Something that Kerri and I talked about on her “noodling” thread raised a question that might be interesting to air out. I was talking about how tunes were possibly learned in the days before tape recorders etc. were around, and that people would have to hear the tunes when they were played at sessions held in pubs where the public could hear them. I used the term “public performance” (of the tunes) as opposed to private performances (in people’s houses.) Kerri thought I might have been inferring that sessions were “public performances” and now when I reflect back on it I started to think about it. (Always dangerous when Jack starts thinking… his wife has to move all the nice furniture and chach-kas out of the room he’s thinking in… give him some space so that nothing gets broken) Anyway, aren’t sessions in pubs public performances? Are dart games in pubs a “public performance” of darts… or what about pool games? And when people dance, isn’t that a public performance as well? It doesn’t have to be a “show” and the players/ dancers don’t have to be intentionally putting on a show -- but people are watching or listening… and sometimes even clapping. Wouldn’t this constitute a “public performance”?
That's like saying my band rehearsals are public performances cuz sometimes my mother shouts "woohoo" from the kitchen, the neighbours complain and the dog curls up at my feet.
hmm...I think pubs are public gathering places.lots of people dont have private spaces to accomodate a whole session..but i dont thnk that makes it a performance.I think performance is when you face th audience..
I'm thinking too Jack! The kitchen window's shattered! Electrical appliances in my flat are flickering on and off! Books are hurling themselves off shelves and forming a messy heap of fluttering pages on the floor!
Yeah well anyway, in the days before tape recorders, were pub sessions that popular? I always had this vague idea that tunes were either played at people's houses, or at community dances like my dad says he used to go to when he was a kid. I dunno, but anyway that has nothing to do with the question.
I reckon that it depends what you mean by "public performance". If you mean "playing music in public", then yes that's what sessions are *in the minds of the players*. If you mean "putting on a musical performance in the sense of 'show' for people in the pub to listen to" then that's not necessarily what sessions are *in the minds of the players*. To be honest, when I think of "public performance" I'm more inclined to think of the latter definition for some reason. I'm sure non-musicians must see it as a performance for their benefit, judging by the amount of times I've seen some drunken idiot demanding Wild Rover/Whiskey In The Jar/Fields Of Athenry etc. They must come into the pub, see the session happening and think "oooh, a live show specially for us, and we don't even have to pay to see it - how nice!" As for the landlord, well any live music is a public show for him/her. He/she gets more customers and more money, and he/she doesn't necessarily have to pay the musicians: "oooh, a live show specially for my pub, and I don't even have to pay to put it on, 'part from maybe a few beers - how nice!". Meanwhile the musicians are thinking "oooh, we get to play whatever tunes we like because we're not expected to put on some sort of show for an audience, and we get a few free beers - how nice!"
My problem with your terminology Jack is "performances." I don't think of the punters as an audience (and indeed, many of them appear to ignore the music completely, except for the extra effort they have to make to talk over it). And I don't think of my session playing as a "performance"--just playing tunes, and if other people happen to listen, well that's their perogative. On the noodle thread, you said you didn't mean performance in the gig or concert sense of the word, but that and a public defender won't make for much of a case.
For me, the reason to hold a session in a pub or other public place is so other musicians can sit in without necessarily being invited. It's open to the public, not a public performance. In contrast, house sessions tend to be among friends, by invite. Our local pub session came about because new people kept hearing about a house session and asking if they could sit in. But it's not exactly kosher to invite total strangers into someone else's house. So it made more sense to hold it at a public place.
What makes a session special to me is when you bring that personal, "in the kitchen" feeling to a pub or coffe house, and there's no division between players and audience--everyone present is a participant. Just neighbors socializing over pints and tunes. I think of it as a potluck where a bunch of people bring music instead of food. (And I'm not into the competitive cooking approach to potlucks.)
And in response to Mark's taxonomy of session meaning, our hosts (the publicans) here in Helena understand that it's not a performance. For them (and myself as well) it's about building community. (They have busier nights of the week when we _don't_ play .
i always meant to ask you dow...when i post now at ten pm thursday night, and you post now,what the hell time is it? I'm smart but not tha that smart........
ok now, back to the topic.....zpeaking of audiences, ya gotta love the patron that sits all night listening to tune after tune after tune, never calling attention to himself just listening listening......wow! like, 4 hours later you turn around and he's still there......
Yeah it's to do with semantics. I think Jack's trying to use "performance" in its benign sense of "execute", as in "perform an action". But when it comes to talking about music and the arts, "performance" usually means "show" doesn't it?
good point "open to the public" meaning anyone can come, but at a house you really should have an invite uh .."knock knock" uh "hi there, i heard some fisddle playin.. kin I come in?"
It's 3pm and I'm supposed to be reading online Japanese newspapers to find a suitable text to use for the "Section B: Unseen Text" part of the exam I'm making my students do next week. I love making students do exams and seeing the look of panic on their faces as they do last-minute revision from notes before they go in. Hahaha! I just sit there grinning and thinking "I'm glad it's not me doing this", but it actually gets very boring sitting there doing nothing for hours but check that nobody's cheating and copying someone else.
A public performance in my definition firstly requires the presence of a body of people other than those playing, and will not go ahead without them. Lots of people feel that a session ought to have punters, but the session will go ahead quite happily whether anyone else is in the pub or not. They may enhance a session but they are not essential. A chamber orchestra or stage band, however, would call it off if no one showed up.
A public performance also has those non-players as its main focus and raison d'etre. If the intent is to entertain them while they listen passively, or to play music so they can dance, or to lead them in community song (say hymns in church) then I reckon it's a performance. A session has no such focus on non-players it's not there to "do" anything either to them or for them.
I was prompted to think about what is and isn't a performance in the past by one too many incompetent and lazy church musician deflecting justified criticism with the cry, "But it isn't a performance!" I wonder whether this is said at sessions to excuse can't-be-bothered playing…
Kerri wrote: "hat's like saying my band rehearsals are public performances cuz sometimes my mother shouts "woohoo" from the kitchen, the neighbours complain and the dog curls up at my feet." With the exception of the neighbors complaining, I think this would be a "private performance"
Interesting thoughts gang! No one has yet to convince me that when you play tunes in a public setting it's not a public performance of those tunes. Half of the crowd not listening doesn't make your performance (execution) of the music “private.” The one guy listening at the bar all night is a member of the public at large, and he's listening, so he's your "audience." To perform in public you need an audience, passive or otherwise, but an "audience" none-the-less. They aren't invited to the pub as if you invited them to your house, and they aren't going to go make a selection on the jukebox, (unless they're a total eejit) so you're performing (playing) the music in public. The jukebox or CD player is off and the air is filled with the music you’re playing, everyone who wants to can listen -- it's a "public performance".
I don't have any problem with the adjective "public". You were saying in the other thread you meant the word "performance" as in "the execution of a task" and I agree "public performance" in this context sounds better than "public execution" ;^) However, putting the two words together conjures very specific ideas into my head. I play *in* public (at sessions) and I play *for* the public (at concerts, festivals, etc.). I can't call them both the same thing. And here's why:
I just can't picture going up on stage in a festival before an audience, sitting with my back to them, drinking pints and swapping dirty jokes with my friends, then telling them to sod off when they ask me to sing something. Conversely, I can't imagine leaping off stage in the middle of a concert because I see a cute guy I know way in the back and I want to go for a bit of a flirt. Clearly, session-like behavior would be out of place in a venue where I was expected to "perform". As this type of thing is standard practice at a session, a sesson can't be considered a "performance". At least not by me.
Wow, what a hot thread! By the time I finished writing that last comment a bunch other comments had appeared relating to what I was writing about and now I *really* look like I was paying attention!
And yer man doing the mime in the park. That's a public performance because his sole purpose for being there is to put on a show for people in the park and hopefully make some money (although not necessarily). If the mime guy walks away from his audience and talks to one of his mates for half an hour, his audience aren't going to be there when he gets back. In a session, the customers are going to be there whether you're playing or not, and whether they view your playing as a "live show" or not.
But Kerri, the session as a whole is observed and enjoyed by the public isn't it? At our local people show up specifically to enjoy watching and listening to "the session." They tell me they are entertained by the way we carry on and joke with each other -- and they love the music. Sometimes the dart players are happening right to the side of us. (This makes the bodhran players nervous) People are watching them and clapping when they make a good shot sometimes. Are they not "performing" in a sense?
Dow, I just said that bit about not being convinced so you would stop thinking. I don't want anyone to get hurt.
Nope, Jack, no one is my audience at a session. The only people I play for are myself and the other players. Since the other players are playing too, their not a mere audience. And if the guy on the stool at the bar is enjoying his evening out, great, but that's not my responsibility. Which it would be if I were "performing" music for him.
As Mark says, you're trying to use "performance" in its sense of "execution" or "doing." But when talking about playing music, "performance" has a primary connotation of "entertainment" or "presentation."
Your session may be different (indeed, I've heard that the Plough and Stars session is more structured, more like a casual concert, and less of a seat-of-the-pants, off-the-cuff session). But at my local session, the tunes aren't "presented" _to_ anyone. In contrast, songs _are_ presented--the room is hushed, and the singer usually does a pre-arranged piece. But as Tish says, we'll play tunes even if it's just us in the pub, not a punter in sight. My intent is to enjoy playing music, not to impress or otherwise affect any non-players within earshot. It's no more a public performance than it is a private performance when I lock the bathroom door and play fiddle all by my lonesome.
BTW Jack, so there's nobody watching your mime in the park. It's still a public performance if it's not the middle of the night and some members of the public are likely to turn up. He's just unlucky because nobody happens to be there to watch. Or maybe he's just crap at what he does. Now, if he does his mime act deep in the middle of Kerri's dense forest in the middle of the night, then no, it's not a public performance because unless he's incredibly dim or on drugs, he'd realise that nobody's going to be watching.
Hmm, OK Jack, attacking it from another angle… "in public" to me doesn't make it a "performance" unless anyone in the "audience" has a right to an expectation of some sort e.g. they've paid $250 for a ticket so it had better be good, or something has been advertised as a dinner-dance so you have a right to expect to be able to foxtrot/cha cha/quickstep to at least some of the music. Even if a pub advertises a gig with no cover charge, the audience still has a right to expect certain standards of playing and a type of music appropriate to the location and time of day.
Does the lone punter at the bar have right to an expectation? He might grizzle if they music is scheidt and ask for the juke box instead, but does he have a *right* to do that?
This is a bit off the top of my head (like Dow I'm supposed to be doing something else of a very tedious nature) but it seems to me that an audience at a performance (whether they've paid $$ or not) has rights, a punter wandering in to a session possibly doesn't have the same rights and maybe that's the what makes something a performance, regardless of the fact that it's "in public"…?
But Will, We aren't playing for the punters either, and we don't come to the pub to "perform." We come together to share the music -- play with and for each other, but that doesn't necessarily mean the result isn't, in it’s essence, a "public performance" whether we intended as such or not… does it?
Tish, I think "rights may have something to do with it. But I also think - or thought - that it had a lot to do with the musicians' expectations and beliefs about what they're doing too. I think that most session players wouldn't think of themselves as putting on any sort of show for the public, and if it was like that then they'd probably avoid them like the plague - I certainly would. I'm really surprised that Jack sees it differently. Jack you're just so impure and untrad
Tish, the session is often advertised in papers, published on-line etc. And at our local there's a sidewalk board that says, "Traditional Irish Music tonight" and it's always free. People come in to listen and watch... it's still a "public performance"... isn't it?
A-ha! Now we're getting to what I talked about in my 1st post, which is how the punters view us. What you're saying now, Jack, is that none of us views our playing in pubs as a "show", but the fact that some of the punters might see our playing as a "show" makes it a "show". Well, all I can say is that this difference in perspective must be what causes a lot of aggro and resentment between players/punters, and in some places (especially over here in Oz) the landlord.
So: remember the car wash scene in Cool Hand Luke? Was the woman in the tight, wet dress washing her car, or was she giving a performance of washing her car?
I think that's where Jack is coming from.
I used to be a professional juggler. In the summer, I often practiced outside, in public places (parks, college campus, gymnasiums). If I wanted my practices to be effective, I often had to ignore the bystanders who sometimes insisted on treating it like a performance. When I quit throwing up for a living, I would still go juggle in a park, for my own enjoyment. But all too often I'd get an audience and end up dealing with "Can you eat an apple?" and "Do that one again!" and "I saw a guy on tv who juggled 99 balls--can you do that?" So I eventually quit juggling in public places. Even if it wasn't a performance in my mind, other people couldn't understand or respect that.
Sure, sessions can have the same problem. But it's not _my_ problem. We just hunch closer together in our little circle and ignore the bleating for Orange Blossom Special.
Will, yes, our sessions are "tight" I guess -- that's how we like to play. But at the end of the day we're still just sharing the music with one another, and we aren't really concerned with the crowd's enjoyment so much. It's fun when the crowd participates by demonstrating their enjoyment and encouraging us, but that's not why we do it.
I'm not sure that he is winding us up. If he is he's doing a crap job of it because it's actually an interesting question. It's probably quite healthy to think about how punters etc view sessions once in a while, if only because it might help you understand why they're asking us to play naff Wild Rover songs. Then at least you can consider their perspective and feelings before you tell them to fack off!
I go to the park and play tunes on hot days. People try to give me money and I tell them, "Thanks, but I'm not busking." and I give them their money back. They'll sit down nearby and listen, and one time two lovely young gals who tried to give me money came back with flowers and put them on my flute case. (I melted) So even though I told people it wasn't a public performance... they saw it as one anyway. So were they wrong? If so, what was it, and what were they doing in relation to it?
Hey, Jack, you haven't mentioned the type of session where the audience is actually EXPECTED to leave BECAUSE of the performance: beginner sessions.
Are they still public performances? If so, what are they after the public runs screaming from the pub with their fingers in their ears? Are they still sessions, and therefore public performances (with no public), or are they no longer sessions, as there is no longer a public to perform to?
Whew, just caught up again. Yes Jack, if your session is advertised as "Traditional Irish Music Tonight" just the same way as the pub might advertise "R&B Tonight" or "[insert band here] Tribute Night" then that does tend to push it towards a performance by my definition. I wonder, though, how sessioneers who feel most strongly that a session is not a performance would like to see the publicity worded.
The two lovely young girls weren't "wrong", in fact they were so totally right, man. That had nothing to do with "public performance", it had to do with peace, and love
Jack, you're sessions are tight because (besides being talented players) you like to announce the tunes before a set, and at least some of you play in a band together. We have sessions like that too, sometimes, and the non-core players sure complain about it when we do--"We can't keep up," and "Those were obscure tunes...not very inclusive," and "That was such a nice arrangement we didn't want to mess it up."
I suspect some of the debate here stems from big city vs. small town. At our session, everyone's on a first-name basis. There's no advertising. The pub isn't even a real pub--just the tap room of a local micro-brewery. Sometimes we just sit and talk. Sometimes we all learn a tune, slow and over and over. Sometimes we play stuff "wrong" on purpose. The kind of stuff that would drive an "audience" batty. And that's okay because they're not expecting a performance or show.
Right, Kerri. I've walked in on sessions that clearly were public performances (with a mic for every player, and play lists), and bounded back to the car quicker than I could think.
Heh, we won't have a sandwich board. When the local newspaper tried to run a notice about the session, the publican asked them to remove it. Is the public welcome to enter? Yes. Are they invited? No. Do we care what they think about the music. No, not as long as they don't actively object to it. The ones who don't like it can go to the bar next door.
Dow, I typed "you bitch" after your toy concertina comment but there's so much steam coming off everyone's keyboards that the link was lost And poor beebs, what bad press, you know she's really a sweetie. (Deep down >8>)
I've been to hot sessions in Ireland that were hosted by people who were in bands together. I didn't mind a bit, infact I felt lucky to be there. They didn't exclude me or anyone else, they would talk about what tune they wanted to play with what tune... what's wrong with that?
And for the record, I've seen and done many public performances disguised as sessions. Every pub in Doolin, for example, pays a bunch of musicians to play every single night all summer long for the tourists. They sit in a circle and crack the odd joke and sometimes they are surrounded by backpakers with guitars, so it looks like a session to the untrained eye, but I bet they'd be shown the door right quick if the "session" wasn't Irish enough or fast enough for the tourists.
Do the group of punters have absolutely no influence whatsoever on the music and the way it's played? If you cleared the bar of everyone but the musicians would the mood of the session remain exactly the same, and not a note be played any differently than if they were there?
If yes, then this is absolutely not a public performance. As a bonus, you may be eligible for full membership in a Buddhist monastery.
(And I will be totally unaffected by Michael Gill's assessment of my post, good or bad. ommmmm....)
Well, greg, a bit of redundancy in the first movement, but I think the judges will give high marks for your use of five four-syllable words in such a brief remark.
Punters certainly can enhance or detract from the playing, but their removal won't render the session pointless. An appreciative or unnappreciative concert audience can likewise enhance or detract from the music, but their removal will render the event pointless.
Sign outside the Plough & Stars reads "TONITE! Bearded hippie performs bouncy folk music on honky squeezebox thing, accompanied by his unmiked friends. Everyone welcome except those who play smooth, flowing tunes on sweet-sounding squeezebox things".
One of the things that makes a session different than a “show” is the fact that the players aren't putting one on. But the session is still being performed (happening) in public thus making it a "public performance". The fact that the session would continue unaltered if the punters leave doesn't change the fact that it's happening in a public place.
"being performed (happening) in public"... so is taking the garbage to the curb also a public performance? Standing in line at the bank machine? Suntanning? I'm starting to feel very self-conscious!
I can't hear you, fov! The car horns are deafening. My kids' school decided to go ahead with the spring concert during the game, so we had to rely on cell phones with web access to keep track. D'oh!
We'll need to clear out of the Joyce early on Saturday before the big screen fires up.
Beebs is NOT a bitch. She's just in a very very bad mood, and she's been in a very very bad mood for a very very long time... *grin* Just kidding, Brides.
Tish, I'm not really being a bitch for slagging anglos. I'm just making rude comments on every single thesession thread to rally support for the Low Caste Frowned-upon Brotherhood and to remind readers that we're a force to be reckoned with, one that won't be pushed into the background by dismissive remarks as we march deeper into the 21st century.
But seriously... Kerri, if people showed up to watch you take out the trash, stand in line. (this is believable, I've seen your photo Then it could be considered a "public performance" I suppose.
Sorry, a deliberate misunderstanding. I can't believe how many hits this thread has had since it was posted. It really doesn't deserve the attention Back to work...
I must say that some of the posts here are a load of tosh! A session isn't a public performance....?? Tell that to the public! I can't believe statements like 'We are only playing for ourselves' or 'If someone is listening then that is their prerogative'.
Tell me this - if all of the people in the pub totally ignored you and your music and they all talked loudly and over the top of the tunes and wouldn't keep quiet when you called a singer - would it not bother you? IF it DOES bother you then it is a perfoemance since you care about what they think.
Pretending that it doesn't matter if you connect with the punters or not is nonsense, and if it does matter then clearly you are performing, paid or not.
I know that when we a sussing out a potential new session venue and important aspect is whether or not there is likely to be a sympathetic audience - are the 'it's not a performance' people out there saying that it really doesn't matter what kind of people are in your session pub as long as you get a few free beers? Get real!
Oh dear, I go to my bed about 03.00 and return to see a new thread with over 100 posts. As, it was inspired by something I suggested in a previous post, I feel that I should make a comment.
It obviously depends on how you define the terms "public" and "performance". However, in this instance, I'll concede that Jack is technically correct and that a session is a "PP", although I wasn't really thinking of it as such. A quote from Nigel Gatherer's music pages about the origin of sessions reads as follows
"It has been suggested that the first move to play Irish music in a pub was in The Black Cap in London's Camden Town in 1947, followed by The Devonshire Arms, also in London. From then it spread over the years so that there are now Irish pub sessions all over the world, from Japan to Rio de Janeiro. Of course there were jam sessions before, during the Jazz era for example, but nothing has caught the people's imagination like the Irish pub session."
See http://users.argonet.co.uk/users/gatherer/sess.html
However, I would suggest that there has always been sessions of some sort whenever or wherever friends have gathered together to play music eg in neighbours houses, village halls, bothies, and, of course, pubs. Today's sessions are just an extension of this and are still, in some ways, private events. Some are more inviting than others but they are not necessarily intended for everyone just to come along and take part. Of course, in practice, most musicians aren't turned away and the invitation often tends to be implicit but it is still required even if it is described as an "Open Invitation". I know that this sounds a bit pedantic but that's how the problem arises when people turn up at these sessions and don't understand "the rules" eg when and where shakey eggs are welcome, playing different styles of music, when and when not to "noodle" etc. Now, all of these things can be acceptable, even welcomed depending on the type of session or, on the other hand, "grimly tolerated" at the very best.
To sum up, if you regard a "session" as the natural successor of the practice of friends getting together for " a tune", then I still think it's a natural environvent to "pick up" and swap tunes. However, I realise that things have moved on these days and most good sessions are much more sophisticated and complex than that so, once again, it just depends on who you're with and where you are. I keep using phrases like "common sense" and "good manners". Most of us here know what is and not acceptable but, unfortunately, many casual participants don't.
Okay, let's "get real". Here's what I think. If all of the people in the pub totally ignored me and my music I wouldn't give a scheidt. If they all talked loudly and over the top of the tunes I would be mildly irritated and so would the rest of the musicians I play with, not because they're not appreciating the music (I expect that most members of the public have scheidt taste in music) but because it would mean we'd have to go through the rigmarole of finding a new venue where we could hear ourselves play (not necessarily one where the punters enjoy our tunes, because, like I said, I don't give a scheidt about that). So yes breandan, I for one am saying that I don't give a scheidt what kind of people are in my session pub as long as 1) I can hear myself and my mates play tunes, and 2) we get free beers.
Ok - to put a more positive spin on it. If I am playing tunes and see a couple of the punters tapping their feet along with the music then I feel that connection is valuable. I get a buzz out of it - don't you?
It's also marvellous when an educated listener comes over and asks for a really good tune [not the bloody lonesome boatman or the fileds of athenry]. Don't you ever get that feeling?
Yeah, it is nice when punters appreciate it, of course, but it's not necessary to have that connection for a good session. When you do get that connection with punters, are those punters viewing your playing as a show for them, or do they just feel privileged to have happened upon a good session? I suspect that your "educated listeners" probably play tunes or sing themselves if they're asking you for "good tunes". And people who are not new to the music are going to know what sessions are all about. They'll know that it's not a show put on for their benefit.
So I see audience appreciation as totally incidental, and an added bonus to my having a good time. Put it this way, I could tell a joke to a group of people I'd just met in a pub. They might laugh and they might not. If they laugh, I'm going to get a buzz and feel good. Doesn't mean I've put on a public performance for them. It was just an incidental reaction to the joke that must have been innately good or just well-told. Same with the music, for me anyway. I try and play as best I can so that the resulting sound pleases me and I get a buzz from the music. If anyone else in the pub gets a buzz, great, whoopee-doo for them
I have the choice of a kitchen session or going out to the pub. Same players, same tunes - so why go to the pub?
It can't be just to get a few free jars since I'll end up spending a fortune anyway [No matter how generous the publican I will always want an extra one or two (yeah!)large Powers :~)]
Frankly it's because I want to play for people. The session in Maghera every month is one of the biggest nights for Matthew [our very generous landlord]and even though most people who go aren't necessarily into the diddley dee they love the atmosphere that it creates. I LOVE being part of that. In a way I feel that I have a responsibility to play tunes in public for the public because it really is the greatest music and the loveliest place in the world.
I boast about the richness of our music, song and dance to envious punters from other countries who have nothing like it where they come from.
This is where the "different session experiences" thing crops up. You're in Ireland, I'm in Australia. A lot of people here (and the States) wouldn't have a clue what traditional Irish music was, let alone how to appreciate it. In Sydney, and probably other cities in Oz, it's a nighmare trying to find a venue where the landlord would be happy to even have you there on 1 night a week, with no free beers or anything. Don't ask me why. It seems jukeboxes and miked-up concerts are what they want. As for the punters, well, they're mostly completely clueless, so you can't expect anything from them. So if you can find a venue in somewhere like Sydney where the landlord is happy to have you there to play tunes once a week for a few free beers, you end up not giving a scheidt whether the punters enjoy it or not. You're just happy to be able to play tunes with your mates.
So to get to my point: if I had a choice of having a kitchen session or a pub session, it would depend how much beer was available. If there was no beer, we'd go down the pub. If there was lots of beer, we'd almost definitely have the kitchen session because we can hear each other better and there are no clueless punters/landlords to have to deal with.
It must be nice to be somewhere where people aren't clueless...
Don't worry, Dow. We have lots of clueless punters/landlords in Scotland and Ireland too. Even worse, some who think they have a clue. As the old saying goes "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Yeah, the thing is, I'm sure there are more clueless people here per head of population than there are in Scotland and Ireland, due to lack of exposure to the music other than through Riverdance and other McTrad of that ilk. Oh and god yes, the ones who think they have a clue annoy the hell out of me.
Dow! When I was living in Perth (WA) in the early 80s there was a very lively trad. Irish scene ...especially at the old Esplanade Hotel in Fremantle on a Sunday arvo. The punters were always very appreciative and we all enjoyed playing for them so I suppose it was a performance, but only by default as it was an unmiked session. We did do requests (but only when asked) but we never got asked for Danny Boy etc. ...they knew better.
But that was Perth.
Sydney is different it would appear.
The only session I go to nowadays is the Herschel in Slough and that attracts so many musos normally there isn't enough room for any punters in our bar! It's a performance but only for ourselves and Tom King the landlord!
Perth!? That's the other side of the world! I've never been to WA and actually I don't think any of my Aussie friends from Sydney have either. To them Sydney-Perth is like how we think of London-Istanbul. Weird isn't it? I've heard that Perth (and Adelaide?) are a lot more "mother country" than other cities in Oz, so I suppose it doesn't surprise me that there is or was a good scene there. Melbourne was much better off than Sydney for a while but I don't know what it's like at the moment. The thing with Sydney is, it's cyclically good/crap. One year there'll be a few sessions a week and loads of backpackers will come through and bring fiddles and flutes and pipes with them, and then it sort of dies and nothing happens for ages. So any backpackers reading this: come out here on a working holiday like I did and bring your instruments!
PS Geoff, does Tom King have anything to do with the tune "Tom King's Toolbox" by Alan Burton?
Alan Burton has played at the Herschel so it seems likely that he named the tune in Tom's honour. I'll ask him next time I'm there and I'll let you know.
Go to bed!
It's late over there!
But I forgot; it's Friday so it doesnt matter. Stay up and have more beers.
Dow, Perth is indeed the other side of the world from you. Tt's only 40 miles up the road from me ,in fact. Beautiful countryside but not a lot to do in the town itself, apart from changing trains.
I have attended some sessions as an observer many times. Whether or not you are *actually* performing, I am taking in a performance. I came to here the music. The sandwich board on the sidewalk said "Live Irish Session Music 7pm". I came in with expectations that music was gonna happen. The musicians in my estimation were not *performing* for anyone. I mean to say they did not look like they were trying to engage anyone much less an audience. I think maybe they were still getting to know each other? I don't know but I wasn't there for their personalities. I wanted to hear music. And they played. I liked the sound the other punters liked the atmosphere and the publican liked the alcohol sales. Everyone's agenda was different. But because everyone's agenda was different didn't mean that only one agenda was successful. They all were. So it was a public performance but definitely not a show. A good time was had by all and no one got hurt.
Interesting discussion! I didn't have time to read the whole thing, so sorry if repeat what others have already said.
There's a great book by a sociologist named Erving Goffman called "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life." Big with performance theorists. He would make the case that everything we do is performance in some sense, on some level. Sessions, I think, are definitely performances on many levels.
Remember that we are conditioned by our culture to think of performance as involving a stage and an audience, where generally this is not necessary. "Performances" in many cultures have blurred lines, sometimes invisible lines, between "performers" and "audience" (also constructs of our culture.) One could easily argue that a session is precisely a performance of this type, even a house session. When someone starts a tune, they are performing for the rest of the session. We are all at least somewhat self-conscious . . .
Think about what an outside observer would think, one who knew NOTHING about sessions and such but was familliar with some other kind of music. They would certainly categorize a session as a performance, however odd it might seem to them. Doesn't their objectivity have some value here? Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.
And why is a session as a performance so stigmatized, anyway? Does it somehow grate against some ideal about communal, shared experience or something? We have nostalgic notions about what sessions might have been like before we were around, but sessions have always been performances. House sessions included.
Were you ever at a session where one of the players (a new visitor in our case) turned to the punters and made a loud announcement "the next tune will be..."
Yes, Chris, Goffman would say simply playing a tune within earshot of another human being is a performance. And I suppose some people are so self-conscious that playing a tune completely alone feels like a peformance too (whether or not they're in front of a mirror).
But in our everyday lives, I'm guessing most of us distinguish between how we present ourselves in public versus how we present ourselves to a public gathered for the express purpose of seeing us do something special.
In other words, going to the grocery store is a public presentation of self. But standing on a check-out counter in a frilly shirt and tuxedo pants singing Verdi's Aida to attract customers for the grocery store climbs to a whole 'nother level of calling attention to oneself and one's "performance."
Some of us here play in sessions _and_ also peform in gigs and concerts. To an outsider, there may be similarities, but as felt by the musicians (me, at least) the two events are strikingly different. We've already explained those differences in this thread.
Yes, if walking out to the mailbox in your pajamas is a performance, then so is playing in a session. But in my reality, a session where people are striving to impress an audience or each other, where "performance anxiety" and ego and conscious attemtpts at virtuousity and an "us" and "them" mindset between audience and performer loom large (and all the other baggage that typical comes with a "performance" in the more formal sense of the word), is a poor session indeed.
Good morning gang, I'm back, but I have nothing more to add. (Don’t you feel fortunate?) While I was asleep people on this fine site have again said it better than I. Thanks for all the great contributions from all sides – I enjoyed this. See you in the next discussion.
Part of my point is that a musical event is a performance even if there is no "us/them" mentality. Performance anxiety is totally natural in any context. For many, I'm sure that playing in a session surrounded by accomplished musicians inspires more nerves than playing in front of a crowd who probably don't know the music anywhere near as well.
Having performance anxiety and wanting to play well (striving for virtuosity?) doesn't mean your main goal is trying to impress other musicians/punters. We should all try to play well. We all do. And we care what others think of us. Even in the most laid back of situations, playing music with one close friend, we hope that they enjoy the experience as much. You can't take it to the extreme of nobody caring about how well they play or what anybody else thinks. THAT sounds like a lousy session.
Will, I'll just quote British film star David Niven in regards to your mail box "performance", ''Probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings.''
It seems a little silly to try to assign brand new connotations to the term "performance" for the purpose of a heated conversation with a bunch of performers who view sessions as their opportunity to play *without* performing. If I have to read a university textbook to tell me why my internalized meaning of a word is imprecise then we've all forgotten what words are for. They are shortcuts to ideas.
Anyway, going by the standard definition of the word "performance" as it relates to music, I've realized some people at sessions are there to perform, and some aren't. Some people come in to watch a performance and some come in for a beer. So perhaps the relationship between the musos who specifically came out to be heard by the public and the public who specifically came to hear them is a performance. Fine. You win.
Aw come on Kerri... there's no "winners" or "losers" here. When you put it like that it's just like saying that some people come to these discussions to "win arguments" and others just come to share ideas. No one is trying to claim the higher moral ground here, we're just exploring terms that have caused misunderstandings and controversies about sessions.
I don't think that we get to decide whether we are performing or not. I think the context determines this. Sorry if I seem like I'm trying to win an argument - I enjoy reading all of your points of view!
I think I may be speaking from different experience, too. I play three nights a week, all sessions, and get paid pretty well for all of them. I think this changes things vis-s-vis this discussion, no? I guess that's another question (maybe already addressed above?)
Chris, I said "striving for virtuousity" because I meant more than just trying to play well. Don't go insinuating that I said anything about nobody caring how they play.
I'm with Kerri on this. When someone puts on the airs and mannerisms and ego of a "performer" (as in, "Listen to me play--I'm a rock star!") at a session, in my experience the casual, informal, friendly, crack-inducing, good times soon go out the door.
Yes, you can have your textbook definitions. I'll stick to mine, thanks.
Jack, heh, Nevin's line only applies to mailbox struts in January. This _is_ Montana, after all. (A biker friend of mine brags that he has a tatoo in an interesting place. Sometimes it reads "Shorty's." And sometimes it reads "Shorty's Bar and Grill on the Beach at Point Reyes."
Yep, getting paid to lead a session would definitely make it feel like more of a paid gig, a performance, all right. Which is one reason I don't take pay to run our local sesh.
Gotta run...this _is_ a worthwhile discussion, but we might get further if we quit playing semantics and thought more about the actual similarities and differences between a non-performance oriented session and a paid, miked, staged, rehearsed gig.
Chris, I mentioned in a different thread that we seem to be coming from different backgrounds with our session experiences and then we lump them together as if we were all talking about the same thing. I think it's an inherent problem with this format. There seems to be a negative stigma about the idea of a session being a "performance" for some folks here. People are using the term to either support or dismiss concepts and ideas that come up and it also seems to be used in an effort to gain a higher moral ground – and that doesn’t seem to promote a mutual understanding very well IMHO. My hopes in starting this thread were to air it out and hopefully come to an agreement as a group so the word won't be used as a weapon. I think the term is given far more significance than it merits, and it seems to divide folks into "us vs. them" mentalities.
This started to feel awefully personal toward the end - sorry if something about my tone or whatever caused this.
Around here, you really can't have a public session that isn't paid. Unless maybe it's a beginners session not in a pub. Although there isn't a trad musician's union to speak of, there is an unspoken code - including don't do a session for less than x. This may detract from the whole thing for some, but I don't see it that way. The flip side is that there are tons of great musicians around all the time. And we do get together and have sessions where no one gets paid every once in a while! (But always in a pub that regularly supports the music.) I guess this (Boston) is the big market. Please take my comments in this context and take no offense!
I never get offended. All of my comments should be presumed to be peppered with smiley faces all the time. The "fine, you win" was just a begrudging bit of aknowledgement that the strength of my convictions has been slightly altered by the conversation, which, if you have ever argued with me, you would realize is a spectacular achievement. I *do* feel more pressured to "perform" when I am going home with a pocket full of cash at the end of a "session", so the line is a little more blurry than I could bring myself to admit at the start.
That's the real problem with you lot--every time we get a flaming argument going, someone has to go all warm and fuzzy, apologizing, and such. And Kerri, going turncoat on me like that....
Just kidding!
Seriosuly though, the discussion might actually get somewhere if we can agree that the word "performance" means different things to different people (my Webster's lists 11 distinct definitions), and depends also on the context.
I wasn't trying to gain any moral ground in my arguments, just pointing out that my sense of what makes a cracking session tends to lean away from most aspects of a more formal performance. Like Kerri said, when I'm playing in a session, I enjoy the freedom to go to the bar, or have a conversation with a friend who's just come in the door, or simply put down my fiddle and just drink for a spell. once in a great while I enjoy being able to wig out on a tune and try something crazy, just to see if it works, even if it does cause a train wreck. Things I would never consider doing in a performance. Things that most audience members would consider rude, or at least bizarre behavior.
Yes, sessions that are colored more like gigs *can* be fun--for the stars, the core players. Been there, done that. The less experienced players tend to grouse about it behind your back afterward. They don't get to play much. I'm not saying I never enjoy playing to the crowd, or launching into well-polished, pre-arranged sets, but I prefer more inclusive sessions, even if it dilutes the quality of the music a little.
Chris - your points about playing in Boston are well taken. I understand why the big sessions have paid leaders. And I appreciate the desire to maintain a very high caliber of music. I've been to sessions in D.C., Philly (years ago), Portland OR, Vancouver BC, etc. Yes, here in Helena, Montana, circumstances are different. Most of the time, our session has an undercurrent of player development. There are about four core players, and it's not unusual for only two of them to sit in on any given night. If we want our session to grow and improve, we necessarily have to encourage participation, share our knowledge, and generally help people along. Frankly, I find this at least as enjoyable (for different reasons) as an All-Star session going at 90 all night.
And when we've had top-tier players sit in with us (well-known names passing through on tour), to a person they've crowed about how great it is to find a top-flight session in the middle of no where. Great tunes, a core of good players, and incredibly friendly and down to earth. Perfect? Far from it. But a different, more relaxed beast from the ones I've seen in bigger markets.
Kerri, I agree that the line between session and performance is blurry. But because I spend a lot of energy encouraging newbies to join in, I work hard to minimize the performance aspects. I've found that the less like a performance it feels, the more comfortable people are joining in. So it's a very conscious choice for me, and one I can't waver on at this point in our session's life.
well. omg, you guys really rabble roused the night away didnt you? i went to bed and missed it all. Now I'll read it back, some anyway, and gain wisdom and insight to aid me in my musical journey through this.....thing we call life
Veronica--one thing anyone can gain from this discussion is an awareness of how Goffman's sense of presentation of self or Jack's "public performance" colors our daily experiences, including playing music in the company of other people. There's a world of insights in that line of thinking--good stuff to be conscious of as you continue to develop as a musician.
Main Entry: per·for·mance
Pronunciation: p&(r)-'for-m&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : DEED, FEAT
According to that so does eating a sandwich, definitely includes playing in sessions.
2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : IMPLEMENTATION
This ones slightly debatable, depends if you care about pleasing anyone besides yourself. There's two sides to that coin; playing for the audience is one, playing just for the musicians is the other. Any session which is forsakes the idea of entertaining either an audience, the other muso's or yourself is a farce; right up there with the bogeyman, "modal chords" & the easter bunny.
3 a : the action of representing a character in a play b : a public presentation or exhibition
Well, I guess the only debate here is if a pub is a 'public place' seeing as many pubs aren't run by the gov't. Let's face it, people don't go to sessions to drink beer.
4 a : the ability to perform : EFFICIENCY b : the manner in which a mechanism performs
Hopefully.
5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : BEHAVIOR
Exactly.
6 : the linguistic behavior of an individual : PAROLE; also : the ability to speak a certain language -- compare COMPETENCE 3
Whoa, hold on Brad... I don't go to sessions to drink beer? That's news to me! Free beer is the whole reason I got into this racket in the first place!
How about private = home or anywhere that people gather exclusively and public = away from home and anywhere people gather inclusively. Sessions play ('perform') in public, for everyone and not for 'the public'. The bar location was originally just an extension of the smaller kitchen community of the past. As I see it session players play in their community role of providing music for the social atmosphere of the pub of which they are a part and at the same time for their own community of musicians. It certainly isn't about individual 'performance'.It's an older, more intimate relation than that of performer and audience. The music goes back a long way and was meant for dancing and now it creates a great atmosphere for conversation and drinking and getting together.
The Canadian judge is giving a relatively low score of 7.5 for clarity, but JNW may just earn back a few points for difficulty on this postulate, putting him/her back in the running...
Let me rephrase: People don't go to sessions, for the sole purpose, of drinking beer.
It's false logic to say a session isn't a form of a performance. If you belive that a session is in no way, shape, or form a performance than your putting on a little performance of your own.
So, the session that happened in the green room at 4AM in an empty community center Friday night after the audience went home wasn't a session any more, or we were "performing" for each other? Or what? The "performance" line falls somewhere in the middle of what we do, not to one side or the other. If you're going home with a bunch of cash the landlord gave you to entertain his clients, the session stops when the audience goes home, and you're more concerned about what the punters think than savoring your beer and cracking dirty jokes with your friends, then you have stepped over the line.
When I go to the Monday session, it usually doesn't start crackling until the "audience" finally clears out. Then we get a few good tunes in - the highlight of the night - then we are kicked out; the last people in the bar, whining and moaning that they don't stay open late enough despite the fact we're the only people there. Last Monday my only interaction with "the audience" was shoving a drunk who was trying to get at our beer safely away from the table.
It's still a session whether anybody's listening or not, but it isn't always a performance.
"A session is usually comprised of the participating musicians, listeners, onlookers and a third group who neither listen nor look. The importance of good listeners positioned around the musicians cannot be overstated as they help to bring the best out of the musicians and make the session a success." - Charlie Lennon
Gee, why's it so hard to comprehend that a group of friends (and strangers) might get together in a pub or coffee house (or spare meeting room at a library, or park bench) just to play together, with no regard for who else might listen in? My session mates and I play in a pub because it didn't feel right to be inviting people we didn't know into each other's houses for sessions. That problem was solved by agreeing to meet in a public place. A public place also offers the serendipity factor of other musicians stumbling upon the session, which would not likely happen if you always played in your own kitchen (although we once had a wonderful Scottish fiddler fall into our house session--he was selling school books door to door when he rang our doorbell .
Our particular "pub" wasn't even open on Tuesday nights until we asked the owners if we could play there. There is no advertising of the session. We sit in an unlit corner, half of us with our backs to anyone else in the room. The tap room would provide free beer even if no punters showed up--in fact, they've given us free kegs for our summer house ("private")sessions.
And we have loads of good music and fun.
Our session is no different than a group of neighbors using the hoops at a local park to play a pick-up game of basketball. And our session is as far removed from a performance as that game would be from the NBA big-money spectacle down at your city's arena.
"A session...is a gathering of Irish traditional musicians for the purpose of celebrating their common interest in the music by playing it together in a relaxed, informal setting...as an elaborate excuse for getting out of the house and spending an evening with friends over a few pints of beer." (Barry Foy, Field Guide to the Irish Music Session).
"More like a concert or recital then..."
"Wrong again. Although a few solo performances make for a well-rounded evening, the general aim of a session is to get the maximum number of musicians playing together on the maximum number of tunes. In the same way, a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig..... Those kinds of things fall into the category of _show biz_, fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions, which run on different principles altogether. The session is where the music lives and breathes, where it does its homework, where it flexes its muscles and idly picks its nose. If a musician has a mind to package Irish music for maximum marketability, or polish it to a dazzling sheen, or encase it in amber like some kind of prehistoric gnat, a session is neither the time nor place to do it." (Barry Foy again)
I'll note that Kerri and I have not once suggested here that sessions are never performances, only that some sessions aren't, at least in the minds of the musicians and informed bystanders. Seems odd how insistent some of you have been in correcting us--that all sessions *must* be performances. Yes, they are "happenings," and if that's all you mean, then so what? But a session need not be a planned exhibition for the purpose of entertaining an audience of non-participants. Ours isn't.
Our Monday session is not a performance, but the 2 Saturday sessions probably cross the line - the first in the mind of the "audience" (who listen very attentively and sometimes clap and make requests) and the second in the attitude of the landlord, who insists on microphones, and the hosts, who often stand up and sing to the crowd, who are not usually listening. Obviously none of the kitchen / backyard / park / living room sessions are "performances".
By the way, Will, your session sounds like fun. What a deal! The bar sends free kegs to your house parties? Who's deep forest did you have to do your business in to get a sweet deal like that?
This is a perfect example of why many fraternal organizations ban discussion of subjects on which "men (and women) of good will may honorably disagree". (That's an approximate quote.) The usual list includes religion and politics; I'm not sure which heading this would fall under in the great fraternity of ITM, but apparently one of 'em. ;)
FOr cat's sake, o musos of good will, can't we just agree to disagree and go home and play some music?
Sara
This conversation's really rocking! Fiddler on Vermouth, you could be sitting next to me anytime, except I'm way too slow for Monday nights. Wednesday's my speed. It'd be fun to see if we'd recognize each other. Glad I'm back in the running..!Can't comment right now because I'm out the door for an evening of more music.
And likewise, Will, none of us have insisted that sessions have to be "planned exhibition for the purpose of entertaining an audience of non-participants” But you have to admit that the term "public performance" has been used with negative connotations. Case in point, Kerri said: "I personally wouldn't want to be at a session that the players describe as a 'public performance.'" Furthermore, you quoted Barry Fox saying: "a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig..... Those kinds of things fall into the category of _show biz_, fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions" I don't recall implying any such thing. I don’t recall anyone else defining sessions as “public performances” implying that either. We're just talking about getting together for some tunes too.
If your basketball pick-up game were held somewhere that people that weren't playing basketball congregated to talk and have drinks, and some of them watched and enjoyed the game – what would that be? If you have a gathering of friends in a house away from the public and you’re playing tunes together… then maybe that wouldn’t be a “public performance” even though you’re still performing (playing) the tunes... or would it? If you were to suddenly get up and strip your clothes off, people might say to you, “Will, you shouldn’t do that in public – wait till you get home for feck’s sake!”
It's true, I wouldn't want to have a session with a group whose sole purpose was "performing in public", because somebody has to pay me for that kind of thing. I realize some people who don't do many "gigs" might be getting some kind of kick or buzz from the "public" aspect of my sessions, but it's immaterial to me. Irritating, even. I try to ignore it as much as possible. It's a hot button for me because calling a session the same thing I call my gigs means most of the time I am *working for free*, which I am deeply morally opposed to and haven't EVER done (as a musician), even when I really stunk (with the exception of a few open mics and benefit concerts).
Kerri, it blew me away the first time we did a big house session, during the holidays, and I went into the brewery to buy a couple of kegs. They wouldn't take my money--insisted on providing the kegs for free, gave us our choice of ales, porters, and stouts. It's been that way ever since. The owners chalk it up to all of us contributing to our community. I'll drink to that!
I'll be the first to admit that our local session may not stand up to the standards of some our esteemed members here. But we are capable of playing fine music on par with what's heard at good sessions in the major centers of Irish trad. The difference is that we sometimes choose not to dwell on the quality of the sound, preferring instead to just kick back and have fun. Again, like a potluck. The food just has to be decent, not gourmet. Nobody complains when the cooks knock themselves out and the food's spectacular, but in the end, company and conversation's more important.
Jack, I use "public performance" to mean something more formal than just a "happening" or a "playing" of tunes. I'm using it to mean entertainment, along the lines of a show or concert. As I understand it, you're using "public performance" to mean a "happening in a public place." Obviously, by your definition, a session in a pub would be a "public performance." But not all such sessions meet my definition.
While I've had fun at some sessions that were more akin to shows or concerts, I've also seen people have a miserable time at them because they relegate less experienced players to the peanut gallery, waiting for hours for a tune they know, at a speed they can muster.
In our local session, "performance" does indeed have a negative connotation--some of our less experienced players won't play if they sense that there is pressure to perform to some standard higher than what we typically maintain for our very relaxed, informal, just-us-friends-here session.
I quoted Barry Foy only because you quoted Mr. Lennon (btw, your authority figure towers over mine, so I'll grant you points for that cheap debate tactic .
Kerri, I'm not free to advertise it. Go look up the session in Helena and you'll get the name. As far as I know, they don't yet dirstribute outside of Montana. Their porter is screaming, as is their stout, and they do an assortment of seasonal bocks that are very tasty as well.
Will, I didn't intend it as a tactic, but rather as a quote from someone we all respect that could help us define the subject. So I guess we can all agree that even though sessions are usually "public performances" it doesn't mean they have to be "shows" and in fact trying to make them so is not in keeping with the spirit that we all agree a session should be. Also, not all sessions are alike, but that doesn't make one morally better or more correct that the other. And whenever we visit sessions that are in other places we shouldn't judge them by our home standards, but instead decide whether or not we would enjoy participating in them. OK... Group hug.
He would have told me then about the different sessions that were going on. It was kind of a different scene -- there was no such thing as playing for money or anything like that. There wasn't a lot of music at pubs, either. It was just in these little clubs where we got together just for the sake of playing. At the time, Matt Molloy was going to the college there and Mary Bergin and other people of that age group were around -- Sean Keane, James Keane, and the like. That was about the bulk of that age group. Then there was the older generation, like John Egan, John Kelly, Des O'Connor and Tom Mulligan. Leo Rowsome was teaching at the time in the Piper's Club, so he would often be there on a Saturday night. There were some great old characters around. They were wonderful people and you were safe in their hands.
- Tommy Peoples
Our way of life is different. People pick it up through hearing tapes and such, and that's the way it is -- the process has changed. The one downside is that they don't get to know musicians because they don't get a chance to talk to them. You can't divorce the two of them -- that's the big pity for me, because part of the mystique of John Doherty wasn't just the way he played the fiddle, it was talking to him. It was the man, it was having fun and having a bit of craic. Part of John Kelly's mystique was that he had an incredible sense of humor, so you would spend a lot of time in these people's company and you mightn't play a tune. You could be there for hours and never even think of playing, you'd just be having a bit of fun, and that's a very, very important part of the whole operation.
Fun is the foundation of any session I choose to participate in, but I'm afraid the paid session isn't going to go away anytime soon. In my case, getting paid doesn't take away from the fun -- they couldn't pay me enough if I didn't think it was fun.
I hope the paid session doesn't go away, personally, because they help me eat, but the sessions where I have the most fun are the ones described in the above quotes (hopefully trumping the other two quotes). Judges?
Dow's post (quoted below)sums up 90% of the sessions I've been to (Doesn't really answer the question though. Does it matter?):
"They must come into the pub, see the session happening and think "oooh, a live show specially for us, and we don't even have to pay to see it - how nice!" As for the landlord, well any live music is a public show for him/her. He/she gets more customers and more money, and he/she doesn't necessarily have to pay the musicians: "oooh, a live show specially for my pub, and I don't even have to pay to put it on, 'part from maybe a few beers - how nice!". Meanwhile the musicians are thinking "oooh, we get to play whatever tunes we like because we're not expected to put on some sort of show for an audience, and we get a few free beers - how nice!""
Actually, I agree 100 percent with Jack's wrap up in his last...er, well his final...I mean, his previous post I never meant to imply that a non-gigging session was superior to any other kind. Just that I prefer them, sometimes, because they tend to be more inclusive. I like seeing all sorts of people participate, whether or not they're the best Irish trad musos in the room. And circumstances dictate that's how we run our local, hinterland sesh. I wouldn't use the word "performance" to describe our session, but that's just my choice.
Agreed too that being paid to run a session can be a good thing, both an important source of income for a muso or two, and a real asset to a session in keeping it going well.
Kerri--great quotes. Where did you find them? I've seen the Tommy Peoples one before, I think, but not Paddy Glackin's.
Speaking of Tommy's quote... One thing I always enjoyed doing when I was visiting Ireland was going to Tommy's session that he was paid to host. First in Ennistymon, and then latter in Cruises, after mass on Sunday in Ennis, and later over in Tula in Linnanne's.
Morning everyone! (Well, afternoon)...
I'd just like to say that "I win". I claim the moral high ground because I've been to sleep on this and when I woke up I still knew how right I was. I'm a bit disappointed in Will and Kerri for stooping to Jack's level by using quotes to back up our side, like we even need it! Quoting me alongside the likes of Tommy Peoples was okay though
It seems the debate has changed its angle slightly from yesterday. Now people are saying that some sessions are performances and some aren't. Whilst I hate to compromise like that, I'd probably have to agree. I'm afraid life's too short to be spending any time at the "performance" sessions though. I go to play tunes with my mates, but mostly I go to drink beer with my mates. The tunes are secondary to getting off my tits.
Urm... just for the record... I've never been to one of them "performance" sessions that Dow just mentioned or like Will or Kerri were talking about. I've never been to one that's a "show" either -- they don't sound too fun. Well... that just about wraps it up I'd say, it's been a "win win" sort of discussion I'd say. Well... all except Dow who still has to play an english-system push-fiddle. Sorry Dow, don't fret, you'll get a real concertina some day -- I'm sure of it.
Jack I think you should know that the Low Caste Frowned-upon Brotherhood now organises lynchings of persistent anglo offenders, preceded by days of excruciating torture to the genital area. So I'd watch yourself if I were you. You think you're safe in your cosy little San Franciscan hippie world, but the Brotherhood are everywhere
Zina! Is this the longest thread ever on the site?? I think it just may well be. Congrats Jack -the longest thread ever and still just talking in circles.....so who won then?? Just for the record - I'm a 100% on Dow, FOV and Will's side. Couldnt give a toss about punters as long as I get beer.
Having said that - loud, annoying punters really irritate me - not because I want them to listen and respect the music, but because I cant hear myself. If there were two chaps having a conversationa at the bar I wouldnt go sit next to them and start loudly talking over them to Dow, just common senser really.... unless of course they were bodhran players
Could someone please explain to me what the "sides" are? It has become very fuzzy, and my hunch is that we all agree for the most part. And I don't understand the "win" and "loose" part either. Help! :-\
Dow, you don't have to answer, I don't want you to hurt yourself or any innocent bystanders that might happen to be nearby.
'is a session a public performance'?? No - it is an excuse for me and Dow to get free drinks. that is all. Therefore we win Simple - whew and it took you guys 185 posts to work out what I already knew in just one
Indeed. Who would care to synopse this discussion, by, say, categorizing the camps or sides? Brave soul if you do you will be drawn into the vortex and we'll get another 180 posts.
no I think it's a flogged horse. I still think facing in a circle is a session, facing out is a performance. Hah imagine a session where everyone faced out, like the spokes of a wheel.. on a rotating stage ..
hey, jus for fun, for Guiness' sake, not th beer but the statistics keeper, lets just always post here.. no new threads, just l-e-n-g-t-h-e-n this one forever and ever......
CRASH!!! KA-BOOM!!!
(Jack's name dropping flattened us all
Veronica, our band rehearsed like that once, all sitting facing out, with our backs to each other. So we had to listen to each other, rather than rely on visual cues. It was our guitarist's idea. We only did it once. We couldn't play because we were laughing so hard....
We should start a new thread for Jack: "Discussion threads ARE competitions?"
:-|
Jeremy's the boy to ask about the number of posts, Beebs, not me, but it seems to me that we've gone well over 190 or so before a couple of times. Can't remember if we've ever gone over 200. Admittedly, I believe that one of those was the time we decided that we needed to make the thread as long as we could just because we could. I think Kerri may have started a thread that went over 190, once back in the misty days of yore.
Hahaha Beebs you crack me up! I've been waiting for you to come and set the performers straight. If I thought I had to perform in sessions I wouldn't go, full stop. I've had to perform in concerts before and I hated it. That's why I like trad. It's about going to the pub with your mates, and getting drunk whilst playing tunes. It really is that simple. The punters are invisible to me, especially when I'm in the zone and concentrating on my playing, and listening to the other musos (this happens at the start of the evening and then my concentration deteriorates). In fact when someone comes up and taps one of the players on the shoulder and says "thanks we really enjoyed that", it's like "wow, where did you come from? You were actually listening".
Sessions ARE public performances?
Sessions ARE public performances?
Something that Kerri and I talked about on her “noodling” thread raised a question that might be interesting to air out. I was talking about how tunes were possibly learned in the days before tape recorders etc. were around, and that people would have to hear the tunes when they were played at sessions held in pubs where the public could hear them. I used the term “public performance” (of the tunes) as opposed to private performances (in people’s houses.) Kerri thought I might have been inferring that sessions were “public performances” and now when I reflect back on it I started to think about it. (Always dangerous when Jack starts thinking… his wife has to move all the nice furniture and chach-kas out of the room he’s thinking in… give him some space so that nothing gets broken) Anyway, aren’t sessions in pubs public performances? Are dart games in pubs a “public performance” of darts… or what about pool games? And when people dance, isn’t that a public performance as well? It doesn’t have to be a “show” and the players/ dancers don’t have to be intentionally putting on a show -- but people are watching or listening… and sometimes even clapping. Wouldn’t this constitute a “public performance”?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Ah, yes! A nice healthy late nite debate!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
That's like saying my band rehearsals are public performances cuz sometimes my mother shouts "woohoo" from the kitchen, the neighbours complain and the dog curls up at my feet.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
hmm...I think pubs are public gathering places.lots of people dont have private spaces to accomodate a whole session..but i dont thnk that makes it a performance.I think performance is when you face th audience..
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I'm thinking too Jack! The kitchen window's shattered! Electrical appliances in my flat are flickering on and off! Books are hurling themselves off shelves and forming a messy heap of fluttering pages on the floor!
Yeah well anyway, in the days before tape recorders, were pub sessions that popular? I always had this vague idea that tunes were either played at people's houses, or at community dances like my dad says he used to go to when he was a kid. I dunno, but anyway that has nothing to do with the question.
I reckon that it depends what you mean by "public performance". If you mean "playing music in public", then yes that's what sessions are *in the minds of the players*. If you mean "putting on a musical performance in the sense of 'show' for people in the pub to listen to" then that's not necessarily what sessions are *in the minds of the players*. To be honest, when I think of "public performance" I'm more inclined to think of the latter definition for some reason. I'm sure non-musicians must see it as a performance for their benefit, judging by the amount of times I've seen some drunken idiot demanding Wild Rover/Whiskey In The Jar/Fields Of Athenry etc. They must come into the pub, see the session happening and think "oooh, a live show specially for us, and we don't even have to pay to see it - how nice!" As for the landlord, well any live music is a public show for him/her. He/she gets more customers and more money, and he/she doesn't necessarily have to pay the musicians: "oooh, a live show specially for my pub, and I don't even have to pay to put it on, 'part from maybe a few beers - how nice!". Meanwhile the musicians are thinking "oooh, we get to play whatever tunes we like because we're not expected to put on some sort of show for an audience, and we get a few free beers - how nice!"
End of thought.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
My problem with your terminology Jack is "performances." I don't think of the punters as an audience (and indeed, many of them appear to ignore the music completely, except for the extra effort they have to make to talk over it). And I don't think of my session playing as a "performance"--just playing tunes, and if other people happen to listen, well that's their perogative. On the noodle thread, you said you didn't mean performance in the gig or concert sense of the word, but that and a public defender won't make for much of a case.
For me, the reason to hold a session in a pub or other public place is so other musicians can sit in without necessarily being invited. It's open to the public, not a public performance. In contrast, house sessions tend to be among friends, by invite. Our local pub session came about because new people kept hearing about a house session and asking if they could sit in. But it's not exactly kosher to invite total strangers into someone else's house. So it made more sense to hold it at a public place.
What makes a session special to me is when you bring that personal, "in the kitchen" feeling to a pub or coffe house, and there's no division between players and audience--everyone present is a participant. Just neighbors socializing over pints and tunes. I think of it as a potluck where a bunch of people bring music instead of food. (And I'm not into the competitive cooking approach to potlucks.)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And in response to Mark's taxonomy of session meaning, our hosts (the publicans) here in Helena understand that it's not a performance. For them (and myself as well) it's about building community. (They have busier nights of the week when we _don't_ play
.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
i always meant to ask you dow...when i post now at ten pm thursday night, and you post now,what the hell time is it? I'm smart but not tha that smart........
ok now, back to the topic.....zpeaking of audiences, ya gotta love the patron that sits all night listening to tune after tune after tune, never calling attention to himself just listening listening......wow! like, 4 hours later you turn around and he's still there......
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yeah it's to do with semantics. I think Jack's trying to use "performance" in its benign sense of "execute", as in "perform an action". But when it comes to talking about music and the arts, "performance" usually means "show" doesn't it?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
good point "open to the public" meaning anyone can come, but at a house you really should have an invite uh .."knock knock" uh "hi there, i heard some fisddle playin.. kin I come in?"
as an aside: what would you do in this situation?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
It's 3pm and I'm supposed to be reading online Japanese newspapers to find a suitable text to use for the "Section B: Unseen Text" part of the exam I'm making my students do next week. I love making students do exams and seeing the look of panic on their faces as they do last-minute revision from notes before they go in. Hahaha! I just sit there grinning and thinking "I'm glad it's not me doing this", but it actually gets very boring sitting there doing nothing for hours but check that nobody's cheating and copying someone else.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I reckon they're not.
A public performance in my definition firstly requires the presence of a body of people other than those playing, and will not go ahead without them. Lots of people feel that a session ought to have punters, but the session will go ahead quite happily whether anyone else is in the pub or not. They may enhance a session but they are not essential. A chamber orchestra or stage band, however, would call it off if no one showed up.
A public performance also has those non-players as its main focus and raison d'etre. If the intent is to entertain them while they listen passively, or to play music so they can dance, or to lead them in community song (say hymns in church) then I reckon it's a performance. A session has no such focus on non-players it's not there to "do" anything either to them or for them.
I was prompted to think about what is and isn't a performance in the past by one too many incompetent and lazy church musician deflecting justified criticism with the cry, "But it isn't a performance!" I wonder whether this is said at sessions to excuse can't-be-bothered playing…
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Well vboyd, I would say "what's a fisddle? Ain't no fisdlle in my house" and slam the door.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Vboyd, I would simply say very loudly, "Can't you read?" and slam the door.
(I have a front doormat that says "GO AWAY".)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
That's a great excuse Tish, I'll have to use it on Sunday
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
LOL cross-posting makes for interestingly incoherent threads.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
That worry did cross my mind, Dow
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Kerri wrote: "hat's like saying my band rehearsals are public performances cuz sometimes my mother shouts "woohoo" from the kitchen, the neighbours complain and the dog curls up at my feet." With the exception of the neighbors complaining, I think this would be a "private performance"
Interesting thoughts gang! No one has yet to convince me that when you play tunes in a public setting it's not a public performance of those tunes. Half of the crowd not listening doesn't make your performance (execution) of the music “private.” The one guy listening at the bar all night is a member of the public at large, and he's listening, so he's your "audience." To perform in public you need an audience, passive or otherwise, but an "audience" none-the-less. They aren't invited to the pub as if you invited them to your house, and they aren't going to go make a selection on the jukebox, (unless they're a total eejit) so you're performing (playing) the music in public. The jukebox or CD player is off and the air is filled with the music you’re playing, everyone who wants to can listen -- it's a "public performance".
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
If a mime is performing in the park, and no one is watching -- is it no longer a performance?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
If no-one has yet to convince you then that means that we needn't bother because you're already convinced
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I don't have any problem with the adjective "public". You were saying in the other thread you meant the word "performance" as in "the execution of a task" and I agree "public performance" in this context sounds better than "public execution" ;^) However, putting the two words together conjures very specific ideas into my head. I play *in* public (at sessions) and I play *for* the public (at concerts, festivals, etc.). I can't call them both the same thing. And here's why:
I just can't picture going up on stage in a festival before an audience, sitting with my back to them, drinking pints and swapping dirty jokes with my friends, then telling them to sod off when they ask me to sing something. Conversely, I can't imagine leaping off stage in the middle of a concert because I see a cute guy I know way in the back and I want to go for a bit of a flirt. Clearly, session-like behavior would be out of place in a venue where I was expected to "perform". As this type of thing is standard practice at a session, a sesson can't be considered a "performance". At least not by me.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Wow, what a hot thread! By the time I finished writing that last comment a bunch other comments had appeared relating to what I was writing about and now I *really* look like I was paying attention!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And yer man doing the mime in the park. That's a public performance because his sole purpose for being there is to put on a show for people in the park and hopefully make some money (although not necessarily). If the mime guy walks away from his audience and talks to one of his mates for half an hour, his audience aren't going to be there when he gets back. In a session, the customers are going to be there whether you're playing or not, and whether they view your playing as a "live show" or not.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
If a mime falls in the forest, does anybody hear?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I mean, if a mime falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
his audience *isn't* - my grammar has really gone to pot recently.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
But Kerri, the session as a whole is observed and enjoyed by the public isn't it? At our local people show up specifically to enjoy watching and listening to "the session." They tell me they are entertained by the way we carry on and joke with each other -- and they love the music. Sometimes the dart players are happening right to the side of us. (This makes the bodhran players nervous) People are watching them and clapping when they make a good shot sometimes. Are they not "performing" in a sense?
Dow, I just said that bit about not being convinced so you would stop thinking. I don't want anyone to get hurt.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Nope, Jack, no one is my audience at a session. The only people I play for are myself and the other players. Since the other players are playing too, their not a mere audience. And if the guy on the stool at the bar is enjoying his evening out, great, but that's not my responsibility. Which it would be if I were "performing" music for him.
As Mark says, you're trying to use "performance" in its sense of "execution" or "doing." But when talking about playing music, "performance" has a primary connotation of "entertainment" or "presentation."
Your session may be different (indeed, I've heard that the Plough and Stars session is more structured, more like a casual concert, and less of a seat-of-the-pants, off-the-cuff session). But at my local session, the tunes aren't "presented" _to_ anyone. In contrast, songs _are_ presented--the room is hushed, and the singer usually does a pre-arranged piece. But as Tish says, we'll play tunes even if it's just us in the pub, not a punter in sight. My intent is to enjoy playing music, not to impress or otherwise affect any non-players within earshot. It's no more a public performance than it is a private performance when I lock the bathroom door and play fiddle all by my lonesome.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him ... is he still wrong?" -- George Carlin
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
BTW Jack, so there's nobody watching your mime in the park. It's still a public performance if it's not the middle of the night and some members of the public are likely to turn up. He's just unlucky because nobody happens to be there to watch. Or maybe he's just crap at what he does. Now, if he does his mime act deep in the middle of Kerri's dense forest in the middle of the night, then no, it's not a public performance because unless he's incredibly dim or on drugs, he'd realise that nobody's going to be watching.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
...does his act deep in the middle of Kerri's dense forest... LOL oh dear. Time for me to leave!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Hmm, OK Jack, attacking it from another angle… "in public" to me doesn't make it a "performance" unless anyone in the "audience" has a right to an expectation of some sort e.g. they've paid $250 for a ticket so it had better be good, or something has been advertised as a dinner-dance so you have a right to expect to be able to foxtrot/cha cha/quickstep to at least some of the music. Even if a pub advertises a gig with no cover charge, the audience still has a right to expect certain standards of playing and a type of music appropriate to the location and time of day.
Does the lone punter at the bar have right to an expectation? He might grizzle if they music is scheidt and ask for the juke box instead, but does he have a *right* to do that?
This is a bit off the top of my head (like Dow I'm supposed to be doing something else of a very tedious nature) but it seems to me that an audience at a performance (whether they've paid $$ or not) has rights, a punter wandering in to a session possibly doesn't have the same rights and maybe that's the what makes something a performance, regardless of the fact that it's "in public"…?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
But Will, We aren't playing for the punters either, and we don't come to the pub to "perform." We come together to share the music -- play with and for each other, but that doesn't necessarily mean the result isn't, in it’s essence, a "public performance" whether we intended as such or not… does it?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
See Dow... I knew someone would get hurt. hahahahaha
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Tish, I think "rights may have something to do with it. But I also think - or thought - that it had a lot to do with the musicians' expectations and beliefs about what they're doing too. I think that most session players wouldn't think of themselves as putting on any sort of show for the public, and if it was like that then they'd probably avoid them like the plague - I certainly would. I'm really surprised that Jack sees it differently. Jack you're just so impure and untrad
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Tish, the session is often advertised in papers, published on-line etc. And at our local there's a sidewalk board that says, "Traditional Irish Music tonight" and it's always free. People come in to listen and watch... it's still a "public performance"... isn't it?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I don't come to the pub to "perform," Dow, but it still ends up being a "public performance" anyway.
"impure and untrad" hahahahaha... stop... yur killin me.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
A-ha! Now we're getting to what I talked about in my 1st post, which is how the punters view us. What you're saying now, Jack, is that none of us views our playing in pubs as a "show", but the fact that some of the punters might see our playing as a "show" makes it a "show". Well, all I can say is that this difference in perspective must be what causes a lot of aggro and resentment between players/punters, and in some places (especially over here in Oz) the landlord.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
One man's "show" is another man's "performance" I guess. Remind me to bring a plastic flute, toy concertina and a helmet to OZ sessions Dow
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
You already have a toy concertina
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I think Jack is winding us up.
So: remember the car wash scene in Cool Hand Luke? Was the woman in the tight, wet dress washing her car, or was she giving a performance of washing her car?
I think that's where Jack is coming from.
I used to be a professional juggler. In the summer, I often practiced outside, in public places (parks, college campus, gymnasiums). If I wanted my practices to be effective, I often had to ignore the bystanders who sometimes insisted on treating it like a performance. When I quit throwing up for a living, I would still go juggle in a park, for my own enjoyment. But all too often I'd get an audience and end up dealing with "Can you eat an apple?" and "Do that one again!" and "I saw a guy on tv who juggled 99 balls--can you do that?" So I eventually quit juggling in public places. Even if it wasn't a performance in my mind, other people couldn't understand or respect that.
Sure, sessions can have the same problem. But it's not _my_ problem. We just hunch closer together in our little circle and ignore the bleating for Orange Blossom Special.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
WHAT were you saying about my dense forest?
LSHTARDMCARMNSC!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Will, yes, our sessions are "tight" I guess -- that's how we like to play. But at the end of the day we're still just sharing the music with one another, and we aren't really concerned with the crowd's enjoyment so much. It's fun when the crowd participates by demonstrating their enjoyment and encouraging us, but that's not why we do it.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yer right, FonV, go away to type a response and fifteen more have appeared in the interim 8>)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I'm not sure that he is winding us up. If he is he's doing a crap job of it because it's actually an interesting question. It's probably quite healthy to think about how punters etc view sessions once in a while, if only because it might help you understand why they're asking us to play naff Wild Rover songs. Then at least you can consider their perspective and feelings before you tell them to fack off!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I go to the park and play tunes on hot days. People try to give me money and I tell them, "Thanks, but I'm not busking." and I give them their money back. They'll sit down nearby and listen, and one time two lovely young gals who tried to give me money came back with flowers and put them on my flute case. (I melted) So even though I told people it wasn't a public performance... they saw it as one anyway. So were they wrong? If so, what was it, and what were they doing in relation to it?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
How "Haight"!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
No kidding, tish!
Hey, Jack, you haven't mentioned the type of session where the audience is actually EXPECTED to leave BECAUSE of the performance: beginner sessions.
Are they still public performances? If so, what are they after the public runs screaming from the pub with their fingers in their ears? Are they still sessions, and therefore public performances (with no public), or are they no longer sessions, as there is no longer a public to perform to?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Oh... I play in the park on hot days because it's too hot in my apartment... I should have added.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
In Montreal, we play in the park for fun, even if we have air conditioning. And you said you were a hippie!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Sometimes our sessions out-last the crowd, Kerri. Yea... what is it then? A victory party?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Whew, just caught up again. Yes Jack, if your session is advertised as "Traditional Irish Music Tonight" just the same way as the pub might advertise "R&B Tonight" or "[insert band here] Tribute Night" then that does tend to push it towards a performance by my definition. I wonder, though, how sessioneers who feel most strongly that a session is not a performance would like to see the publicity worded.
(And ooooh, Dow, you *bitch*
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Well I wouldn't do it if it wasn't fun.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
The two lovely young girls weren't "wrong", in fact they were so totally right, man. That had nothing to do with "public performance", it had to do with peace, and love
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack, you're sessions are tight because (besides being talented players) you like to announce the tunes before a set, and at least some of you play in a band together. We have sessions like that too, sometimes, and the non-core players sure complain about it when we do--"We can't keep up," and "Those were obscure tunes...not very inclusive," and "That was such a nice arrangement we didn't want to mess it up."
I suspect some of the debate here stems from big city vs. small town. At our session, everyone's on a first-name basis. There's no advertising. The pub isn't even a real pub--just the tap room of a local micro-brewery. Sometimes we just sit and talk. Sometimes we all learn a tune, slow and over and over. Sometimes we play stuff "wrong" on purpose. The kind of stuff that would drive an "audience" batty. And that's okay because they're not expecting a performance or show.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I would word my sandwich board something like "There's absolutely nothing to see here, folks. Move along."
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Actually Tish, I never tell people to fack off in a session, I just set Beebs on them! ("Kill!")
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Maybe, if your session is a "public performance", the real question should be "Are public performances sessions?"
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Possible sidewalk-board-signs:
"Private Meeting of ‘ITM Geeks Anonymous’ (public welcome)"
"English-system Concertina's attempting ITM here tonight, enter at your own risk."
"Caution: Drinking and driving tunes don't mix"
"Experiments involving unusual sounds being conducted here tonight, sorry for the inconvenience."
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Right, Kerri. I've walked in on sessions that clearly were public performances (with a mic for every player, and play lists), and bounded back to the car quicker than I could think.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Come on now... it's not my session that I'm talking about, Kerri -- it's sessions in general -- the concept and application.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Heh, we won't have a sandwich board. When the local newspaper tried to run a notice about the session, the publican asked them to remove it. Is the public welcome to enter? Yes. Are they invited? No. Do we care what they think about the music. No, not as long as they don't actively object to it. The ones who don't like it can go to the bar next door.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
For the record: Our session isn't miked, everyone's welcome, it's not intended as a show. Come on... give me a break gang!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Dow, I typed "you bitch" after your toy concertina comment but there's so much steam coming off everyone's keyboards that the link was lost
And poor beebs, what bad press, you know she's really a sweetie. (Deep down >8>)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack, when you come to Australia I'll lend you my very own dockyard hard hat.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I've been to hot sessions in Ireland that were hosted by people who were in bands together. I didn't mind a bit, infact I felt lucky to be there. They didn't exclude me or anyone else, they would talk about what tune they wanted to play with what tune... what's wrong with that?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And for the record, I've seen and done many public performances disguised as sessions. Every pub in Doolin, for example, pays a bunch of musicians to play every single night all summer long for the tourists. They sit in a circle and crack the odd joke and sometimes they are surrounded by backpakers with guitars, so it looks like a session to the untrained eye, but I bet they'd be shown the door right quick if the "session" wasn't Irish enough or fast enough for the tourists.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Do the group of punters have absolutely no influence whatsoever on the music and the way it's played? If you cleared the bar of everyone but the musicians would the mood of the session remain exactly the same, and not a note be played any differently than if they were there?
If yes, then this is absolutely not a public performance. As a bonus, you may be eligible for full membership in a Buddhist monastery.
(And I will be totally unaffected by Michael Gill's assessment of my post, good or bad. ommmmm....)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack, there's nothing wrong with you, *right everybody* wink wink? Put the english system concertina down before somebody gets hurt...
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Well, greg, a bit of redundancy in the first movement, but I think the judges will give high marks for your use of five four-syllable words in such a brief remark.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Punters certainly can enhance or detract from the playing, but their removal won't render the session pointless. An appreciative or unnappreciative concert audience can likewise enhance or detract from the music, but their removal will render the event pointless.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
six.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Sign outside the Plough & Stars reads "TONITE! Bearded hippie performs bouncy folk music on honky squeezebox thing, accompanied by his unmiked friends. Everyone welcome except those who play smooth, flowing tunes on sweet-sounding squeezebox things".
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Oh, yeah, and greg, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOHOOOOOOHOOOOO! Go Flames Go! How's the craic in Calgary tonight?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
One of the things that makes a session different than a “show” is the fact that the players aren't putting one on. But the session is still being performed (happening) in public thus making it a "public performance". The fact that the session would continue unaltered if the punters leave doesn't change the fact that it's happening in a public place.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Okay, Will, I agree, Jack's winding us up
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Agreed it's still in public. We're just defining the word "performance" differently.
Jack, what's your cap size? Just looking at the adjustable band on this here hard hat.
And Dow - you *BITCH*!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
"being performed (happening) in public"... so is taking the garbage to the curb also a public performance? Standing in line at the bank machine? Suntanning? I'm starting to feel very self-conscious!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Sign outside the Plough: "IRA bomb-drive here tonight, donate unwanted scrap english-system concertinas in bin at front door"
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I can't hear you, fov! The car horns are deafening. My kids' school decided to go ahead with the spring concert during the game, so we had to rely on cell phones with web access to keep track. D'oh!
We'll need to clear out of the Joyce early on Saturday before the big screen fires up.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Beebs is NOT a bitch. She's just in a very very bad mood, and she's been in a very very bad mood for a very very long time... *grin* Just kidding, Brides.
Och aye, but you guys do like to split hairs.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I wouldn't bother going at all - the party downtown probably won't stop between now and then long enough to get a tune in...
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Well Kerri, if your session is like taking out the trash I don't know what to say.
hahahaha
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Suntanning. I've seen occasions where it's a public performance, and some where it's not.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Worse is when it's a public display, Greg...
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Tish, I'm not really being a bitch for slagging anglos. I'm just making rude comments on every single thesession thread to rally support for the Low Caste Frowned-upon Brotherhood and to remind readers that we're a force to be reckoned with, one that won't be pushed into the background by dismissive remarks as we march deeper into the 21st century.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
But seriously... Kerri, if people showed up to watch you take out the trash, stand in line. (this is believable, I've seen your photo
Then it could be considered a "public performance" I suppose.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I figure if I say "execution" where Jack says "performance" and Jack says "show" where I say "performance"... maybe...?
Aiiee, 4.50 Friday afternoon, time to go home and play my "fisddle"
CU Sunday, Dow.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Tish
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Slagging anglos? Low caste frowned-upon..? Is this a Quebec separation discussion?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Helas, c'est vrai. Even now there's a mob outside my window clamouring for the recycling. And autographs.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Wow, what a bizarre time to lapse into French! I didn't even see you Quebec comment greg. We must be psychically in tuuuune.....
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
It's about the free-reed separatist movement. Down with the anglo oppressors!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yea Dow... you bitch! hahahahahahahahaha*gulp*hahahahahaha
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
If I don't know what the hell you're talking about can I still play?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and he still plays, so go ahead
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Sorry, a deliberate misunderstanding. I can't believe how many hits this thread has had since it was posted. It really doesn't deserve the attention
Back to work...
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yea... what was I saying?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Hey... where'd everyone go? Dow? Kerri? Will? Zina? Hey guys... I was just kidding... *sigh*
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
A concertina running gag thing. I've been doig research.
http://www.concertina.net/rd_time4english.html
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
that should read "doing doig research".
(not very interesting - all I found was http://www.doigcorp.com/)
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Past one AM, and I'm going to bed!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
OK... I guess I will too then... *yawn*
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Fine, if you're all packing it in, no point sticking around trying to get myself riled up.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I must say that some of the posts here are a load of tosh! A session isn't a public performance....?? Tell that to the public! I can't believe statements like 'We are only playing for ourselves' or 'If someone is listening then that is their prerogative'.
Tell me this - if all of the people in the pub totally ignored you and your music and they all talked loudly and over the top of the tunes and wouldn't keep quiet when you called a singer - would it not bother you? IF it DOES bother you then it is a perfoemance since you care about what they think.
Pretending that it doesn't matter if you connect with the punters or not is nonsense, and if it does matter then clearly you are performing, paid or not.
I know that when we a sussing out a potential new session venue and important aspect is whether or not there is likely to be a sympathetic audience - are the 'it's not a performance' people out there saying that it really doesn't matter what kind of people are in your session pub as long as you get a few free beers? Get real!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by breandan
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Oh dear, I go to my bed about 03.00 and return to see a new thread with over 100 posts. As, it was inspired by something I suggested in a previous post, I feel that I should make a comment.
It obviously depends on how you define the terms "public" and "performance". However, in this instance, I'll concede that Jack is technically correct and that a session is a "PP", although I wasn't really thinking of it as such. A quote from Nigel Gatherer's music pages about the origin of sessions reads as follows
"It has been suggested that the first move to play Irish music in a pub was in The Black Cap in London's Camden Town in 1947, followed by The Devonshire Arms, also in London. From then it spread over the years so that there are now Irish pub sessions all over the world, from Japan to Rio de Janeiro. Of course there were jam sessions before, during the Jazz era for example, but nothing has caught the people's imagination like the Irish pub session."
See http://users.argonet.co.uk/users/gatherer/sess.html
However, I would suggest that there has always been sessions of some sort whenever or wherever friends have gathered together to play music eg in neighbours houses, village halls, bothies, and, of course, pubs. Today's sessions are just an extension of this and are still, in some ways, private events. Some are more inviting than others but they are not necessarily intended for everyone just to come along and take part. Of course, in practice, most musicians aren't turned away and the invitation often tends to be implicit but it is still required even if it is described as an "Open Invitation". I know that this sounds a bit pedantic but that's how the problem arises when people turn up at these sessions and don't understand "the rules" eg when and where shakey eggs are welcome, playing different styles of music, when and when not to "noodle" etc. Now, all of these things can be acceptable, even welcomed depending on the type of session or, on the other hand, "grimly tolerated" at the very best.
To sum up, if you regard a "session" as the natural successor of the practice of friends getting together for " a tune", then I still think it's a natural environvent to "pick up" and swap tunes. However, I realise that things have moved on these days and most good sessions are much more sophisticated and complex than that so, once again, it just depends on who you're with and where you are. I keep using phrases like "common sense" and "good manners". Most of us here know what is and not acceptable but, unfortunately, many casual participants don't.
John
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Johannes J
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Okay, let's "get real". Here's what I think. If all of the people in the pub totally ignored me and my music I wouldn't give a scheidt. If they all talked loudly and over the top of the tunes I would be mildly irritated and so would the rest of the musicians I play with, not because they're not appreciating the music (I expect that most members of the public have scheidt taste in music) but because it would mean we'd have to go through the rigmarole of finding a new venue where we could hear ourselves play (not necessarily one where the punters enjoy our tunes, because, like I said, I don't give a scheidt about that). So yes breandan, I for one am saying that I don't give a scheidt what kind of people are in my session pub as long as 1) I can hear myself and my mates play tunes, and 2) we get free beers.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Ok - to put a more positive spin on it. If I am playing tunes and see a couple of the punters tapping their feet along with the music then I feel that connection is valuable. I get a buzz out of it - don't you?
It's also marvellous when an educated listener comes over and asks for a really good tune [not the bloody lonesome boatman or the fileds of athenry]. Don't you ever get that feeling?
IF you do then have you performed or not?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by breandan
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yeah, it is nice when punters appreciate it, of course, but it's not necessary to have that connection for a good session. When you do get that connection with punters, are those punters viewing your playing as a show for them, or do they just feel privileged to have happened upon a good session? I suspect that your "educated listeners" probably play tunes or sing themselves if they're asking you for "good tunes". And people who are not new to the music are going to know what sessions are all about. They'll know that it's not a show put on for their benefit.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
So I see audience appreciation as totally incidental, and an added bonus to my having a good time. Put it this way, I could tell a joke to a group of people I'd just met in a pub. They might laugh and they might not. If they laugh, I'm going to get a buzz and feel good. Doesn't mean I've put on a public performance for them. It was just an incidental reaction to the joke that must have been innately good or just well-told. Same with the music, for me anyway. I try and play as best I can so that the resulting sound pleases me and I get a buzz from the music. If anyone else in the pub gets a buzz, great, whoopee-doo for them
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Agreed - However ...
I have the choice of a kitchen session or going out to the pub. Same players, same tunes - so why go to the pub?
It can't be just to get a few free jars since I'll end up spending a fortune anyway [No matter how generous the publican I will always want an extra one or two (yeah!)large Powers :~)]
Frankly it's because I want to play for people. The session in Maghera every month is one of the biggest nights for Matthew [our very generous landlord]and even though most people who go aren't necessarily into the diddley dee they love the atmosphere that it creates. I LOVE being part of that. In a way I feel that I have a responsibility to play tunes in public for the public because it really is the greatest music and the loveliest place in the world.
I boast about the richness of our music, song and dance to envious punters from other countries who have nothing like it where they come from.
Public performance - Absolutely!!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by breandan
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
This is where the "different session experiences" thing crops up. You're in Ireland, I'm in Australia. A lot of people here (and the States) wouldn't have a clue what traditional Irish music was, let alone how to appreciate it. In Sydney, and probably other cities in Oz, it's a nighmare trying to find a venue where the landlord would be happy to even have you there on 1 night a week, with no free beers or anything. Don't ask me why. It seems jukeboxes and miked-up concerts are what they want. As for the punters, well, they're mostly completely clueless, so you can't expect anything from them. So if you can find a venue in somewhere like Sydney where the landlord is happy to have you there to play tunes once a week for a few free beers, you end up not giving a scheidt whether the punters enjoy it or not. You're just happy to be able to play tunes with your mates.
So to get to my point: if I had a choice of having a kitchen session or a pub session, it would depend how much beer was available. If there was no beer, we'd go down the pub. If there was lots of beer, we'd almost definitely have the kitchen session because we can hear each other better and there are no clueless punters/landlords to have to deal with.
It must be nice to be somewhere where people aren't clueless...
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Don't worry, Dow. We have lots of clueless punters/landlords in Scotland and Ireland too. Even worse, some who think they have a clue. As the old saying goes "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Johannes J
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yeah, the thing is, I'm sure there are more clueless people here per head of population than there are in Scotland and Ireland, due to lack of exposure to the music other than through Riverdance and other McTrad of that ilk. Oh and god yes, the ones who think they have a clue annoy the hell out of me.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Dow! When I was living in Perth (WA) in the early 80s there was a very lively trad. Irish scene ...especially at the old Esplanade Hotel in Fremantle on a Sunday arvo. The punters were always very appreciative and we all enjoyed playing for them so I suppose it was a performance, but only by default as it was an unmiked session. We did do requests (but only when asked) but we never got asked for Danny Boy etc. ...they knew better.
But that was Perth.
Sydney is different it would appear.
The only session I go to nowadays is the Herschel in Slough and that attracts so many musos normally there isn't enough room for any punters in our bar! It's a performance but only for ourselves and Tom King the landlord!
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Geoff Pollitt
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
This entire thread has been quite a public performance (-;
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Snarkhunter
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Perth!? That's the other side of the world! I've never been to WA and actually I don't think any of my Aussie friends from Sydney have either. To them Sydney-Perth is like how we think of London-Istanbul. Weird isn't it? I've heard that Perth (and Adelaide?) are a lot more "mother country" than other cities in Oz, so I suppose it doesn't surprise me that there is or was a good scene there. Melbourne was much better off than Sydney for a while but I don't know what it's like at the moment. The thing with Sydney is, it's cyclically good/crap. One year there'll be a few sessions a week and loads of backpackers will come through and bring fiddles and flutes and pipes with them, and then it sort of dies and nothing happens for ages. So any backpackers reading this: come out here on a working holiday like I did and bring your instruments!
PS Geoff, does Tom King have anything to do with the tune "Tom King's Toolbox" by Alan Burton?
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Hi Dow!
Alan Burton has played at the Herschel so it seems likely that he named the tune in Tom's honour. I'll ask him next time I'm there and I'll let you know.
Go to bed!
It's late over there!
But I forgot; it's Friday so it doesnt matter. Stay up and have more beers.
Mmmmm! Beer!
Back to my marking :(
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Geoff Pollitt
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Tell him the tune has spead to Oz via the Kerr-Fagan link.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Dow, Perth is indeed the other side of the world from you. Tt's only 40 miles up the road from me ,in fact.
Beautiful countryside but not a lot to do in the town itself, apart from changing trains.
# Posted on June 3rd 2004 by Johannes J
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
The worst ones are. The best ones aren't. Infact, it could be how you define a good or bad session
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I have attended some sessions as an observer many times. Whether or not you are *actually* performing, I am taking in a performance. I came to here the music. The sandwich board on the sidewalk said "Live Irish Session Music 7pm". I came in with expectations that music was gonna happen. The musicians in my estimation were not *performing* for anyone. I mean to say they did not look like they were trying to engage anyone much less an audience. I think maybe they were still getting to know each other? I don't know but I wasn't there for their personalities. I wanted to hear music. And they played. I liked the sound the other punters liked the atmosphere and the publican liked the alcohol sales. Everyone's agenda was different. But because everyone's agenda was different didn't mean that only one agenda was successful. They all were. So it was a public performance but definitely not a show. A good time was had by all and no one got hurt.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by autumn
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Interesting discussion! I didn't have time to read the whole thing, so sorry if repeat what others have already said.
There's a great book by a sociologist named Erving Goffman called "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life." Big with performance theorists. He would make the case that everything we do is performance in some sense, on some level. Sessions, I think, are definitely performances on many levels.
Remember that we are conditioned by our culture to think of performance as involving a stage and an audience, where generally this is not necessary. "Performances" in many cultures have blurred lines, sometimes invisible lines, between "performers" and "audience" (also constructs of our culture.) One could easily argue that a session is precisely a performance of this type, even a house session. When someone starts a tune, they are performing for the rest of the session. We are all at least somewhat self-conscious . . .
Think about what an outside observer would think, one who knew NOTHING about sessions and such but was familliar with some other kind of music. They would certainly categorize a session as a performance, however odd it might seem to them. Doesn't their objectivity have some value here? Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.
And why is a session as a performance so stigmatized, anyway? Does it somehow grate against some ideal about communal, shared experience or something? We have nostalgic notions about what sessions might have been like before we were around, but sessions have always been performances. House sessions included.
Chris
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Chris McGrath
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Were you ever at a session where one of the players (a new visitor in our case) turned to the punters and made a loud announcement "the next tune will be..."
urnghhhfmmm.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by grego
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
In some ways house sessions may be even more of a performance that pub sessions. People tend to be listening for one thing
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Orson Carte
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
This hair splitting is getting Freudian.
Yes, Chris, Goffman would say simply playing a tune within earshot of another human being is a performance. And I suppose some people are so self-conscious that playing a tune completely alone feels like a peformance too (whether or not they're in front of a mirror).
But in our everyday lives, I'm guessing most of us distinguish between how we present ourselves in public versus how we present ourselves to a public gathered for the express purpose of seeing us do something special.
In other words, going to the grocery store is a public presentation of self. But standing on a check-out counter in a frilly shirt and tuxedo pants singing Verdi's Aida to attract customers for the grocery store climbs to a whole 'nother level of calling attention to oneself and one's "performance."
Some of us here play in sessions _and_ also peform in gigs and concerts. To an outsider, there may be similarities, but as felt by the musicians (me, at least) the two events are strikingly different. We've already explained those differences in this thread.
Yes, if walking out to the mailbox in your pajamas is a performance, then so is playing in a session. But in my reality, a session where people are striving to impress an audience or each other, where "performance anxiety" and ego and conscious attemtpts at virtuousity and an "us" and "them" mindset between audience and performer loom large (and all the other baggage that typical comes with a "performance" in the more formal sense of the word), is a poor session indeed.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Good morning gang, I'm back, but I have nothing more to add. (Don’t you feel fortunate?) While I was asleep people on this fine site have again said it better than I. Thanks for all the great contributions from all sides – I enjoyed this. See you in the next discussion.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Whoah... I post that last bit and there's still more... I thought everyone packed it in. OK... go on....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Hey Will, like I mentioned to Kerri last night. If people are showing up to watch you go to the mail box in your jammies -- it's a public performance.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
No Jack, it's when I forget I don't have any jammies on that it's a performance....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Will -
Part of my point is that a musical event is a performance even if there is no "us/them" mentality. Performance anxiety is totally natural in any context. For many, I'm sure that playing in a session surrounded by accomplished musicians inspires more nerves than playing in front of a crowd who probably don't know the music anywhere near as well.
Having performance anxiety and wanting to play well (striving for virtuosity?) doesn't mean your main goal is trying to impress other musicians/punters. We should all try to play well. We all do. And we care what others think of us. Even in the most laid back of situations, playing music with one close friend, we hope that they enjoy the experience as much. You can't take it to the extreme of nobody caring about how well they play or what anybody else thinks. THAT sounds like a lousy session.
Chris
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Chris McGrath
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Will, I'll just quote British film star David Niven in regards to your mail box "performance", ''Probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings.''
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
It seems a little silly to try to assign brand new connotations to the term "performance" for the purpose of a heated conversation with a bunch of performers who view sessions as their opportunity to play *without* performing. If I have to read a university textbook to tell me why my internalized meaning of a word is imprecise then we've all forgotten what words are for. They are shortcuts to ideas.
Anyway, going by the standard definition of the word "performance" as it relates to music, I've realized some people at sessions are there to perform, and some aren't. Some people come in to watch a performance and some come in for a beer. So perhaps the relationship between the musos who specifically came out to be heard by the public and the public who specifically came to hear them is a performance. Fine. You win.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Aw come on Kerri... there's no "winners" or "losers" here. When you put it like that it's just like saying that some people come to these discussions to "win arguments" and others just come to share ideas. No one is trying to claim the higher moral ground here, we're just exploring terms that have caused misunderstandings and controversies about sessions.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I don't think that we get to decide whether we are performing or not. I think the context determines this. Sorry if I seem like I'm trying to win an argument - I enjoy reading all of your points of view!
I think I may be speaking from different experience, too. I play three nights a week, all sessions, and get paid pretty well for all of them. I think this changes things vis-s-vis this discussion, no? I guess that's another question (maybe already addressed above?)
Chris
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Chris McGrath
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Chris, I said "striving for virtuousity" because I meant more than just trying to play well. Don't go insinuating that I said anything about nobody caring how they play.
I'm with Kerri on this. When someone puts on the airs and mannerisms and ego of a "performer" (as in, "Listen to me play--I'm a rock star!") at a session, in my experience the casual, informal, friendly, crack-inducing, good times soon go out the door.
Yes, you can have your textbook definitions. I'll stick to mine, thanks.
Jack, heh, Nevin's line only applies to mailbox struts in January. This _is_ Montana, after all. (A biker friend of mine brags that he has a tatoo in an interesting place. Sometimes it reads "Shorty's." And sometimes it reads "Shorty's Bar and Grill on the Beach at Point Reyes."
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yep, getting paid to lead a session would definitely make it feel like more of a paid gig, a performance, all right. Which is one reason I don't take pay to run our local sesh.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Gotta run...this _is_ a worthwhile discussion, but we might get further if we quit playing semantics and thought more about the actual similarities and differences between a non-performance oriented session and a paid, miked, staged, rehearsed gig.
Check on youse all later....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Chris, I mentioned in a different thread that we seem to be coming from different backgrounds with our session experiences and then we lump them together as if we were all talking about the same thing. I think it's an inherent problem with this format. There seems to be a negative stigma about the idea of a session being a "performance" for some folks here. People are using the term to either support or dismiss concepts and ideas that come up and it also seems to be used in an effort to gain a higher moral ground – and that doesn’t seem to promote a mutual understanding very well IMHO. My hopes in starting this thread were to air it out and hopefully come to an agreement as a group so the word won't be used as a weapon. I think the term is given far more significance than it merits, and it seems to divide folks into "us vs. them" mentalities.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Thanks, Jack. I see the problem.
Will and Kerri -
This started to feel awefully personal toward the end - sorry if something about my tone or whatever caused this.
Around here, you really can't have a public session that isn't paid. Unless maybe it's a beginners session not in a pub. Although there isn't a trad musician's union to speak of, there is an unspoken code - including don't do a session for less than x. This may detract from the whole thing for some, but I don't see it that way. The flip side is that there are tons of great musicians around all the time. And we do get together and have sessions where no one gets paid every once in a while! (But always in a pub that regularly supports the music.) I guess this (Boston) is the big market. Please take my comments in this context and take no offense!
Chris
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Chris McGrath
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I never get offended. All of my comments should be presumed to be peppered with smiley faces all the time. The "fine, you win" was just a begrudging bit of aknowledgement that the strength of my convictions has been slightly altered by the conversation, which, if you have ever argued with me, you would realize is a spectacular achievement. I *do* feel more pressured to "perform" when I am going home with a pocket full of cash at the end of a "session", so the line is a little more blurry than I could bring myself to admit at the start.
:^) ;^D :^)
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
That's the real problem with you lot--every time we get a flaming argument going, someone has to go all warm and fuzzy, apologizing, and such. And Kerri, going turncoat on me like that....
Just kidding!
Seriosuly though, the discussion might actually get somewhere if we can agree that the word "performance" means different things to different people (my Webster's lists 11 distinct definitions), and depends also on the context.
I wasn't trying to gain any moral ground in my arguments, just pointing out that my sense of what makes a cracking session tends to lean away from most aspects of a more formal performance. Like Kerri said, when I'm playing in a session, I enjoy the freedom to go to the bar, or have a conversation with a friend who's just come in the door, or simply put down my fiddle and just drink for a spell. once in a great while I enjoy being able to wig out on a tune and try something crazy, just to see if it works, even if it does cause a train wreck. Things I would never consider doing in a performance. Things that most audience members would consider rude, or at least bizarre behavior.
Yes, sessions that are colored more like gigs *can* be fun--for the stars, the core players. Been there, done that. The less experienced players tend to grouse about it behind your back afterward. They don't get to play much. I'm not saying I never enjoy playing to the crowd, or launching into well-polished, pre-arranged sets, but I prefer more inclusive sessions, even if it dilutes the quality of the music a little.
Chris - your points about playing in Boston are well taken. I understand why the big sessions have paid leaders. And I appreciate the desire to maintain a very high caliber of music. I've been to sessions in D.C., Philly (years ago), Portland OR, Vancouver BC, etc. Yes, here in Helena, Montana, circumstances are different. Most of the time, our session has an undercurrent of player development. There are about four core players, and it's not unusual for only two of them to sit in on any given night. If we want our session to grow and improve, we necessarily have to encourage participation, share our knowledge, and generally help people along. Frankly, I find this at least as enjoyable (for different reasons) as an All-Star session going at 90 all night.
And when we've had top-tier players sit in with us (well-known names passing through on tour), to a person they've crowed about how great it is to find a top-flight session in the middle of no where. Great tunes, a core of good players, and incredibly friendly and down to earth. Perfect? Far from it. But a different, more relaxed beast from the ones I've seen in bigger markets.
Kerri, I agree that the line between session and performance is blurry. But because I spend a lot of energy encouraging newbies to join in, I work hard to minimize the performance aspects. I've found that the less like a performance it feels, the more comfortable people are joining in. So it's a very conscious choice for me, and one I can't waver on at this point in our session's life.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
well. omg, you guys really rabble roused the night away didnt you? i went to bed and missed it all. Now I'll read it back, some anyway, and gain wisdom and insight to aid me in my musical journey through this.....thing we call life
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Veronica--one thing anyone can gain from this discussion is an awareness of how Goffman's sense of presentation of self or Jack's "public performance" colors our daily experiences, including playing music in the company of other people. There's a world of insights in that line of thinking--good stuff to be conscious of as you continue to develop as a musician.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Main Entry: per·for·mance
Pronunciation: p&(r)-'for-m&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : DEED, FEAT
According to that so does eating a sandwich, definitely includes playing in sessions.
2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : IMPLEMENTATION
This ones slightly debatable, depends if you care about pleasing anyone besides yourself. There's two sides to that coin; playing for the audience is one, playing just for the musicians is the other. Any session which is forsakes the idea of entertaining either an audience, the other muso's or yourself is a farce; right up there with the bogeyman, "modal chords" & the easter bunny.
3 a : the action of representing a character in a play b : a public presentation or exhibition
Well, I guess the only debate here is if a pub is a 'public place' seeing as many pubs aren't run by the gov't. Let's face it, people don't go to sessions to drink beer.
4 a : the ability to perform : EFFICIENCY b : the manner in which a mechanism performs
Hopefully.
5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : BEHAVIOR
Exactly.
6 : the linguistic behavior of an individual : PAROLE; also : the ability to speak a certain language -- compare COMPETENCE 3
Music is the universal language, baby!!
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Mad Baloney
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Whoa, hold on Brad... I don't go to sessions to drink beer? That's news to me! Free beer is the whole reason I got into this racket in the first place!
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
How about private = home or anywhere that people gather exclusively and public = away from home and anywhere people gather inclusively. Sessions play ('perform') in public, for everyone and not for 'the public'. The bar location was originally just an extension of the smaller kitchen community of the past. As I see it session players play in their community role of providing music for the social atmosphere of the pub of which they are a part and at the same time for their own community of musicians. It certainly isn't about individual 'performance'.It's an older, more intimate relation than that of performer and audience. The music goes back a long way and was meant for dancing and now it creates a great atmosphere for conversation and drinking and getting together.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by JNW
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Urm... could you put that in laymen's terms please JNW? I'm missing your point.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
The Canadian judge is giving a relatively low score of 7.5 for clarity, but JNW may just earn back a few points for difficulty on this postulate, putting him/her back in the running...
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Let me rephrase: People don't go to sessions, for the sole purpose, of drinking beer.
It's false logic to say a session isn't a form of a performance. If you belive that a session is in no way, shape, or form a performance than your putting on a little performance of your own.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Mad Baloney
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
So, the session that happened in the green room at 4AM in an empty community center Friday night after the audience went home wasn't a session any more, or we were "performing" for each other? Or what? The "performance" line falls somewhere in the middle of what we do, not to one side or the other. If you're going home with a bunch of cash the landlord gave you to entertain his clients, the session stops when the audience goes home, and you're more concerned about what the punters think than savoring your beer and cracking dirty jokes with your friends, then you have stepped over the line.
When I go to the Monday session, it usually doesn't start crackling until the "audience" finally clears out. Then we get a few good tunes in - the highlight of the night - then we are kicked out; the last people in the bar, whining and moaning that they don't stay open late enough despite the fact we're the only people there. Last Monday my only interaction with "the audience" was shoving a drunk who was trying to get at our beer safely away from the table.
It's still a session whether anybody's listening or not, but it isn't always a performance.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
"A session is usually comprised of the participating musicians, listeners, onlookers and a third group who neither listen nor look. The importance of good listeners positioned around the musicians cannot be overstated as they help to bring the best out of the musicians and make the session a success." - Charlie Lennon
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Please teacher, can I be one of those? A good listener, I mean? Since I don't know very many tunes yet?
Sara
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by sara g
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Gee, why's it so hard to comprehend that a group of friends (and strangers) might get together in a pub or coffee house (or spare meeting room at a library, or park bench) just to play together, with no regard for who else might listen in? My session mates and I play in a pub because it didn't feel right to be inviting people we didn't know into each other's houses for sessions. That problem was solved by agreeing to meet in a public place. A public place also offers the serendipity factor of other musicians stumbling upon the session, which would not likely happen if you always played in your own kitchen (although we once had a wonderful Scottish fiddler fall into our house session--he was selling school books door to door when he rang our doorbell
.
Our particular "pub" wasn't even open on Tuesday nights until we asked the owners if we could play there. There is no advertising of the session. We sit in an unlit corner, half of us with our backs to anyone else in the room. The tap room would provide free beer even if no punters showed up--in fact, they've given us free kegs for our summer house ("private")sessions.
And we have loads of good music and fun.
Our session is no different than a group of neighbors using the hoops at a local park to play a pick-up game of basketball. And our session is as far removed from a performance as that game would be from the NBA big-money spectacle down at your city's arena.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
"A session...is a gathering of Irish traditional musicians for the purpose of celebrating their common interest in the music by playing it together in a relaxed, informal setting...as an elaborate excuse for getting out of the house and spending an evening with friends over a few pints of beer." (Barry Foy, Field Guide to the Irish Music Session).
"More like a concert or recital then..."
"Wrong again. Although a few solo performances make for a well-rounded evening, the general aim of a session is to get the maximum number of musicians playing together on the maximum number of tunes. In the same way, a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig..... Those kinds of things fall into the category of _show biz_, fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions, which run on different principles altogether. The session is where the music lives and breathes, where it does its homework, where it flexes its muscles and idly picks its nose. If a musician has a mind to package Irish music for maximum marketability, or polish it to a dazzling sheen, or encase it in amber like some kind of prehistoric gnat, a session is neither the time nor place to do it." (Barry Foy again)
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I'll note that Kerri and I have not once suggested here that sessions are never performances, only that some sessions aren't, at least in the minds of the musicians and informed bystanders. Seems odd how insistent some of you have been in correcting us--that all sessions *must* be performances. Yes, they are "happenings," and if that's all you mean, then so what? But a session need not be a planned exhibition for the purpose of entertaining an audience of non-participants. Ours isn't.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
New idea for the sandwich board outside Jack's session/performance:
"That place...is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go."
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Our Monday session is not a performance, but the 2 Saturday sessions probably cross the line - the first in the mind of the "audience" (who listen very attentively and sometimes clap and make requests) and the second in the attitude of the landlord, who insists on microphones, and the hosts, who often stand up and sing to the crowd, who are not usually listening. Obviously none of the kitchen / backyard / park / living room sessions are "performances".
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
By the way, Will, your session sounds like fun. What a deal! The bar sends free kegs to your house parties? Who's deep forest did you have to do your business in to get a sweet deal like that?
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
This is a perfect example of why many fraternal organizations ban discussion of subjects on which "men (and women) of good will may honorably disagree". (That's an approximate quote.) The usual list includes religion and politics; I'm not sure which heading this would fall under in the great fraternity of ITM, but apparently one of 'em. ;)
FOr cat's sake, o musos of good will, can't we just agree to disagree and go home and play some music?
Sara
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by sara g
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
This conversation's really rocking! Fiddler on Vermouth, you could be sitting next to me anytime, except I'm way too slow for Monday nights. Wednesday's my speed. It'd be fun to see if we'd recognize each other. Glad I'm back in the running..!Can't comment right now because I'm out the door for an evening of more music.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by JNW
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And likewise, Will, none of us have insisted that sessions have to be "planned exhibition for the purpose of entertaining an audience of non-participants” But you have to admit that the term "public performance" has been used with negative connotations. Case in point, Kerri said: "I personally wouldn't want to be at a session that the players describe as a 'public performance.'" Furthermore, you quoted Barry Fox saying: "a session is not an occasion for trotting out carefully wrought arrangements, stunts such as following a hornpipe with a reel and then back into another hornpipe, or breaking from a jig into a slip jig..... Those kinds of things fall into the category of _show biz_, fine for entertaining a paying audience from a great height, but unsuited to sessions" I don't recall implying any such thing. I don’t recall anyone else defining sessions as “public performances” implying that either. We're just talking about getting together for some tunes too.
If your basketball pick-up game were held somewhere that people that weren't playing basketball congregated to talk and have drinks, and some of them watched and enjoyed the game – what would that be? If you have a gathering of friends in a house away from the public and you’re playing tunes together… then maybe that wouldn’t be a “public performance” even though you’re still performing (playing) the tunes... or would it? If you were to suddenly get up and strip your clothes off, people might say to you, “Will, you shouldn’t do that in public – wait till you get home for feck’s sake!”
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Geez... I typed that in respose to Will, posted it, and now it's a mile away.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
It's true, I wouldn't want to have a session with a group whose sole purpose was "performing in public", because somebody has to pay me for that kind of thing. I realize some people who don't do many "gigs" might be getting some kind of kick or buzz from the "public" aspect of my sessions, but it's immaterial to me. Irritating, even. I try to ignore it as much as possible. It's a hot button for me because calling a session the same thing I call my gigs means most of the time I am *working for free*, which I am deeply morally opposed to and haven't EVER done (as a musician), even when I really stunk (with the exception of a few open mics and benefit concerts).
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Kerri, it blew me away the first time we did a big house session, during the holidays, and I went into the brewery to buy a couple of kegs. They wouldn't take my money--insisted on providing the kegs for free, gave us our choice of ales, porters, and stouts. It's been that way ever since. The owners chalk it up to all of us contributing to our community. I'll drink to that!
I'll be the first to admit that our local session may not stand up to the standards of some our esteemed members here. But we are capable of playing fine music on par with what's heard at good sessions in the major centers of Irish trad. The difference is that we sometimes choose not to dwell on the quality of the sound, preferring instead to just kick back and have fun. Again, like a potluck. The food just has to be decent, not gourmet. Nobody complains when the cooks knock themselves out and the food's spectacular, but in the end, company and conversation's more important.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Care to plug the brewery? I'll buy a case out of respect if they sell it up here... (although it sounds doubtful...)
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack, I use "public performance" to mean something more formal than just a "happening" or a "playing" of tunes. I'm using it to mean entertainment, along the lines of a show or concert. As I understand it, you're using "public performance" to mean a "happening in a public place." Obviously, by your definition, a session in a pub would be a "public performance." But not all such sessions meet my definition.
While I've had fun at some sessions that were more akin to shows or concerts, I've also seen people have a miserable time at them because they relegate less experienced players to the peanut gallery, waiting for hours for a tune they know, at a speed they can muster.
In our local session, "performance" does indeed have a negative connotation--some of our less experienced players won't play if they sense that there is pressure to perform to some standard higher than what we typically maintain for our very relaxed, informal, just-us-friends-here session.
I quoted Barry Foy only because you quoted Mr. Lennon (btw, your authority figure towers over mine, so I'll grant you points for that cheap debate tactic
.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Kerri, I'm not free to advertise it. Go look up the session in Helena and you'll get the name. As far as I know, they don't yet dirstribute outside of Montana. Their porter is screaming, as is their stout, and they do an assortment of seasonal bocks that are very tasty as well.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Will, I didn't intend it as a tactic, but rather as a quote from someone we all respect that could help us define the subject. So I guess we can all agree that even though sessions are usually "public performances" it doesn't mean they have to be "shows" and in fact trying to make them so is not in keeping with the spirit that we all agree a session should be. Also, not all sessions are alike, but that doesn't make one morally better or more correct that the other. And whenever we visit sessions that are in other places we shouldn't judge them by our home standards, but instead decide whether or not we would enjoy participating in them. OK... Group hug.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
He would have told me then about the different sessions that were going on. It was kind of a different scene -- there was no such thing as playing for money or anything like that. There wasn't a lot of music at pubs, either. It was just in these little clubs where we got together just for the sake of playing. At the time, Matt Molloy was going to the college there and Mary Bergin and other people of that age group were around -- Sean Keane, James Keane, and the like. That was about the bulk of that age group. Then there was the older generation, like John Egan, John Kelly, Des O'Connor and Tom Mulligan. Leo Rowsome was teaching at the time in the Piper's Club, so he would often be there on a Saturday night. There were some great old characters around. They were wonderful people and you were safe in their hands.
- Tommy Peoples
Our way of life is different. People pick it up through hearing tapes and such, and that's the way it is -- the process has changed. The one downside is that they don't get to know musicians because they don't get a chance to talk to them. You can't divorce the two of them -- that's the big pity for me, because part of the mystique of John Doherty wasn't just the way he played the fiddle, it was talking to him. It was the man, it was having fun and having a bit of craic. Part of John Kelly's mystique was that he had an incredible sense of humor, so you would spend a lot of time in these people's company and you mightn't play a tune. You could be there for hours and never even think of playing, you'd just be having a bit of fun, and that's a very, very important part of the whole operation.
- Paddy Glackin
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Fun is the foundation of any session I choose to participate in, but I'm afraid the paid session isn't going to go away anytime soon. In my case, getting paid doesn't take away from the fun -- they couldn't pay me enough if I didn't think it was fun.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I hope the paid session doesn't go away, personally, because they help me eat, but the sessions where I have the most fun are the ones described in the above quotes (hopefully trumping the other two quotes). Judges?
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Or maybe all our quotes just illustrate that even the masters don't agree on the subject.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Dow's post (quoted below)sums up 90% of the sessions I've been to (Doesn't really answer the question though. Does it matter?):
"They must come into the pub, see the session happening and think "oooh, a live show specially for us, and we don't even have to pay to see it - how nice!" As for the landlord, well any live music is a public show for him/her. He/she gets more customers and more money, and he/she doesn't necessarily have to pay the musicians: "oooh, a live show specially for my pub, and I don't even have to pay to put it on, 'part from maybe a few beers - how nice!". Meanwhile the musicians are thinking "oooh, we get to play whatever tunes we like because we're not expected to put on some sort of show for an audience, and we get a few free beers - how nice!""
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Bren
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Now we're quoting ourselves! This has gotten out of hand!
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I suppose you think you're getting the last word?
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Bren
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Yes.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Maybe. Maybe not....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Actually, I agree 100 percent with Jack's wrap up in his last...er, well his final...I mean, his previous post
I never meant to imply that a non-gigging session was superior to any other kind. Just that I prefer them, sometimes, because they tend to be more inclusive. I like seeing all sorts of people participate, whether or not they're the best Irish trad musos in the room. And circumstances dictate that's how we run our local, hinterland sesh. I wouldn't use the word "performance" to describe our session, but that's just my choice.
Agreed too that being paid to run a session can be a good thing, both an important source of income for a muso or two, and a real asset to a session in keeping it going well.
Kerri--great quotes. Where did you find them? I've seen the Tommy Peoples one before, I think, but not Paddy Glackin's.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Speaking of Tommy's quote... One thing I always enjoyed doing when I was visiting Ireland was going to Tommy's session that he was paid to host. First in Ennistymon, and then latter in Cruises, after mass on Sunday in Ennis, and later over in Tula in Linnanne's.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Morning everyone! (Well, afternoon)...
I'd just like to say that "I win". I claim the moral high ground because I've been to sleep on this and when I woke up I still knew how right I was. I'm a bit disappointed in Will and Kerri for stooping to Jack's level by using quotes to back up our side, like we even need it! Quoting me alongside the likes of Tommy Peoples was okay though
It seems the debate has changed its angle slightly from yesterday. Now people are saying that some sessions are performances and some aren't. Whilst I hate to compromise like that, I'd probably have to agree. I'm afraid life's too short to be spending any time at the "performance" sessions though. I go to play tunes with my mates, but mostly I go to drink beer with my mates. The tunes are secondary to getting off my tits.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I'm still here, gleaning. I said the least and lastest the longest, so I must be the wisest.
This thread is all about winning, right?
...now everybody be nice and DONT POST ANYTHING ELSE......go away..go find another thread........
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
It's been an interesting debate. But the thing that has shocked me most is how many session players there are out there who are wrong
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Urm... just for the record... I've never been to one of them "performance" sessions that Dow just mentioned or like Will or Kerri were talking about. I've never been to one that's a "show" either -- they don't sound too fun. Well... that just about wraps it up I'd say, it's been a "win win" sort of discussion I'd say. Well... all except Dow who still has to play an english-system push-fiddle. Sorry Dow, don't fret, you'll get a real concertina some day -- I'm sure of it.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jack I think you should know that the Low Caste Frowned-upon Brotherhood now organises lynchings of persistent anglo offenders, preceded by days of excruciating torture to the genital area. So I'd watch yourself if I were you. You think you're safe in your cosy little San Franciscan hippie world, but the Brotherhood are everywhere
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
is everywhere.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Dow
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Zina! Is this the longest thread ever on the site?? I think it just may well be. Congrats Jack -the longest thread ever and still just talking in circles.....so who won then?? Just for the record - I'm a 100% on Dow, FOV and Will's side. Couldnt give a toss about punters as long as I get beer.
Having said that - loud, annoying punters really irritate me - not because I want them to listen and respect the music, but because I cant hear myself. If there were two chaps having a conversationa at the bar I wouldnt go sit next to them and start loudly talking over them to Dow, just common senser really.... unless of course they were bodhran players
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by bb
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Could someone please explain to me what the "sides" are? It has become very fuzzy, and my hunch is that we all agree for the most part. And I don't understand the "win" and "loose" part either. Help! :-\
Dow, you don't have to answer, I don't want you to hurt yourself or any innocent bystanders that might happen to be nearby.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
'is a session a public performance'?? No - it is an excuse for me and Dow to get free drinks. that is all. Therefore we win
Simple - whew and it took you guys 185 posts to work out what I already knew in just one
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by bb
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Indeed. Who would care to synopse this discussion, by, say, categorizing the camps or sides? Brave soul if you do you will be drawn into the vortex and we'll get another 180 posts.
no I think it's a flogged horse. I still think facing in a circle is a session, facing out is a performance. Hah imagine a session where everyone faced out, like the spokes of a wheel.. on a rotating stage ..
hey, jus for fun, for Guiness' sake, not th beer but the statistics keeper, lets just always post here.. no new threads, just l-e-n-g-t-h-e-n this one forever and ever......
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by vboyd100
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
CRASH!!! KA-BOOM!!!
(Jack's name dropping flattened us all
Veronica, our band rehearsed like that once, all sitting facing out, with our backs to each other. So we had to listen to each other, rather than rely on visual cues. It was our guitarist's idea. We only did it once. We couldn't play because we were laughing so hard....
We should start a new thread for Jack: "Discussion threads ARE competitions?"
:-|
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Jeremy's the boy to ask about the number of posts, Beebs, not me, but it seems to me that we've gone well over 190 or so before a couple of times. Can't remember if we've ever gone over 200. Admittedly, I believe that one of those was the time we decided that we needed to make the thread as long as we could just because we could. I think Kerri may have started a thread that went over 190, once back in the misty days of yore.
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
I bet this is the longest thread before a successful hijacking....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And maybe the largest in terms of word count....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
And possibly the least productive....
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
LOL
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Oh, and how about "most posts in an argumentative thread without Jeremy giving anyone the boot"? Dow, you still with us?
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
"LOL" - Is that all you have to say, Zina? Is that how you've tallied such an astronomical number of posts?
# Posted on June 4th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: Sessions ARE public performances?
Hahaha Beebs you crack me up! I've been waiting for you to come and set the performers straight. If I thought I had to perform in sessions I wouldn't go, full stop. I've had to perform in concerts before and I hated it. That's why I like trad. It's about going to the pub with your mates, and getting drunk whilst playing tunes. It really is that simple. The punters are invisible to me, especially when I'm in the zone and concentrating on my playing, and listening to the other musos (this happens at the start of the evening and then my concentration deteriorates). In fact when someone comes up and taps one of the players on the shoulder and says "thanks we really enjoyed that", it's like "wow, where did you come from? You were actually listening".
# Po