Musical rules/suggestions for medleys

[Jim Bevan]

Santiago's not the only place I've seen it done. I attended a session in Toronto, and the host did just that -- discussed the upcoming set with his co-host, and played a bar or two of each tune for her before they started the set together. (It's where I got the idea for the hypothetical session in "the next town over".) The rest of us (a huge group) listened to the "pre-game show", and did our best.

I think the Santiago host (who lived in Galway and played professionally there while studying with Mary Bergin) announces the set to the group because many of them are her students. They also play that game where a set goes around the table, taking turns spontaneously starting the next tune in a long set. Whatever -- the session's lots of fun. And at least it's not as boring as those long-running, inbred sessions where pretty much everybody's a regular, and when someone starts up a set, you know what the following tunes are going to be 'cuz you've heard him play the same set every other week for the last ten years.

[Jim Bevan]

I'm not sure that I agree with Doug. It's common, and it's pretty cool, when someone starts off a set with a tune so obscure that he plays it solo. Everybody enjoys taking a break, listening to someone rising to the challenge of playing alone, and listening to a tune they don't know before they jump in after the second tune starts.
I have a couple of those sets myself a jig set starting with Skip Parente's (almost nobody knows that one, and it's a great tune), and a reel set starting with Larry's Favourite (that sometimes gets another player joining in, however, and it's cool when it happens).

[DougC]

Are you one of the bullies Jim? Probably not. I think you agree that including players is better than excluding them.

A number of years ago, I was at a luthier's conference in Madison Wisconsin. I was learning violin repair and there was a concurrent workshop in mandolin building. I went to a local pub where there was an Irish session (with my fiddle). And a piper was there 'showing off". He would not let anyone play. He played only obscure strathspeys and such. Everyone just sat there waiting for an opening. He gave us none for about three hours. I guess he thought he was really hot sh*t. We had a beer and said we'd never come back.

[Jim Bevan]

Sure, including players is better than excluding players, but a little variety in a session doesn't hurt.

If everybody plays all the time, it can sound boring after a while. A solo or a duo once in a while is a nice change.

No, I'm not a bully.
I've only ever gotten smiles, and a "What was that first tune?"

[Jim Bevan]

Where it goes wrong is:

I go to sessions all over the world, and, for example (but it's certainly happened more than once), I attended a session in Frankfurt. It was obviously a bunch of players who'd been playing this session for years, without much outside influence ("inbred", I call 'em). All night long, they played tunes I'd never heard, and they all knew them. They asked me to start up a set, and I'm thinking, "These guys are pretty advanced, so no way am I going to play Banish Misfortune/Morrison's/Kesh", so I played The Humours of Ennistymon/The Gallowglass/The Coleraine, and I ended up playing the whole set by myself (I only played each tune twice). Later, I tried The Moving Cloud/The Old Bush/The Reconcilliation -- half of them joined me on The Old Bush, but that was it. The whole night went like this.

Those kinds of sessions can be frustrating.

[Bertram Henze]

what, they didn't even know the Coleraine? But sessions like that are pretty widespread, no need for frustration. Just don't measure success by how many know your tunes (in a universe of thousands of tunes the likelyhood is very low anyway, and if advanced means exotic the likelyhood drops further). Play Banish Misfortune, play it well and be proud.

[JeffD]

We used to have a rule at our local jam. If you were the only one who knew the tune, you got to play it once. If only one other person knew it, it got played twice. Three, three times, and so on. Kind of a neat way to do it.

[Jim Bevan]

Thanks, Bertram.

Obviously, the set generator ain't generating much support here, but I'll write this anyways, just to have some closure on the subject.
The Montreal Session website has already started building it (they call it The Bevanator), it's up and running for reels and jigs but as yet has no "rules", so it's possible to have three D major tunes in a row, but that will change. I was asked for some input, and here's what I sent:

There are three ways to do this:
Montreal – installed on your website (it took me about 25 clicks to find a set where I knew all three tunes).
Computer – available as downloadable program.
Phone – a phone app would be sweet!

What I envision for the downloadable versions is a simple interface with two buttons:
Tunes – this opens up a window for inputting the tune titles and criteria.
New Set – this generates the set.

Here’s the First Class version:

The Tunes window would have six columns:
Title – it would be nice if the titles were automatically ordered alphabetically.
Style (or Dance? How does one categorize reels and jigs?)
Key – defined as “##” etc.
Mode – the four common ones.
Form – AABB etc.
Popularity – I like sets that progress in popularity, so people can join in. We could have four levels: “obscure”, “rare”, “common”, and “overplayed”, or we could think up lots – everything from “I wrote this this morning” to “shoot me”.
Everything except Title is chosen from a drop-down menu.

Rules
Title: No repeats.
Style: All the same.
Key: Advance progressively from “bbbbbbb” through “0” to “#######”, maximum one repeat.
Mode: No contiguous repeats.
Form: No repeats, excluding AABB.
Popularity: Advance progressively without skipping (meaning, 1-2-3 or 2-3-4).

The problem with so many independently applied rules is that a tune such as McFadden’s Handsome Daughter (a rare ABC reel in A major) doesn’t have much of a chance of showing up.
Can rules have rules? For example, if the Key rule is applied, then the Popularity rule is ignored, and vice versa? And can this rule for a rule be applied randomly? A rule for a rule for a rule?

And here’s the Economy version:

The Tunes window would have four columns:
Title – again, it would be nice if the titles ordered themselves alphabetically.
Style (Dance? Rhythm? Class?)
Key – defined as “A dorian” etc.
Form – AABB etc.
Everything except Title is chosen from a drop-down menu.

Rules
Title: No repeats.
Style: All the same.
Key: No repeats.
Form: No repeats, excluding AABB.

[Beanzy]

The transitions tend to work because of what ever it is about the tune you are on that reminds of the tune you suggest makes them good mates, most of the time. The follow on tune is spontaneously picked because it replicates and builds on the energy of the tune currently in play.

There are crash and burns of course, but it is very exciting.

That reminds me of something that used to happen in my whistle days. You'd be galloping along in a tune and hear something in someone else's playing (maybe just how they'd use an ornament or their emphasis would match the metre of another tune name) that would remind you of a feel to another tune. That was it for me I'd have to drop out & say the tune name and sure enough people would spot what I meant and then it'd be picked to go next. There really is a great buzz when you get that thread then others see it too and respond. It reminds me a bit of watching / predicting the various team moves when bike racing (other sports would probably be similar).

[Bertram Henze]

We used to have a rule at our local jam. If you were the only one who knew the tune, you got to play it once. If only one other person knew it, it got played twice. Three, three times, and so on. Kind of a neat way to do it.

According to our not-so-strictly-enforced rule everybody has the option of calling "again" once per set. With up to 15 musicians, you can guess what that means, sometimes...

[DougC]

what, they didn't even know the Coleraine? But sessions like that are pretty widespread, no need for frustration. Just don't measure success by how many know your tunes (in a universe of thousands of tunes the likelyhood is very low anyway, and if advanced means exotic the likelyhood drops further). Play Banish Misfortune, play it well and be proud.

This brings to mind a little story. Martin Hayes used to visit when he lived in Chicago and one day he stopped by our Slow Sessiun. I asked him about the boring old tunes and he said that no tune is boring if you play it with heart.

Another story is from Sean Connolloy teaching an advanced fiddle class in Milwaulkee. We asked him about the pressure to learn as many tunes as possible. And he said that we already know enough tunes, we should instead learn to play them better.

[Bertram Henze]

...we already know enough tunes, we should instead learn to play them better.

Definitely. There are sessions where tunes are the only social network currency, but those are not my favourite. I know people who say things like "oh no, not that one again", which is a sign they haven't heard it done right yet; plus, often they haven't really played it themselves - you find a lot of bodhran players in that group

My aims with a set are always:

- I must play it well enough to stand my ground alone if I must (I'm currently getting rid of the habit of anxiously waiting for someone to join),
- it must end with a tune I know others know so they have a chance to join.

This way nobody, including myself, has to pathetically sit the set out.

[Jim Bevan]

I've prepared a set or two with alternative, similar go-to tunes, in case I end up all alone.
Like, play a verse of The Windmill, nobody jumps in, so I switch to The Wise Maid at the top of the second verse.

Brings up a question that bugs me now and then: "verse"? "go-round"? For the most part, we play a set of three tunes, three times each -- what do we call those 1/9th portions of a set?
("Repeats" only works for, well, the repeats, but not the first, um, go-round.)

[zoukboy]

It's the most organized session I've ever been to, with a real focus on sounding good for the "audience". There are about five or six co-hosts, they all get paid, I forget, the equivalent of $25 or $30 plus drinks. The paid musicians regularly have a quick discussion before each set, and then she announces to the whole group something like "Banish Misfortune Morrison's Kesh, three three three", and away they go. There are always a few cases of tunus interuptus from the "pros", but someone always manages to hold it together.

I wouldn't call that a "session." That is a performance.

You must have a pretty rigid definition of what a session is, Zoukboy, if that one detail means it's no longer a session.

Jim: Not sure which single detail you think I am concentrating on, but it was the combination of factors you mentioned: 1. they are trying to sound good for the "audience," 2. they are paid, and 3. they are playing sets (presumably exclusively). YMMV but that sounds to me like a paid gig masquerading as a session. Unfortunately these McSessions™ are not that uncommon in some venues these days, especially in the corporate McPubs like Fado and their ilk.

I remember in the late 90s when Bord Fáilte in Ireland got the idea to promote tourism with the "Irish Session," and drew up posters with photos of carefully posed actors/models with trad instruments and it was obvious to anyone who played that they had no idea how to even hold let alone play them. The beer companies then got into it, providing a weekly stipend for musicians to lead a "session."

[JeffD]

. There really is a great buzz when you get that thread then others see it too and respond..

Its a rush. Sometimes we come to the end of a tune, and then un-provoked someone will start up something right away that is exactly right, and to see that someone else, maybe everyone else, gets it the same way I do, oh mannnnnn.

[JeffD]

. I asked him about the boring old tunes and he said that no tune is boring if you play it with heart.
.

I have gone off on this topic in the past. Not everyone agrees with me, but I take it as all of our responsibility, those of us who care about this music, to try our best to take these war horses and common tunes and make them new again. Find a way, an accompaniment, an alternate harmony, a dramatic rendering, or putting into a set with some other tune that shows something cool about it, something - to remind us of the power of these tunes that have been played so much they have lost their luster.


Harvest Home Hornpipe was a boring old tune around here, heard so much most folks could care less if they ever heard it again. I paired it up with Boys of Blue Hill and all of a sudden everyone took notice and wanted to play it well in order to experience that excellent transition.

Certainly I wasn't the first to do this, I think it was done by Malcolm Daglish and Grey Larsen on their Banish Misfortune album in the late 70s. But the point is that a tune can be a sleeper until its paired with the right tune that makes the set wonderful and the sleeper indispensable again.

[foldedpath]

Brings up a question that bugs me now and then: "verse"? "go-round"? For the most part, we play a set of three tunes, three times each -- what do we call those 1/9th portions of a set?
("Repeats" only works for, well, the repeats, but not the first, um, go-round.)

Around these parts, it's just "the tune," considered as one play-through, and with the understanding that it will be repeated (n) number of times in a typical session. Typically it's three times, but there are variations. Sometimes a 4 or 5-part tune is only played twice, since it takes so long to get through it. Depends on the session and how people are feeling it.

This also corresponds to how tunes are written in sheet music and ABC format. You never see anything about repeating the whole thing (n) times, it's just "the tune" as written.

[Jim Bevan]

I want to be able to say, "Ok, we're going to play this one three times, and on the second _____ I'm going to drop down an octave for the B-part" or some such thing.
On the second what? Go-round? The second pass? The second verse? chorus?

Roger, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
I'd say that more than half the sessions I've been to had a paid host (or two). And I'd also say that the host was somewhat concerned about the quality, if for no other reason than he wants to keep the session going, it's a good (enough) gig, he wants the pub owner to not start thinking that karaoke might be a better money-maker etc.

[foldedpath]

I want to be able to say, "Ok, we're going to play this one three times, and on the second _____ I'm going to drop down an octave for the B-part" or some such thing.
On the second what? Go-round? The second pass? The second verse? chorus?

If I were doing that, I'd just say ""Ok, we're going to play this one three times, and on the second time through I'm going to drop down an octave for the B-part."

"Second time through" being shorthand for "Second time through the tune." This might come down to local session culture though. I would never use Verse or Chorus because that's not how people usually refer to the music, and it brings in associations with vocal music. Start using terms like that, and you might have Bluegrassers invading your session.

[whistler]

I want to be able to say, "Ok, we're going to play this one three times, and on the second _____ I'm going to drop down an octave for the B-part" or some such thing.

It may be good to have an agreed number of times through each tune, for the sake of neatness, but it can be good to break out of that mould sometimes - it can be fun just to play the tune 4, 5... 10 times, until it's played out, before moving on to the next one. Things like dropping down an octave, people will pick up on when it happens; unless there are only two people in the session, it is very unlikely that everyone will do it at once - and if they did, it would give everyone something to laugh about. As for keeping the audience entertained, what trad listeners appreciate the most, I think, is when the musicians are high on the music and anything could happen; that's something that can be killed stone dead with too much planning.

On the second what? Go-round? The second pass? The second verse? chorus?

Second time round is clear enough for me. Verse implies words; Pass makes me thing of a planing machine.

[whistler]

...As for keeping the audience entertained...

What I should is, at the best sessions, the 'audience' is just as integral to the proceedings as the musicians are. The listeners egg the players on, the players respond with ever better music. It's better than sex - but don't tell the wife that.

[Bertram Henze]

a paid gig masquerading as a session.

I think I have found an example here. So when you find yourself in a session where everybody plays with unreal perfection, you might be on to something...

It happened to me once, in McGann's in Doolin. It's like you're going to the zoo for elephant hunting and you wonder why they give you an elephant costume.

[Randi Gormley]

Interesting. Brian Conway's session is a real session with people who drop by, occasional guest musicians, no set list, no even regular sets, a jig circle (although I understand they tried a hornpipe circle last week and had to stop at 4) where the next person in the circle starts something and a high quality of musicianship and he gets paid (and there's a tip jar and he gets food). A similar session that runs on weekends with the same drop-by policy and the same high quality of musicianship but without Brian's name and minus the jig circle is unpaid (it apparently started out as a comhaltas session years ago) and we chip in money for a tip because drinks are free. Same venue, different leaders and different days. So I guess it depends on who's making the arrangements, I'm thinking.

[JeffD]

I'd say that more than half the sessions I've been to had a paid host (or two). And I'd also say that the host was somewhat concerned about the quality, if for no other reason than he wants to keep the session going, it's a good (enough) gig, he wants the pub owner to not start thinking that karaoke might be a better money-maker etc.

Oh my. I have not seen that, but it would not be my first choice. Well I might have been to a jam or two (now that I think of it) where there was a paid moderator, or host, but thankfully you could not tell. Nobody was in charge of calling the tunes or the number of reps.

Most of the jams I have attended that were in public locations (i.e. pubs, bars, coffee houses, restaurants, and not church basements or private houses), the jam was self sustaining, self moderating, and independent. The venue owner was just happy that we picked their place to meet.

[Bren]

How many players nowadays would not even think of tuning up with out the aid of a clipon (or built-in) tuner?

Pretty hard to tune when you can't hardly hear yourself. I think of the electronic tuners as "equalisers" with fiddles etc.