So, the folks at the book club, sitting around a table, discussing a book, are performing because they are within earshot of others?
A group sitting around the table next to them are using instruments to "discuss" tunes within earshot of others are performing?
Ridiculous.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
since when do pubs pay people to sit round discussing books to draw a crowd?
since when do people applaud a bunch of people sitting round discussing books?
When do book clubs discuss books loudly enough to be heard throughout a pub?
Since when does a dictionary define 'people discussing books in public' as a public performance?
What exactly are they performing?
A session is a session, we are paid and encouraged to play music in public for to amuse an audience and draw people into the pubs. We chose top go and play in these pubs for many reasons that are entirely personal.
A far more productive line of discussion might be private sessions: Is a session, in a kitchen ,a performance? with no 'audience' apart from those playing? According the the music dictionary quoted above it is. Its not however a public performance.
Can we even agree on a definition of performance? It seems a completely pointless discussion when the dictionary definitions are discarded in favour of an undefined, amorphous, concept of performance that isnt in any dictionary of the English language. If one side wishes to invent make up definitions to support their argument then how can discussion be of value to anyone?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
blah, blah, blah...
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
No, we can't agree on a definition of performance. I thought that was bloody obvious
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Wow, what a thread. Lots of tap dancing around the issue too. Or step dancing around the issue, as the case may be.
To #*$* with the ‘facts’ and ‘definition’.
The rub is: How do you, the musician, carry on in these two OBVIOUSLY different situations?
When at a session, do you act like you’re on a stage with a microphone and an audience hanging on your every word?
If you do, you’re a freak and this is exactly what we’re talking about here, so everyone quit being so damn clever and disingenuous and cut to the chase already. HA!
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Not that I don't love you all, and enjoy reading all the debating! Big group e-hug! (Except for Llig, he hates when I do that)
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I dont think anyone here acts like that SWFL. I certainly dont, in fact even when Im on stage I dont! I prefer to hang out at the back if I can.
Sessions are sessions, they are what they are. Im sure I've been in thousands of sessions over my life time and they are remarkably unanimous in what they are; a bunch of folk sitting round a table playing tunes, that it, nothing more ,nothing less.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Out of the mouths of babes
"The conclusion seems to be that even though it is a public performance to most punters, it isn't to the musicians -- unless they choose to make it so. What a session is to musicians has to be understood by punters before they can realize what a session is or isn't. Until they endeavor to find out, or someone volunteers an explanation, they will likely think it's some sort of public performance."
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I get nervous when I perform. I don't get nervous when I session. Therefore sessioning is not performing.
QED
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
When did the word "perform" take on such negative connotations? The way it's used in this thread makes it synonymous with showing off, being an asshole and not "getting it", but that's not what it means. I have witnessed people showing off in sessions, and it's not pretty, but most people perform what they learned in context with what brought us all together in the first place.
Sometimes I think certain people in this discussion might benefit from a 12-step program where they have to use the word "perform" in sentences involving positive comments about sessions.
"Hello, I'm ________ and I have abused the word, "perform."
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Again, Al, you're talking about feeling regarding your performance at a session. to "perform" doesn't mean: to get nervous.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
"Its OK, relax, its not a performance"
"He's a bit of a show-off, everything is a performance for him"
Ever heard them ?
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
How do you act differently then? Ionannas and Button? What do you do that is different in a session from a gig? (and try not to use the word performance, because we won't know what you are talking about)
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I think Ionannas answered that already in his last post above:
"Sessions are sessions, they are what they are. Im sure I've been in thousands of sessions over my life time and they are remarkably unanimous in what they are; a bunch of folk sitting round a table playing tunes, that it, nothing more ,nothing less."
I like that a lot. "Sessions are sessions." Exactly. No other word is needed.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ive already answered that question, but just to be clear I dont do anything different, I play music.
Gigs could be a number of different instruments or genres of course, and for that matter so could a session. Basically I be myself and hang out and play music with my mates. Sometimes sessions are wild, sometimes gigs are wild, sometimes sessions are laid back, sometimes gigs are laid back.
There is , to me, little difference, we play music, and sometimes people are there and sometimes not.
I certainly dont actively ignore or disregard people who wish to be involved in the Happening, who ever they might be, and there has never been any need to.
There is no distinction between player and audience, we are all one, it just so happens some of us are playing tunes and some are dancing or listening, it could be the other way round just as easily.
I find sessions and playing music in public a great way to break down barriers. After a few pints and a few tunes we are all friends even though we never met before! I travelled a lot when I was younger and sat in sessions all over Ireland, Almost Universally within two or three tunes we are befriending each other in our own ways.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
sessions are sessions
gigs are gigs
hmmm.
# Posted on October 5th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
OK then, so Ionannas makes no distinction. What about Button?
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Holy sh!t. It. Is. Alive.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by fidkid
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
tee he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c&feature=related
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
and for the full version:
(And I love the line: "Quite a good scene isn't it? One man crazy. Three very sane spectators." ho ho ho)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H3dFh6GA-A&feature=related
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I do not have negative connotations of performance. It is a noble profession, and those who can do it, can connect with an audience, they should be respected for their skills. When I try to do it I get nervous, I guess because of the connecting with the audience part. Look everywhere but at the audience, stare at my fingers, etc. No such problem at a session, I can literally turn my back to the people in the pub and play music. They often enjoy the music, but there is no performing involved--at least as far as I am concerned. You can call it misusing the language, call it splitting hairs, but to me it is a world of difference.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Ooooooohhhhh. Myyyyyyyyyy. Gaaaaaaaaaaawd.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by wyogal
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
I'm usually hoping to perform what I learned satisfactorily be it at a session or gig. Sessions are easier because the expectations aren't as high and it's more of a sharing of the music rather than presenting it to an audience that has expectations. But I have no problem applying a word that is in context with what we're talking about, and I will continue to do so. It doesn't mean I'm not "getting it" or don't know what a session is; what it does mean is that I understand the actual meaning of the word and I'm not afraid to use it or avoid it because it doesn't suit the dogma of certain people on this website.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
OK then, so Button makes no distinction between sessions and gigs either. Or does he? I'm a bit confused. One performs at both, but sessions are easier? The expectations aren't as high at a session because you are not presenting to an audience? What expectations aren't as high? Your expectations or the audience's?
It's confusing not least because of the two distinct definitions of the word perform:
1. to carry out an act
2. to present to an audience
You seem to agree, but then you don't
But I'm also confused about the expectations bit? Personally, my expectations of the quality of the music I play are higher in a non-performance setting and it's one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. And, of course, as for the expectations of those who may or may not consider themselves as audience, I disregard them.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry Jeremy
I just got your e-mail after I posted that. If you want to close this discussion, then go ahead.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Sorry, but I can't help you Michael; I've over-explained it enough already.
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
OhMiGod. It looks like we are discussing the difference between a "session" and a "concert". To my mind, they are both "performances". Worse, within each session, there is room for individual "performances", when someone (or a small group) perform pre-prepared material for the people at the session. This is the stuff of nightmare of logic teachers.
Even worse, there have been several statements about how "inclusive" sessions are, as opposed to "performances" (aka "concerts"). My experience states that concerts can be more inclusive than ITM sessions, as (IME) ITM sessions are the most exclusive form of traditional music imaginable. In an ITM session if you cannot play the tunes fast, and in the same style, as those already running the session - go away. (See sessions at Maldon FF, or the Australian National FF for examples). Conversely, I've often stood on stage and found people I did not know joining me for a tune or song in a concert (even paid gig).
regards,
Martin (whistle player)
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by MartinJongleur
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Martin - Is it a mere coincidence that your surname is shared by a comedy club?
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Jack, you always manage to say something with which I can agree, "I've over-explained it enough already."
We love you so much. OOOOXXXXX
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
In the Original Post Fanning asked "My question is, where does one draw the line between being paid to just show up and being paid to perform?". Is that the line between a "session" and a "gig" ?
Dictionary won't help there because they are both musicians words. From an audience perspective is it the same as the line between a "session" (where if they knew the word they would not be offended by being ignored) and a "concert" (where they might be offended)
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Except if you are Miles Davis, who played with his back to the audience at a performance!
# Posted on October 6th 2009 by leoj
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
After reading through the arguments put forward in this discussion I think I shall now go away and ponder how many angels can dance reels or jigs on the point of a needle.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Aye, but are they performing ?
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Kenny
Re: WARNING! CAN OF WORMS! Open at your own risk.
Random_notes up above posted OOOOXXXXX. To show how much of a trad geek I am, my first thought was not 'hugs and kisses,' it was 'look, a whistle fingering pattern,' followed quickly by 'why does his whistle have nine holes?'
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by AlBrown