There was recently a discussion/argument at a session I play at about the purpose of a session. One musician (#1) maintained that the session is for the musicians, while the other musician (#2) believed that a session is for the audience and the musicians.
#2's logic went like this. We are provided a place to play, and some free beers; in return, we provide entertainment for the pub patrons. The patrons come in to listen to our music, they buy food and drink, which provides business to the pub, which profits the owner, so he can provide us a venue to play in.
This discussion resulted from #1 sulking at the bar because he did not like #2's sets, which the audience really likes. #1 said he didn't care what the patrons like, he likes to play the tunes he likes.
I guess the only additional thing I will mention is the #1 does not perform, while #2 is in a couple of bands and performs regularly.
So, my question is, what do you all think the purpose of a session is? Is it for the musicians, the patrons, or some blend of both?
One of the Irish musicians (born in Ireland) and I (not born in Ireland) were discussing the phenomenon of "patrons" talking right through tunes, and getting louder all the time, all the while finding seats as close as they could to the music. At one point, he said that in his experience in Ireland, even though there might be a good level of talk in a pub going on, it would more likely be the case in Ireland that when a tune started that there would be a general attention given to the tune by the patrons and the respect of listening given to it.
Why is this an issue?
Let #1 play the tunes he wants when he leads a set and let #2 play the tunes he wants when he leads a set. Players happy, everyone happy, where's the problem?
This is an interesting question for me because I'm going to try to convince the owner of a pub in town to host a session. I know musicians who are interested, but I've got to talk the owner into it. So I'm going to have to try to appeal to his "enlightened self-interest", without over-inflating claims about the benefit to his pub. It's a challenge, me not being a natural salesman type.
Here, I'll stir the pot. #1 believes that a session is a session. #2 believes that a session is a performance.
Different sessions have different purposes, but I certainly prefer #1.
>> This one is better than vi-versus-emacs!
LOL, Jon. I'm sure only a very small portion of the readers have any clue what you're on about. (But definitely vi all the way. Even better if it's vim!)
I think maybe session's started when the Band/s
Took time off at Celie Dances, and festivals,
maybe the band's just went to the pub to practice
the tunes they had to play -- Then the beer took over
sometimes, people started to come in to hear the music.
Bar owner's knew they where on to something, just set
up free drink for musician's to keep the punter's in..
Musician's got wise to it,, then asked for money as well,
Tourist trade caught on to that , Commercialism soon
became the order of the day -- And why so many session's
now in Ireland, are not for Musician's just to have Fun now...
Reverend: "I'm sure only a very small portion of the readers have any clue what you're on about.,,,"
I remember (well, almost) using the original TECO editor on a VT100 terminal; I even implemented several games, including "Breakout" and "Worm"! Has to be Emacs, I'm afraid.
I should have known better than to put this question out there on the mustard board.
So, if you're not playing for yourself, it is a performance? I don't think so! You can balance both aspects. In this case #1 cornered every player in the session to get them on his side, then confronted #2 about her playing and set selection. Let me add the #2 is one of the best musicians in this area, and #1 comes from way out of the area.
Is there a cultural difference in the USA and Ireland? Probably, but don't people come to the pub for the music, and to eat and drink?
Celtic Guitar, I'm not trying to sway your session one way or the other. However, imho it seems you are biased toward player #2. In which case someone (or everyone) needs to let #1 know how it is going to go. But it's not my session & you're keeping it relatively hypothetical.
Okay, enough horsing around from me - for the moment.
My serious answer to the initial question would be this: a session is for the musicians, and that's the way the "audience" likes it. If they play for themselves and for each other, they will play great music, and the "audience" will be happy.
IMNSHO......if the musicians aren't playing for each other, then the music isn't working, and it won't do for the audience.
However, I have had a shouting match with a punter who reckoned we should all turn and face towards the rest of the pub, as what we were doing was a performance.
I reckon No.2 has just got his performing hat too tightly screwed on.
( Hey, how do you do that hash sign ? )
I don't mind if other people treat their sessions differently than I do. The most important thing is for everybody (including the establishment) to be on the same page. If a publican is expecting cheap entertainment in trade for a few drinks, then the players need to keep that in mind when they're deciding to have a session at that establishment.
With the sessions that I am part of, it has been made clear to the establishment that we're there for our own enjoyment, and there shouldn't be any expectations that it will be continuous music, or even good music, for that matter.
What's interesting is that one of my sessions originally started out as a regular performance. It was a "closed" session, and we were provided all the food and drink that we wanted. And we treated it as such. But then, over the years, we chose to open it up into a session, started paying for our food, and limited the scope of what the complimentary drinks included.
The establishment owner was fine with that, because it still provides some "musical wallpaper" (thanks Michael), and the customers enjoy it. Where it gets complicated is where there are differences of opinion about what it should be amongst those involved. (And no matter *what* you want it to be, the punters pretty much always believe that it is a performance, and that you're getting paid to be there...)
And on the other debate topic: does this mean you're a #2 kind of guy, Rick?
I started programming on punch cards and teletypes, so even vim seems pleasantly advanced to me! (Actually, I still use vim on a daily basis, but some of the code I write is done in an IDE that does full-blown class-aware code completion, auto indentation, and multi-language syntax highlighting. All of which I find useful, and the latter of which I have gotten so used to, that I use that feature on vim too...)
It's all akin to Michael O'Donoghue's line that "jokes that make you laugh are the lowest form of humor."
He was right of course—so the pubs that encourage people to drink, eat food, and listen to music are the worst, lowest pubs. The very best pubs are the ones that cater to gray, lost souls halfway along their journeys to toothlessness. Pubs where the bric-a-brac is composed of the shattered dreams of locals. Rusty farm tools, white locks of old Father McCarthy's hair swirled in amber, hopeless calls to arms.
But listen, you're not gonna catch me in one of those pubs, brother. Give me plastic, buxomness, glazed eyes, bleached smiles. Any time. Helloooo, the living.
To balance my off-topic contribution (and hopefully side-step the minor inconvenience of being shot at dawn), I think that the session musicians share a parasitic relationship with their host, hopefully to the benefit of all.
Regarding the issue of "patrons" talking through tunes, in my own experience, I have found the majority of offenders to be ... other musicians!
A session is for whoever the participants want it to include. So every session makes up its own collective mind, sometimes through the sort of debate posed in the OP, sometimes through unspoken agreement (or the herd following the path of lease resistance).
Doesn't have to be either/or though. If you see the other people in the pub not as an "audience" but as participants in the session, then you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it.
Occurs to me that the crack between tunes, if it's as good or better than the music, also draws people into the circle, playing or not playing music, and so further blurs any divide between musicians and "audience." In my book, that's a good thing.
Sessions are more than just one thing or another that you have to choose between. In essence, sessions are "jam sessions" with the word "jam" removed since people aren't jamming and
everyone knows how the tunes go and aren't making them up as they go or noodling out accompaniment along with songs or whatever as occurs in "jam sessions." If you're familiar with Irish trad and you hear there's a "session" going on somewhere, you assume that it will be an informal gathering of people who play Irish trad music. This is when those people gather to execute, perform, play, etc., the tunes they have learned and like to share with others. In other words, an informal performance of Irish music. Who is it for? Well, for the musicians, it's for themselves, but it is also for whomever happens to be listening and enjoying it as well since no one has handed out ear plugs or instructed people to not listen and pretend there's no music happening. This of course means it is being experienced from a variety of perspectives... some active and some passive... but all are experiencing it... unless they choose to ignore it.
Often sessions happen in public places and are open to an even wider variety of interpretations, and also a variety of assumptions are made. For the musicians it's still the same, but for bar patrons or passers by it might be assumed to be a "band" or a staged and rehearsed performance. I have often been asked about it in these terms and have explained that it isn't a "band" and it's not rehearsed other than the tunes being learned and practiced individually at home by participants. Thus being an informal unrehearsed performance of Irish music, i.e. people who play Irish trad gathering for a few tunes and merriment.
But getting back to who it's for. In many cases, when it's contracted to take place in a pub and musicians are being compensated for showing up and leading it, it is for the benefit of the publican for whatever reason they have sponsored it. In the case of our local, the publican loves trad and wants it to happen in his pub... and he hopes the patrons like it and enjoy it, but he doesn't make any money off it really... he could have other things far more lucrative instead to generate drink sales... but he doesn't because he loves trad music. Does any of this matter to the session participants? Not at all; they come for their own pleasure and amusement. Does it matter to the patrons? Hell yes... many come to enjoy the music and atmosphere.
So at the end of the day... a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it.
Will: "A session is for whoever the participants want it to include...you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it."
Jack: "a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it."
Wait... It almost seems like there is some agreement going on here! I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket!
So, OP, lets ignore the patrons for a moment. What is the consensus of the musicians involved. You say that #1 was soliciting support from the other musicians, did he get it? If all the musicians except #2 want to play different tunes, then it seems to me that #2 needs to bend a little.
On the other hand, as pointed out above, sessions often have a symbiotic relationship with the pub they play in, and being too insular can be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I can see both sides of the argument. Like most issues, I think that instead of a choice between extremes, you need to look for a good balancing point somewhere in between everyone's desires.
Also, what are the publican's expectations and understanding? Our local has a guy who loves and understands what a session is, and he supports it for exactly what it is... warts and all. We have also been asked to host or start sessions elsewhere in pubs where the publican's understanding is woeful... and it doesn't even matter if they happen to be Irish. In these cases we've had them turn on jukeboxes when we were chatting between tunes thinking we were on a break and stuff like that. So you might have to adapt your session the to venue's expectations on occasion, or try to convey to the publican what a session is or isn't to update they're understanding. They might opt out of having it though unless you can adapt the session to their explanations, so maybe this needs to come into play in your argument with your cohorts.
publicans should be greatful to people going to their bar and playing a session as most of the time its done voluntarily, but you have to be a ITM fan or musician to understand the difference between a session and a 'gig'. from a business point of view its free entertainment, and a few pints for the players hardly breaks the bank for the publican. anyway in my experience theres always a fair few playin at a session not drinking
I think that the other musians believe the following because we talked about is past week. First of all, #1 was somewhat rude and aggressive, so that was noted by everyone. #1 did not come this past week. #2 needs to lay back a little but to create space for others.
We all agreed we need to listen to each other, and create some space for people to play their sets. # 2 did come, and was a little more laid back than the week before. There are a number of people that jump in with sets because they are concerned they won't get to play their sets, but everyone agreed to lay back a little more for sets and craic.
So, the incident created some good discussion, and the session was absolutely delightful this past week. Thanks for the comments, I didn't get as murdered as I thought I might, though it's still possible it might happen.
It is always a risky thing, bringing touchy issues to the Mustard Board. But this time, the consensus seems pretty clear, and I am glad to hear that your last session was a good one, CG!
A Traditional Music Deity would be classed in the Pantheon as a "Small God" and depends for its existence on its number of believers and worshippers. Terry Pratchett explores the issues involved fairly thoroughly in his Discworld novel "Small Gods".
Will: "A session is for whoever the participants want it to include...you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it."
Jack: "a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it."
So which is it, Whoever or Whomever? 1000 words please...
The trend is for "who" to become the only form. I regret that a little bit. I like "for whom the bell tolls." "Whomever" is just risible to us British-Brits. Sorry, yanks!
Many of the Big Endian tribes near me now own and operate casinos. I have watched a few little endian pow-wows, and there seems to be no divisions between spectators and participants. They are for everyone and anyone - whomever happens to be there. Too many drums, however...
To determine whether to use whoever or whomever, here is the rule:
him + he = whoever
him + him = whomever
Examples:
Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
Give it to him. He asks for it first.
Therefore, Give it to whoever asks for it first.
We will hire whoever/whomever you recommend.
We will hire him. You recommend him.
him + him = whomever
We will hire whoever/whomever is most qualified.
We will hire him. He is most qualified.
him + he = whoever
Rule 2.
When the entire whoever/whomever clause is the subject of the verb that follows the clause, look inside the clause to determine whether to use whoever or whomever.
Examples:
Whoever is elected will serve a four-year term.
Whoever is elected is the subject of will serve.
Whoever is the subject of is.
Whomever you elect will serve a four-year term.
Whomever you elect is the subject of will serve.
Whomever is the object of you elect.
Only if it was "we will hire him" I think. But, to be honest, when I wrote my initial sentence I gave none of this any consideration. I just wrote what sounded right at the time. It's apples and oranges for me really.
Fair enough. Not a bad hypothesis, but I don't think it covers the cases.
Does it make a difference if you're referring to some indefinite party versus referring to a definite party of unknown identity?
"Whoever" is used for both...
As a professional editor most of my adult life, I always followed the style guide of the publisher.
In this case, then, I think it would be "A session is for the feckin' eejits what plays the endless diddley and swills the black stuff and poteen, and alls them within earshot."
As long as #1 doesn't come, the session will be fine. There is no place for rude, chauvinist musicians. Oops, that will probably get some kind of snide comments from some folks here. Lol!
For whom are sessions? Now that is fully grammatically correct (or have we already done this one?) Personally, I believe sessions are for musicians, but also believe that #1 needs a good kick up the jacksi!
At one of our local sessions in 1999, I had to explain to someone that we were just a group of friends who all liked the same type of music and we got together at this seafood restaurant twice a month to have fun and amuse ourselves by trying to play Irish music. By no means were we an organized band or musical group and that was why some of the playing and music making was ragged and disorganized. He didn't seem to like this explanation because he never came back.
Who are sessions for?
Who are sessions for?
There was recently a discussion/argument at a session I play at about the purpose of a session. One musician (#1) maintained that the session is for the musicians, while the other musician (#2) believed that a session is for the audience and the musicians.
#2's logic went like this. We are provided a place to play, and some free beers; in return, we provide entertainment for the pub patrons. The patrons come in to listen to our music, they buy food and drink, which provides business to the pub, which profits the owner, so he can provide us a venue to play in.
This discussion resulted from #1 sulking at the bar because he did not like #2's sets, which the audience really likes. #1 said he didn't care what the patrons like, he likes to play the tunes he likes.
I guess the only additional thing I will mention is the #1 does not perform, while #2 is in a couple of bands and performs regularly.
So, my question is, what do you all think the purpose of a session is? Is it for the musicians, the patrons, or some blend of both?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
it's a cultural thing; varies from place to place.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Who are sessions for?
There are patrons? I wondered who those people were.
Around here sessions are primarily for the musicians and provide musical wallpaper for the venue.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Michael Eskin
Re: Who are sessions for?
Here we go again.... Popcorn, anyone?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Who are sessions for?
One of the Irish musicians (born in Ireland) and I (not born in Ireland) were discussing the phenomenon of "patrons" talking right through tunes, and getting louder all the time, all the while finding seats as close as they could to the music. At one point, he said that in his experience in Ireland, even though there might be a good level of talk in a pub going on, it would more likely be the case in Ireland that when a tune started that there would be a general attention given to the tune by the patrons and the respect of listening given to it.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Who are sessions for?
I'll have some of that, Emily. This one is better than vi-versus-emacs!
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
Dejavu again ?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by bazouki dave
Re: Who are sessions for?
Sessions are for me and only me - whether I am there or not.
I am kind of a Traditional music deity and sessions are my church.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Who are sessions for?
There is no purpose to a session. They just are.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by gam
Re: Who are sessions for?
Infidel!
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Who are sessions for?
More of a pantheist, wouldn't you say? Or maybe a universalist. That would make him a heretic, not an infidel, wouldn't it?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
You question your God?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Who are sessions for?
Wouldn't you?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
Why is this an issue?
Let #1 play the tunes he wants when he leads a set and let #2 play the tunes he wants when he leads a set. Players happy, everyone happy, where's the problem?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Twisty
Re: Who are sessions for?
This is an interesting question for me because I'm going to try to convince the owner of a pub in town to host a session. I know musicians who are interested, but I've got to talk the owner into it. So I'm going to have to try to appeal to his "enlightened self-interest", without over-inflating claims about the benefit to his pub. It's a challenge, me not being a natural salesman type.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by oakuss
Re: Who are sessions for?
We don't get free beer, so as far as I'm concerned our session is for us. We buy our beer, just like everyone else in the pub...........
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by minijackpot
Re: Who are sessions for?
Here, I'll stir the pot. #1 believes that a session is a session. #2 believes that a session is a performance.
Different sessions have different purposes, but I certainly prefer #1.
>> This one is better than vi-versus-emacs!
LOL, Jon. I'm sure only a very small portion of the readers have any clue what you're on about. (But definitely vi all the way. Even better if it's vim!)
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Reverend
Re: Who are sessions for?
I don't believe in God but luckily He believes in me.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by gam
Re: Who are sessions for?
There is a simple answer to this question; anyone who might enjoy them.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Why Bother?
Re: Who are sessions for?
Celtic Guitar, would you be musician #2?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Who are sessions for?
I think maybe session's started when the Band/s
Took time off at Celie Dances, and festivals,
maybe the band's just went to the pub to practice
the tunes they had to play -- Then the beer took over
sometimes, people started to come in to hear the music.
Bar owner's knew they where on to something, just set
up free drink for musician's to keep the punter's in..
Musician's got wise to it,, then asked for money as well,
Tourist trade caught on to that , Commercialism soon
became the order of the day -- And why so many session's
now in Ireland, are not for Musician's just to have Fun now...
'' Just a thought '' -- jim,,,,
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by FIDDLE4
Re: Who are sessions for?
If #2 musician trips and falls on his bodhran, and there are no punters present to hear the sound, is it still a performance?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by oldstrings
Re: Who are sessions for?
Why wait for Godot when you can accomplish these: shine shoes, eat chocolate, play music, squint, scrape at a hangnail, file forms, listen to music.
Sessions fill time, which would otherwise be as empty as the Buddha's spotless mind.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: Who are sessions for?
>> This one is better than vi-versus-emacs!
Reverend: "I'm sure only a very small portion of the readers have any clue what you're on about.,,,"
I remember (well, almost) using the original TECO editor on a VT100 terminal; I even implemented several games, including "Breakout" and "Worm"! Has to be Emacs, I'm afraid.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Rick Payman
Re: Who are sessions for?
Good man, rev - emacs is for octopi.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
Rick - I'm afraid we're going to have to settle this with pistols at dawn. Nothing else will do.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
I should have known better than to put this question out there on the mustard board.
So, if you're not playing for yourself, it is a performance? I don't think so! You can balance both aspects. In this case #1 cornered every player in the session to get them on his side, then confronted #2 about her playing and set selection. Let me add the #2 is one of the best musicians in this area, and #1 comes from way out of the area.
Is there a cultural difference in the USA and Ireland? Probably, but don't people come to the pub for the music, and to eat and drink?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
Celtic Guitar, I'm not trying to sway your session one way or the other. However, imho it seems you are biased toward player #2. In which case someone (or everyone) needs to let #1 know how it is going to go. But it's not my session & you're keeping it relatively hypothetical.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Who are sessions for?
Okay, enough horsing around from me - for the moment.
My serious answer to the initial question would be this: a session is for the musicians, and that's the way the "audience" likes it. If they play for themselves and for each other, they will play great music, and the "audience" will be happy.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
IMNSHO......if the musicians aren't playing for each other, then the music isn't working, and it won't do for the audience.
However, I have had a shouting match with a punter who reckoned we should all turn and face towards the rest of the pub, as what we were doing was a performance.
I reckon No.2 has just got his performing hat too tightly screwed on.
( Hey, how do you do that hash sign ? )
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Who are sessions for?
I don't mind if other people treat their sessions differently than I do. The most important thing is for everybody (including the establishment) to be on the same page. If a publican is expecting cheap entertainment in trade for a few drinks, then the players need to keep that in mind when they're deciding to have a session at that establishment.
With the sessions that I am part of, it has been made clear to the establishment that we're there for our own enjoyment, and there shouldn't be any expectations that it will be continuous music, or even good music, for that matter.
What's interesting is that one of my sessions originally started out as a regular performance. It was a "closed" session, and we were provided all the food and drink that we wanted. And we treated it as such. But then, over the years, we chose to open it up into a session, started paying for our food, and limited the scope of what the complimentary drinks included.
The establishment owner was fine with that, because it still provides some "musical wallpaper" (thanks Michael), and the customers enjoy it. Where it gets complicated is where there are differences of opinion about what it should be amongst those involved. (And no matter *what* you want it to be, the punters pretty much always believe that it is a performance, and that you're getting paid to be there...)
And on the other debate topic: does this mean you're a #2 kind of guy, Rick?
I started programming on punch cards and teletypes, so even vim seems pleasantly advanced to me! (Actually, I still use vim on a daily basis, but some of the code I write is done in an IDE that does full-blown class-aware code completion, auto indentation, and multi-language syntax highlighting. All of which I find useful, and the latter of which I have gotten so used to, that I use that feature on vim too...)
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Reverend
Re: Who are sessions for?
It's all akin to Michael O'Donoghue's line that "jokes that make you laugh are the lowest form of humor."
He was right of course—so the pubs that encourage people to drink, eat food, and listen to music are the worst, lowest pubs. The very best pubs are the ones that cater to gray, lost souls halfway along their journeys to toothlessness. Pubs where the bric-a-brac is composed of the shattered dreams of locals. Rusty farm tools, white locks of old Father McCarthy's hair swirled in amber, hopeless calls to arms.
But listen, you're not gonna catch me in one of those pubs, brother. Give me plastic, buxomness, glazed eyes, bleached smiles. Any time. Helloooo, the living.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by NEW Pure Drop® Ear Canal Oil
Re: Who are sessions for?
To balance my off-topic contribution (and hopefully side-step the minor inconvenience of being shot at dawn), I think that the session musicians share a parasitic relationship with their host, hopefully to the benefit of all.
Regarding the issue of "patrons" talking through tunes, in my own experience, I have found the majority of offenders to be ... other musicians!
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Rick Payman
Re: Who are sessions for?
Reverend: Another time and place, perhaps?
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Rick Payman
Re: Who are sessions for?
A session is for whoever the participants want it to include. So every session makes up its own collective mind, sometimes through the sort of debate posed in the OP, sometimes through unspoken agreement (or the herd following the path of lease resistance).
Doesn't have to be either/or though. If you see the other people in the pub not as an "audience" but as participants in the session, then you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it.
Occurs to me that the crack between tunes, if it's as good or better than the music, also draws people into the circle, playing or not playing music, and so further blurs any divide between musicians and "audience." In my book, that's a good thing.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Who are sessions for?
If #2 is already gigging, he couldn't care less whether the session finished or not. There will always be another session.
Similarly, I keep away from sessions with singers - my perogative, whilst there are tune-only sessions.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by geoffwright
Re: Who are sessions for?
>> Reverend: Another time and place, perhaps?
I dunno. A little diversion in the midst of the rehashing of a hot button topic on this forum is never a bad thing
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Reverend
Re: Who are sessions for?
Sessions are for you and I
We laugh and we play till we die
life is too short
To hang round with the sort
Who argue and whine and cry
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Gone to work
Re: Who are sessions for?
Sessions are more than just one thing or another that you have to choose between. In essence, sessions are "jam sessions" with the word "jam" removed since people aren't jamming and
everyone knows how the tunes go and aren't making them up as they go or noodling out accompaniment along with songs or whatever as occurs in "jam sessions." If you're familiar with Irish trad and you hear there's a "session" going on somewhere, you assume that it will be an informal gathering of people who play Irish trad music. This is when those people gather to execute, perform, play, etc., the tunes they have learned and like to share with others. In other words, an informal performance of Irish music. Who is it for? Well, for the musicians, it's for themselves, but it is also for whomever happens to be listening and enjoying it as well since no one has handed out ear plugs or instructed people to not listen and pretend there's no music happening. This of course means it is being experienced from a variety of perspectives... some active and some passive... but all are experiencing it... unless they choose to ignore it.
Often sessions happen in public places and are open to an even wider variety of interpretations, and also a variety of assumptions are made. For the musicians it's still the same, but for bar patrons or passers by it might be assumed to be a "band" or a staged and rehearsed performance. I have often been asked about it in these terms and have explained that it isn't a "band" and it's not rehearsed other than the tunes being learned and practiced individually at home by participants. Thus being an informal unrehearsed performance of Irish music, i.e. people who play Irish trad gathering for a few tunes and merriment.
But getting back to who it's for. In many cases, when it's contracted to take place in a pub and musicians are being compensated for showing up and leading it, it is for the benefit of the publican for whatever reason they have sponsored it. In the case of our local, the publican loves trad and wants it to happen in his pub... and he hopes the patrons like it and enjoy it, but he doesn't make any money off it really... he could have other things far more lucrative instead to generate drink sales... but he doesn't because he loves trad music. Does any of this matter to the session participants? Not at all; they come for their own pleasure and amusement. Does it matter to the patrons? Hell yes... many come to enjoy the music and atmosphere.
So at the end of the day... a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
Will: "A session is for whoever the participants want it to include...you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it."
Jack: "a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it."
Wait... It almost seems like there is some agreement going on here! I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket!
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Reverend
Re: Who are sessions for?
Yeah... it's the way we arrive at that conclusion that we differ on I suppose... and matters of semantics.
# Posted on November 23rd 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
So, OP, lets ignore the patrons for a moment. What is the consensus of the musicians involved. You say that #1 was soliciting support from the other musicians, did he get it? If all the musicians except #2 want to play different tunes, then it seems to me that #2 needs to bend a little.
On the other hand, as pointed out above, sessions often have a symbiotic relationship with the pub they play in, and being too insular can be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I can see both sides of the argument. Like most issues, I think that instead of a choice between extremes, you need to look for a good balancing point somewhere in between everyone's desires.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Who are sessions for?
Also, what are the publican's expectations and understanding? Our local has a guy who loves and understands what a session is, and he supports it for exactly what it is... warts and all. We have also been asked to host or start sessions elsewhere in pubs where the publican's understanding is woeful... and it doesn't even matter if they happen to be Irish. In these cases we've had them turn on jukeboxes when we were chatting between tunes thinking we were on a break and stuff like that. So you might have to adapt your session the to venue's expectations on occasion, or try to convey to the publican what a session is or isn't to update they're understanding. They might opt out of having it though unless you can adapt the session to their explanations, so maybe this needs to come into play in your argument with your cohorts.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
publicans should be greatful to people going to their bar and playing a session as most of the time its done voluntarily, but you have to be a ITM fan or musician to understand the difference between a session and a 'gig'. from a business point of view its free entertainment, and a few pints for the players hardly breaks the bank for the publican. anyway in my experience theres always a fair few playin at a session not drinking
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by banjo'd
Re: Who are sessions for?
I think that the other musians believe the following because we talked about is past week. First of all, #1 was somewhat rude and aggressive, so that was noted by everyone. #1 did not come this past week. #2 needs to lay back a little but to create space for others.
We all agreed we need to listen to each other, and create some space for people to play their sets. # 2 did come, and was a little more laid back than the week before. There are a number of people that jump in with sets because they are concerned they won't get to play their sets, but everyone agreed to lay back a little more for sets and craic.
So, the incident created some good discussion, and the session was absolutely delightful this past week. Thanks for the comments, I didn't get as murdered as I thought I might, though it's still possible it might happen.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
It is always a risky thing, bringing touchy issues to the Mustard Board. But this time, the consensus seems pretty clear, and I am glad to hear that your last session was a good one, CG!
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Who are sessions for?
A Traditional Music Deity would be classed in the Pantheon as a "Small God" and depends for its existence on its number of believers and worshippers. Terry Pratchett explores the issues involved fairly thoroughly in his Discworld novel "Small Gods".
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Who are sessions for?
"I remember (well, almost) using the original TECO editor on a VT100 terminal..."
Oh, man... I worked for DEC back in those days. I had forgotten about TECO.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Bob himself
Re: Who are sessions for?
Will: "A session is for whoever the participants want it to include...you simply play the tunes for the sake of playing the tunes and anyone within earshot enjoys it."
Jack: "a session is for whomever is enjoying it and for whatever reason they happen to be enjoying it."
So which is it, Whoever or Whomever? 1000 words please...
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by polkageist
Re: Who are sessions for?
Whoever. The accusative in English is dead, let it die. (We can keep he/him for old times' sake)
Wow, that makes three holy wars in one thread.
Anyone want to take on big-endian versus little-endian?
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
I quit my writing/editing job almost two years ago. Mind's gone all to twiddly bits. And I don't give a...
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Who are sessions for?
I'm all for bi-endianness...
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Reverend
Re: Who are sessions for?
Whomever....whoever....whatever!
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Mark Harmer
Re: Who are sessions for?
The trend is for "who" to become the only form. I regret that a little bit. I like "for whom the bell tolls." "Whomever" is just risible to us British-Brits. Sorry, yanks!
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Steve Shaw
Re: Who are sessions for?
Many of the Big Endian tribes near me now own and operate casinos. I have watched a few little endian pow-wows, and there seems to be no divisions between spectators and participants. They are for everyone and anyone - whomever happens to be there. Too many drums, however...
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Who are sessions for?
Rule 1.
To determine whether to use whoever or whomever, here is the rule:
him + he = whoever
him + him = whomever
Examples:
Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
Give it to him. He asks for it first.
Therefore, Give it to whoever asks for it first.
We will hire whoever/whomever you recommend.
We will hire him. You recommend him.
him + him = whomever
We will hire whoever/whomever is most qualified.
We will hire him. He is most qualified.
him + he = whoever
Rule 2.
When the entire whoever/whomever clause is the subject of the verb that follows the clause, look inside the clause to determine whether to use whoever or whomever.
Examples:
Whoever is elected will serve a four-year term.
Whoever is elected is the subject of will serve.
Whoever is the subject of is.
Whomever you elect will serve a four-year term.
Whomever you elect is the subject of will serve.
Whomever is the object of you elect.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
witfits
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Oeidipus
Re: Who are sessions for?
A session is for him, He is enjoying it. So I stand corrected.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
Jack, what about :
Who[m?]ever you recommend, he will hire?
I can't get "whomever" to sound right there, but it's the object of both the main and the subordinate clause.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
That's ofw
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Oeidipus
Re: Who are sessions for?
Whoever
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Oeidipus
Re: Who are sessions for?
I'm not a grammatical scholar, but according to rule 2, wouldn't it be "whoever" since the second phrase is "he will hire"?
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
He will hire him - by that rule, it would be whomever, wouldn't it? That's why I'm confused.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
Only if it was "we will hire him" I think. But, to be honest, when I wrote my initial sentence I gave none of this any consideration. I just wrote what sounded right at the time. It's apples and oranges for me really.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Phantom Button
Re: Who are sessions for?
Fair enough. Not a bad hypothesis, but I don't think it covers the cases.
Does it make a difference if you're referring to some indefinite party versus referring to a definite party of unknown identity?
"Whoever" is used for both...
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Who are sessions for?
Sessions are for the musicians and my favorite editor is solder.
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by bjbutler
Re: Who are sessions for?
As a professional editor most of my adult life, I always followed the style guide of the publisher.
In this case, then, I think it would be "A session is for the feckin' eejits what plays the endless diddley and swills the black stuff and poteen, and alls them within earshot."
# Posted on November 24th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Who are sessions for?
Gotta love the mustard. Where else can a discussion devolve into another discussion about grammar and proper pronoun choice.
Hapyy Thanksgiving to all the Yanks that are here.
# Posted on November 25th 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
Hope the session goes well, CG. ;)
# Posted on November 25th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Who are sessions for?
As long as #1 doesn't come, the session will be fine. There is no place for rude, chauvinist musicians. Oops, that will probably get some kind of snide comments from some folks here. Lol!
# Posted on November 25th 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
For whom are sessions? Now that is fully grammatically correct (or have we already done this one?) Personally, I believe sessions are for musicians, but also believe that #1 needs a good kick up the jacksi!
# Posted on November 26th 2010 by Ebor_fiddler
Re: Who are sessions for?
A good compromise solution, Ebor.
# Posted on November 28th 2010 by Celtic Guitar
Re: Who are sessions for?
At one of our local sessions in 1999, I had to explain to someone that we were just a group of friends who all liked the same type of music and we got together at this seafood restaurant twice a month to have fun and amuse ourselves by trying to play Irish music. By no means were we an organized band or musical group and that was why some of the playing and music making was ragged and disorganized. He didn't seem to like this explanation because he never came back.
Laurence
# Posted on November 28th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Who are sessions for?
Did I miss it??? Surely there will be another 100 postings so I can catch up???
# Posted on November 29th 2010 by Jode