Starting A Slow-jam From Scratch

[Rhomylly]

As you all probably know, I'm in the process of moving lock, stock and barrel to a teeny tiny town in New Mexico (in about 3 weeks) where the closest Irish jam sessions are 3-5 HOURS away.

 

There have GOT to be some closet folk musicians in this town, however (Portales, 90 miles north of Roswell (I expect the aliens to play, yes) and right near Clovis) with the college and all.

 

So I'm giving some thought to starting a slow-jam. I have the (gulp!) sheet music from the one I attend here in Missouri.

 

Any pointers on how to start an Irish jam session from scratch?

[Michael Reid]

Rhomylly,

 

You can find resources for slow sessions -- tune lists, music, tips, etc. -- at the (believe it or not) slowplayers.org Web site. This is a site shared by several such sessions in various U.S. locales.

 

By the way, I just returned from Celtic Week at Swannanoa, where flute and whistle teacher John Skelton made a point of telling us how much the term "jam" grates on him. Jamming, he says, implies improvisation, taking turns on lead, etc., as players do in jazz and rock; whereas Irish players play together (more or less) in a session.

 

(I could add my own thoughts here about the use of "Celtic" as a music label, but I'll spare you. )

Edited July 20, 2004 by Michael Reid

[JimLucas]

...a teeny tiny town in New Mexico ... with the college and all.

With a college and all, how "teeny tiny" can it be?

I remember being told to "turn left when you get to Hollywood [idaho]" and missing the turn, because I didn't realize that the single abandonced shack set back from the road was a town. And it was on the map.

 

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it there. And while you're teaching the locals Irish -- and Morris? -- maybe you can learn some of their own music and pass it on to the rest of us.

[JimLucas]

...John Skelton made a point of telling us how much the term "jam" grates on him. Jamming, he says, implies improvisation, taking turns on lead, etc., as players do in jazz and rock; whereas Irish players play together (more or less) in a session.

'S funny. I never seem to hear others refer to Irish sessions as "jam" sessions, though I wish they were more of that format. To me, a proper "session" -- Irish or otherwise -- is free-form, even if it doesn't involve elaborate musical improvisation. I find this hard to reconcile with sheet music, music stands, prepared repertoire lists, or even fixed "sets" of tunes. And I feel it should involve people taking turns on "lead", though not necessarily that everyone else should fade into background chording when they do so. As for myself, I do enjoy a bit of musical improvisation even on Irish tunes, though I'm never as elaborate as the typical jazz improvisation.

 

I am a little curious as to the origin of the term in the jazz context. Does it come from having all the players jammed into a small space? Does it come from the "jam" we spread on bread, where the fruit is blended together? (That's done by mashing -- or "jamming" -- the fruit, though I have no idea whether either term derived from the other.) Or does it derive from a completely different context, maybe even a non-English word? So I decided to look it up. My 1936-edition Shorter Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even have the term. www.dictionary.com has three definitions, two of them musical:

... an informal gathering of musicians to play improvised or unrehearsed music.

... Informal. An impromptu discussion.

... an impromptu jazz concert

Which suggests that the significant characteristic is not elaborate improvisition, but that it's not planned/prepared in advance. However, I learned nothing about the origin of the term.

 

But of course we learn language mainly from context, not from dictionaries, so we can each have a different "defintion" for a word, depending on the context in which we learned it. Sometimes the differences are subtle, sometimes glaring, and sometimes what we think we "know" is just wrong. E.g., in an email, a friend recently used the term "kitten cabudle", something he had heard as a child but never really understood and had obviously never seen written, since it's really "kit and caboodle". Nothing to do with kittens. (A crowd of kittens is an interesting image, though.)

 

As for "Celtic" music, isn't that what they play at baketball games in Boston?

[Lester Bailey]

It has alway struck me a strange that Irish sessions seem to require so many rules about speed, how many times through, only jigs or only reels and no English tunes (or concertinas) etc. I visit The Session from time to time and they seem obsessed with rules including one long thread about how it was not possible to play ITM (yukk!) on an English concertina as the Anglo was was the TRADITIONAL instrument for Irish tunes????

 

The mostly English sessions I go to are more than happy for anyone to play anything (even Irish tunes). We don't have slow sessions we have sessions where beginners are welcome and can have their 5 minutes of glory and then join in as best they can with all the rest. It's the way I learned and seems to me to be a nicer way around things.

[JimLucas]

It has alway struck me a strange that Irish sessions seem to require so many rules about speed, how many times through, only jigs or only reels and no English tunes (or concertinas) etc.

But they don't, really.

Certainly not the ones I've been to.

Not even the ones I consider excessively rigid and exclusionary.

I haven't been to Ireland for some time, but what I hear from friends who have -- or who live there -- is that the sessions there aren't like that.

I'd be very curious as to how many of those attempting to foist such rules on the rest 1) learned those rules in Irish "Irish" sessions, and 2) have found their rules to be uniformly observed in all sessions they've attended, especialy sessions in locales more than 100 km from where they normally play.

 

I suppose I should be asking that question in The Session, but I just don't have time to get embroiled in another forum, especially one where I'd likely be trying to lead a resistance movement against self-appointed rule makers.

[Lester Bailey]

I haven't been to Ireland for some time, but what I hear from friends who have -- or who live there -- is that the sessions there aren't like that.

Didn't mean to imply its like that in Ireland most of the bad stuff on The Session seems to be from either the UK or the USA. I expect the Irish are far more laid back about it all.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Lester Bailey

[A.D. Homan]

It has alway struck me a strange that Irish sessions seem to require so many rules about speed, how many times through, only jigs or only reels and no English tunes (or concertinas) etc.

 

 

 

First of all, I think that there's a big difference between "rules" about speed and restrictions of types of instruments used, etc.

 

I also think that it's all to easy to criticize the sessions that have rules, but sometimes, in the absence of a core group of very strong players, it might be necessary. It's a difficult balance between having the music that one wants (and is worth the time) and being "open" to all the possibilities that the public will bring. Personally, I feel grateful enough when a fine session is actually "public" rather than being locked up in someone's living room, by invitation only.

 

This reminds me of an incident in NY. I was at a small old-timey session attended by some very well-known old-time musicians. They were playing for about an hour when a young guy came through the door of the pub, bearing a large instrument case -- didn't look like a fiddle, banjo, or guitar -- and a wide grin. I thought, oh no, what's this gonna be. He opened the case behind the musicians, where they couldn't see him. As they happily continued to play, the kid removed a shiny tenor sax from the case. He put the mouthpiece on it and went off to a corner, where I sensed that he was "figuring out" the tune. Then he shouldered his way between two of the musicians, played the tune through, and promptly began to sax it up with little licks here and there. The musicians stopped playing. Awkward silence. Then a banjo player said something like "it doesn't surprise me that you can, but that you did it at all. There is a jazz session down the street, why don't you go there?" More awkward silence. A guitar player said: "Man, you guys sit here and play the same thing over and over and when someone tries something new, you won't allow it. I'm outta here!" He left with the sax player for the raucous bluegrass session in the back of the pub.

 

This incident leaves me torn: on the one hand, these guys are trying to do something very specific that is subtle and perhaps fragile, and they are taking the time to do it in public on the off chance that someone will join them, a newcomer, and genuinely listen and learn. Otherwise, they really do have some very exclusive and private sessions.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but react to the obvious "snootiness."

 

However, I believe that the instrumentation issue was actually somewhat secondary to the manner in which the kid approached them. It was as if he was "taking them on," rather than respecting what they were doing.

 

Rules? No rules?

-Andy

[Rhomylly]

So I put up flyers, get something in the paper, buy good earplugs for husband and dogs...and some folks show up.

 

What should happen at the inaugural session of a bunch of people who probably haven't done this before?

[JimLucas]

Rules? No rules?

Rules against murder, OK. Rules forbidding beards, not OK.

Of course, there are still those who would disagree with me on both counts. (But I hope not here.)

 

First of all, I think that there's a big difference between "rules" about speed and restrictions of types of instruments used, etc.

Not first, and in fact, not at all, I'd say. Andy, I think "even" you would agree that it depends on what the particular rule was. E.g., maybe you wouldn't object to a rule against tenor saxes in an Irish session, but I suspect you would take exception to a rule against metal-ended Jeffries concertinas (after all, they're too loud!).

 

Where there is mutual respect, explicit rules tend to be unnecessary. Disruption is disrespectful. So is domination, whether it be as attempts to impose rigid rules or attempts to dominate the playing.

 

In your example with the tenor sax player, I wonder whether he was more unwelcome for simply joining without asking, because his sax playing was too loud or otherwise disruptive, or because some people just didn't like the idea of a saxophone in old-timey music. You've suggested the first, which is not a matter of "rules". I remember a few different occasions when sax players tried to join Irish sessions at the old Eagle Tavern. A couple (one tenor, one soprano, on widely separated occasions) actually blended in very nicely, and they were made welcome. Others were intrusive, too loud, or otherwise seeming unable to flow with the way the rest of us were playing the music. By general consensus they were asked to desist. And there were other instruments or musicians from time to time who were welcome for the variety they added, as long as they did it sparingly.

 

With regard to speed, it was simple. The unwritten rule was that whoever started a tune set the tempo, and others were expected to follow his tempo, including changes if he initiated any. The unwritten rule was generally unspoken as well, but if someone else started playing at a different tempo (deliberately or otherwise), they were the ones who would be asked -- by anyone near them -- to either follow the starter or stop playing.

 

Has this sort of democratic, anarchic session gone the way of the dodo, to be replaced by sessions dominated by rules or individuals? Certainly not everywhere. Not in Skåne (southern Sweden), not in England, and I'm pretty sure not in Ireland or New York, either. Those who "need" rules -- either to bolster their own confidence or to exert control over others -- can have their sessions, but there is an alternative for those who want it, even if they have to start their own.

Edited July 20, 2004 by JimLucas

[RoyJanik]

I've only been to the session in Austin (BD Riley's on Sundays) a few times, but I've found it largely polite and run by no one in particular. Both times I've gone I've had the chance to play along with (and even start) a few tunes even though I was a beginner. This session in particular has a reputation for being very very fast, but they gracefully didn't complain when I started my tunes much slower than normal. I was warned by several people however that the session is normally much faster and less laid back, so who knows what I will find next week.

 

On another note, concertinas are something of curiosity in Austin, and anglos doubly so, so my Morse was passed around to quite a few hands.

[Jim Besser]

>What should happen at the inaugural session

> of a bunch of people who probably haven't

> done this before?

 

I've been to inaugural sessions where the hosts open the format up for democratic debate -- and it usually ends in angry chaos and more talk about policies and procedures than music.

 

What seems to work: let people know in advance the general parameters (" a relaxed, friendly slow session focusing on Irish music....") and then run in the way that's fun for YOU. people who enjoy what you do will keep coming; people who want to do it differently won't, and you'll be spared the indignant debates that seem to preoccupy so many of the purists on The Session.

 

If you really have fun, chances are others will, as well.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Jim Besser

[JimLucas]

What should happen at the inaugural session of a bunch of people who probably haven't done this before?

People will get acquainted. Hopefully, they will find they have something in common, wish to share it and each learn from everyone else.

 

My personal recommendation is that you not try to make it an Irish-only session, even if there are some locals who currently play only Irish music. Introduce them to some simple tunes from Morris -- e.g., General Monk's March or Fieldtown Blue-Eyed Stranger -- and English country dancing -- e.g., Nonesuch (in Dm, or Em to benefit whistles & flutes) or Knives and Forks (one of personal favorites) -- if they don't already know them. And ask if there's a local folk tradition... English or Spanish, or even Indian. You might discover something else you like.

 

Refreshments are always a help. Up to you what to provide and whether to ask the others to contribute.

[A.D. Homan]

Andy, I think "even" you would agree that it depends on what the particular rule was.

 

 

That's exactly my point, Jim -- I would think that you would understand that if you read what I wrote. Your earlier response, as well as the latest one, indicate that you think that sessions can simply run without any parameters, and that if someone starts a new session with parameters, the "domination" by that person is bad. I disagree, and I also think that many "anything goes" sessions are not worth the time. It becomes what I think of as "drum circle effect." The best sessions that I've attended were guided, without rules, by extremely strong players, or happened to be attended by a small group of intermediate players who shared similar ideas about what they wanted to do. However, I'm not so naive as to think that one can expect that kind of unspoken guidance at every open session -- so therefore I think that some rules are OK. No, I don't just mean "no murder"; I mean that it's okay for a group of people to agree upon some guidelines, which makes it much easier when someone is really disruptive --- no one has to get personal with that person, they can just be informed that it's not the time or place for whatever they are doing. Now, anyone who has tried to organize a group of people realizes that it's often easier if some individual just takes the bull by the horns and organizes rather than endless discussions wasting everyone's time -- as long as some flexibility is built into the system for change. If the domination is truly an issue, then people won't return -- and we're not talking about large-scale domination, just a small group with one individual bearing responsibility to give some structure to start out. Usually the need for this will dwindle as the session gels but on occasions when most members are generally not content, the "rules" kick in and it is helpful. I also think that in most sessions where no rules or structure are perceived, there is still some force holding it together and making it happen. There are unspoken standards, there are master players that others are trying to please, or follow, etc. I am with you on the romanticism of the open, anarchist session -- and have even seen a few work out, spontaneously -- but only in the short term.

A slow session needs rules to address the needs of those who are trying to _learn_. "Learning" presumes that there is some idea of what is being aimed at. If I'm trying to learn Swedish tunes, I hang out at a certain gathering where it is agreed upon that people don't burst out with Irish tunes. While there are some serious Irish players among these people playing Scandinavian music, they don't waste the others' time by starting an Irish session within a practice session for playing for Scandi dances. I also don't go into my German classes and give a 20 minute lesson on French; nor do I teach Hegel when I'm supposed to be teaching Plato, although there might be some occasion where a discussion of both is in order.

In my opinion, without parameters, whether explicit or implicit, everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, and this isn't helpful when one is dealing with something that is hard to learn, or when one is trying to uphold something that is very fine and fragile (such as a particular musical tradition). The anarchic session that you dream of does indeed occur, but it depends on more foundation than you think.

I'm thinking of a wonderful event in rural Southeastern Austria, where hundreds of fiddle players meet every two years, for just 2 days, and play tunes together, in small, spontaneous sessions scattered across a pasture next to a country tavern. Dances emerge spontaneously, old-timers teach teenagers tunes, first-timers receive a fiddle and are taught their first _Geigenjodler_, etc. There is certainly an energy-bursting, anarchic element here. However, I also happen to know the individual who organizes it -- he picks out about 2 dozen tunes and prints a book. He teaches his children and close friends these tunes during the months leading up to the event, with the assignment that they pass on these tunes to as many people, at various skill levels, as possible during the first morning. What happens is that these 2 dozen or so tunes circulate very quickly, those who need it purchase the booklet, others learn by ear, etc. Occasionally tunes from the last time (2 years ago) pop up. There is unspoken understanding that one participates in a communicative manner, attempting to learn the new tunes, perhaps teaching some others a related tune if it seems appropriate. It all appears (and feels) quite spontaneous, but I think it would be totally wrong to assume that the rules aren't there, even if they were hidden. I'm sure that if someone set up a loud electric instrument, he would be expelled rather quickly. Brass instruments (part of the tradition) and accordions are present. I'm sure if people appeared with English concertinas, they would be welcomed warmly, despite the fact that they never showed up before. Some kind of underlying rules are there -- there is a wonderful flexibility, yet certainly a logical structure to the rules, similar to the way language works. And it all begins with some parameters that are set (in this case, an individual selecting some tunes).

 

Especially with beginners and intermediate learners, some kind of structuring principle is necessary, beyond just "let's play music!" When I was learning Swedish, you better believe I wanted a conversation group where people agreed to speak only Swedish, regardless of the fact that we could have all conversed fluently in English. If we had only agreed: "Let's talk!" no one would have had a chance to practice Swedish.

 

So when you say "Those who "need" rules -- either to bolster their own confidence or to exert control over others", you grossly underestimate the reasons why others might "need" rules. And I suspect that you also underestimate the degree to which you, yourself, benefit from parameters and discipline. Perhaps my notion of "rules" is just more flexible than yours. I am also fully aware of how oppressive totalitarianism can be, but I will not cheapen and trivialize the experiences of those who have lived under it by equating rules about tempo at a session with dictatorship. Especially in art, rules and limitation can give rise to blossoming that is quite wonderful. Limitations are not always stifling, as anyone who reads a double sestina is well aware.

 

Just expressing a dissenting opinion, Jim; you obviously don't agree with it, but what, are you now imposing rules that we all have to agree with you?

Andy

[JimLucas]

Jim ... Your earlier response, as well as the latest one, indicate that you think that sessions can simply run without any parameters,...

I didn't say that.

I did say that some most certainly can run without any formal rules. But I didn't claim that they all can, or even should. It depends very much on the personalities of those involved. The sessions I like best do seem to be the ones that get along without any formal rules. I think they work because the individuals involved are able to interact in a positive way without any formality.

 

...and that if someone starts a new session with parameters, the "domination" by that person is bad.

I didn't say that, either.

Having rules -- "parameters", if you prefer -- and "domination" are two separate things. One can have rules that prohibit dominance. And someone can also dominate in defiance of rules. My preference just happens to be for minimal regulation, especially formal regulation.

 

What I think is bad is folks declaring or decreeing that all sessions must follow their preferred rules. Hence my comments about what was reportedly said on The Session. And for those who want/need "rules", I would much rather they have sessions with rules which they can attend than that they might try to impose their rules on my favorite "relaxed" session. So far, that seems to be the case. But the particulars of a rule do matter, IMO. A rule -- whether explicit or informal -- that no one should should interrupt a number in progress is good, but I'm no fan of a rule that says all reels -- or even a particular reel -- may only be played at one particular speed.

 

Just expressing a dissenting opinion....

I'm not convinced.

I believe you're dissenting against things you said, not I. I hope the above clarifies my position.

 

...you obviously don't agree...

I think you should have the courtesy to let me say whether I agree or not.

[JimLucas]

...the session in Austin (BD Riley's on Sundays)...

Tell me more. What time? Maybe I can talk my nephew (not a concertina player) into checking it out.

[A.D. Homan]

A rule -- whether explicit or informal -- that no one should should interrupt a number in progress is good, but I'm no fan of a rule that says all reels -- or even a particular reel -- may only be played at one particular speed.

 

 

 

And again: that's your limit, Jim, and other people might have other limits. This is the ambiguity that I was pointing toward with the example of the sax player at the old-timey session. Now it looks like you are allowing for some rules, as long as you are the judge of which ones are good and which ones are not.

 

Going back to the original post: if someone wants to start a slow-session, I think it's a good idea to limit the speed at which tunes are played, or even to decide on which types of tunes are fair game to start out. To _me_, these parameters are qualitatively different than prohibiting Böhm flutes or English concertinas. Make as many rules as you like, and if they don't seem necessary, reduce them. Yes, you will exclude some people if you make it an _Irish_ session and don't welcome Tex-Mex tunes. But you would also lose people if you have someone playing Tex-Mex tunes all the time and they want to spend their time working on Irish tunes (again: I am assuming that a SLOW session is for learners, and that means having goals.) If it is a private session (in a house), you can discuss goals with the group and then just get on with the playing. If it is a public sessions where new players will circulate in and out, then IN MY OPINION it is probably a good idea to discuss some boundaries and goals -- people are generally spending their precious free time with a session like this, and they deserve to feel like it is worth their time, and not a waste.

In case you're wondering why I am stating this opinions strongly, it's because I recently heard from a friend about a session he was involved in starting, which was working out for a while. Now, due to certain behavior of certain participants, some of the participants of the session are dropping out. Certain boundaries, if stated clearly from the outset, would have prevented this from happening and allowed the session to continue in the direction it had started. Now they are resorting to private house sessions, which are nice for the participants but has the trade-off of not involving new faces who might otherwise become interested. Some people have only one night per week that they can dedicate to this kind of activity.

I predict that Jim will disagree, but instead I'll lend him the courtesy he asks for, to say it himself; however, perhaps he will also notice, as his 1900+ other posts demonstrate, that many of us do lend him that courtesy, every day!

-Andy

[JimLucas]

Now it looks like you are allowing for some rules, as long as you are the judge of which ones are good and which ones are not.

I'm not allowing -- much less tyring to disallow -- anything!

I have been 1) expressing some personal preferences, and 2) pointing out that certain alternatives which I like are possible (as confirmed by my personal experience).

Nothing less, and nothing more.

 

Andy, please, please, please, stop misrepresenting me.