Jam audiences -- Whaddaya think?

[allenhopkins]

Used to go now and again to a jam in Canandaigua NY that was more like an "open stage"; there was a sound system set up, and you signed up for a slot to play. Other musicians generally came up and joined in, but the person who signed up, picked the songs and led the music for 15 minutes or so; then another person or group came onstage and had their 15 minutes. People came just to listen, sat at tables, applauded, sometimes got up and danced.

That jam's been replaced by one in Geneva, about 15 miles distant, at the Smith Opera House. No stage or sound system, no sign-up protocol, musicians just "circle up" and pretty much take turns starting tunes and songs. Still a number of people sitting as "audience," though, and applauding after songs.

What to people feel about "audiences" at jams? People, non-musicians I guess, who come not just to listen and hang out, but to sit in chairs facing the music and respond with applause, perhaps requests, etc.? Does it make the jam too much like a performance? What about the "open stage, sign up" format? Do people who like just jamming, find that less friendly?

I did notice that the Canandaigua open stage jams attracted a lot of country-western singers, some with songbooks propped on music stands, and lacked some of the spontaneity of a good informal bluegrass/old-time jam.

[Ryk Loske]

Hi Allen,

Interesting topic. I am fortunet that "jams" musical gatherings ... or as they used to be termed "tunks" or kitchen junkets are a part of NEK folklore.
Here ... the audience is crucial. They donate $3.00 to get in the door ... unless they can't afford it (This is the poorest place in Vermont from a financial standpoint ... richest in many others.) They absolutely can't do without their weekly fix. Every Friday night there's a gathering somewhere ... the jam here in Glover is the second Sunday afternoon. Depending on the location there's room for dancing. If not ... folks just listen and are incredibly appreciative. Anybody who wants to gets their two-tunes. It can range from folk to country to old time. I'll back anybody on guitar but lately an older trumpet player and i have been playing old jazz standards that folks can't get enough of. It's a very vibrant community. We don't take requests other than someone wanting to hear a particular tune they enjoy in a particular singers tune list. "C'mon Lynne ... sing Scarlet Ribbons."

So ... to answer your question ... here it's very much about the audience.

Ryk

[Mandobart]

Sorry for the long answer, but for me there's a wide variety. At the fiddler's group I go to once a month, its the sound-system, stage, sit-down audience deal. You sign up and do a couple of songs. It's really more what I would call an open mic. Pretty much gotta play bluegrass or old-time there. No one pays to listen or play. At my weekly jams, and monthly BG jam, its more of the song-circle format. There is always some of an audience; spouses/kids/parents of the players. Again, no one pays (although we're all encouraged to chip in to support the church where we play. Seems fair). The more folky or free-form ones we're likely to receive and accept requests, often from other players. I have three other jams where there is a "real" audience. One is a celtic/folk/whatever jam at a coffeeshop. We usually talk to the patrons there a bit; there are some regulars who come just to listen. I have a blues jam I go to once in a while at a bar. Real great audience, lots of dancing and very supportive. Once a month we play a song-circle type jam at an assisted living facility. The audience is subdued, but sober, and we have a couple big fans.

I play an open mic with a friend on Tuesdays at a dive where the only audience is often the bartender and a few of us who play. Another open mic I go to is hit and miss; sometimes the audience is great; others they get up to go out and take a smoke whenever you get up to play (even if they don't smoke). So...to answer your question Allen, I like having an audience. It adds a level of tension (there's good tension, couldn't pluck a string without it) and concentration that I welcome. Whenever someone is there, listening, I say engage them. Acknowledge them, thank them for their attention. There are many other things they could be doing with their time.

[catmandu2]

I pretty much agree with mbart- I've always felt privileged and grateful that people wanted to hear my playing. How often have we, after a tune, found someone heartily applauding whom we weren't even aware was in the room...

[JeffD]

In another thread it was mentioned how this kind of thing undermines gigging musicians. Why should a venue pay for a band or a singer or player, when so many will come fill the stage for free. He still gets to collect from the audience.

I dunno. I think this might often be the case, but perhaps not always.


But I think Allen was asking from the point of view of the jammer. I think a jam in front of the audience adds a lot of energy to the jam and makes everyone a little bit more focused. It also exposes more folks to the music, and helps bring in new blood.

But it isn't my personal preference. I like all kinds of jams, but I prefer an intimate jam in a private home, church basement, library whathaveyou. I like the jam to be about us the musicians.

Our regular jam is on a stage, and I have fantasized a poster facing the audience, saying: Don't applaud, we aren't playing for you.

But I am a curmudgeon these days.

[michaelpthompson]

I got started playing Celtic music with a fellow who did Irish pub songs in a coffee shop for drinks and tips. He would always invite those listening to share a song at some point. Kind of what you mean by "engaging the audience" maybe? We wound up developing a performance band out of those sessions, but we still do the hangout and play thing for drinks and tips, nowadays at a local pub, since the college kids in the coffee shop thought we were making too much noise.

We go around the circle and each person gets a turn (or two or three, depending on how many of us there are that night) to pick the next song. I've used that same format in other jams, and it usually works quite well. For many, especially beginners, this is less intimidating than the standard Irish Traditional session, where the most aggressive players choose all the tunes.

We've always held a balance between music for the sake of the musicians and "performing" for an audience. We do the stage thing too, and that's fun, but in our regular jams we're much less formal. We chat and joke between songs, we try out pieces that aren't really quite ready for prime time. We do it mostly for the fun, but people enjoying watching and hearing that happen, so we tend to attract an audience too. Many are regulars, some of whom even knew us back in the coffee shop days. Others just came in for dinner or a beer and stayed for the music. We take requests, but mostly for songs they know we know. We still invite audience members and other musicians to join in too. That's part of the fun.

[raulb]

I do not perform nor do I contribute in jams (lack of talent & stage fright), but what is the purpose of a jam without allowing an audience? I am not altruistic nor a musical evangelist, but music should be shared.

[Dave Cowles]

But it isn't my personal preference. I like all kinds of jams, but I prefer an intimate jam in a private home, church basement, library whathaveyou. I like the jam to be about us the musicians.

But I am a curmudgeon these days.

+1, Jeff, and yes, I too am a curmudgeon. The weekly jam in a local park is set up with sound system and is basically for the audience. The "jammers" have no regard for subtleties such as backing off whenever someone is playing a lead, etc. I jam to enjoy playing with other musicians and possibly learn something from time to time. I have not yet learned to shed my curmudgeon persona.

[Andy Alexander]

Used to go now and again to a jam in Canandaigua NY that was more like an "open stage"; there was a sound system set up, and you signed up for a slot to play. Other musicians generally came up and joined in, but the person who signed up, picked the songs and led the music for 15 minutes or so; then another person or group came onstage and had their 15 minutes. People came just to listen, sat at tables, applauded, sometimes got up and danced.

That jam's been replaced by one in Geneva, about 15 miles distant, at the Smith Opera House. No stage or sound system, no sign-up protocol, musicians just "circle up" and pretty much take turns starting tunes and songs. Still a number of people sitting as "audience," though, and applauding after songs.

What to people feel about "audiences" at jams? People, non-musicians I guess, who come not just to listen and hang out, but to sit in chairs facing the music and respond with applause, perhaps requests, etc.? Does it make the jam too much like a performance? What about the "open stage, sign up" format? Do people who like just jamming, find that less friendly?

I did notice that the Canandaigua open stage jams attracted a lot of country-western singers, some with songbooks propped on music stands, and lacked some of the spontaneity of a good informal bluegrass/old-time jam.

Having attended both the Canandaigua and the Geneva jams my concern is that the organizers promote the event to listeners as well as pickers. The music presented has often not been of the caliber that would encourage a first time listener to seek out more bluegrass music. Leave the performing to people that have made the investment in time and effort to to provide an audience with a quality listening experience. Let the pickers of a wide range of abilities jam without the burden of an audience.

[allenhopkins]

Good discussion so far! I'm used to people just standing around a group of jamming musicians, after hours at a festival e.g., to listen and appreciate the music. Many jams and Celtic seisuns are held in bars and clubs, and the patrons are free to listen (or not), and they sometimes do applaud, suggest songs, even join in at times.

But some jams that I've attended are really "open stages"; organized bands get up and give pre-planned sets, or singers get up and recruit back-up musicians for their time onstage. As Andy mentions above, some jams are promoted to the general public as a chance to hear a specified genre of music, and "audience" members get charged a nominal admission, while musicians often get in for free. (Not always.) And this brings up a central point which raulb brings up:

...what is the purpose of a jam without allowing an audience? I am not altruistic nor a musical evangelist, but music should be shared.
raulb

In many cases, the purpose of the jam is for the participating musicians, to enjoy sharing music with each other, and not necessarily for an audience. Andy's point that beginners and the "talent challenged" (cruel, cruel!) can come to jams, participate with others, and sometimes produce less-than-stellar music, is a good one. But if you state that one purpose of your "jam" is to showcase bluegrass/Celtic/jazz/whatever to the general public, there's pressure to, as Andy states, "leave the performing to [experienced performers, for] a quality listening experience."

For the past 30 years I've helped manage a Fiddlers' Fair at Genesee Country Village, west of Rochester; one of its central features is an open stage where any fiddler can sign up for ten minutes; professional sound, fairly large audience, experienced back-up musicians available if wanted. Once a local radio talk host complained that he'd attended the event, and the quality of music wasn't consistently up to professional standards. No surprise, since some of the performers were eight-year-olds sawing through Bile That Cabbage Down, with mixed results. I wrote him a letter, saying he'd misunderstood the purpose of the open stage, and that one of its goals was development of young fiddlers. But the incident underlined the tension between jamming for musicians' pleasure and growth, and entertaining an audience.

[catmandu2]

People are starving for something meaningful like music in their lives. Set up a stage, or a couple of monitors, a few instruments...people are gonna be attracted. People love it, even if "vicariously."

There are many social customs around a public event such as a performance, or a public jam session. Some folks are familiar and/or sensitive to custom, others not. It's a difficult task to institutionalize some standard of behavior for folks around the music.

One of the customs, I would think, would be: if the "band" have their backs turned to you, don't expect a performance. Some of the more casual local players get their feet wet by playng at these open mic/"jams." IME, there's not much audience. Seems fair. Seems like that's a better place to get one's feet wet performing than a popular fair with pro sound and expectations.

I'll have to re-read the thread...not sure I'm understanding the issues.

[Ed Goist]

Hi Allen:
Cool thread.
I would really enjoy participating (as a player) in both of the formats you mention above. Music is supposed to be enjoyed by others, so I think having some 'audience' makes the overall experience more rewarding for everyone.
Interestingly, I think I would prefer the "open stage, sign up" format the most. However, I would likely never sign up myself, instead I would happily support better musicians who had signed-up. I like having someone "in charge" & directing my playing. I am sure that this comes from my experience years ago on stage as a rhythm guitarist (always following & perfectly comfortable doing so).

[JeffD]

I think Andy has an important point. The casual audience, attendee at a coffeehouse or "public" jam, often does not know what is happening, and assumes it is a performance. In a park it kind of depends on how people are standing, but when there is a stage, what is a casual observer to do? Its an accidental/on purpose misrepresentation.


An open stage sign up is a different beast all together. It is reperesented correctly as a performance, individual or ensemble, of unvetted musicians. You take what comes, and the audience knows this. The audience is often largely friends and relatives of one or more of those on stage.

[JeffD]

I do not perform nor do I contribute in jams (lack of talent & stage fright), but what is the purpose of a jam without allowing an audience?

The purpose of a jam is for musicians to play music with each other. It is of, by, and for the partipating musicians. Anything else is more than a jam.

Venue owners want free entertainment, and so other purposes may at times creep in. Pub jammers want jam friendly pubs so other purposes may at times be accomodated.

I am not altruistic nor a musical evangelist, but music should be shared.

I feel no obligation to work for free. Slavery was abolished a while back.

[JeffD]

People are starving for something meaningful like music in their lives. Set up a stage, or a couple of monitors, a few instruments...people are gonna be attracted. People love it, even if "vicariously."

There are many social customs around a public event such as a performance, or a public jam session. Some folks are familiar and/or sensitive to custom, others not. It's a difficult task to institutionalize some standard of behavior for folks around the music.

I think another custom that might be established is that if the park, or pub, or venue wants a performance they can pay the band.

One of the customs, I would think, would be: if the "band" have their backs turned to you, don't expect a performance. Some of the more casual local players get their feet wet by playng at these open mic/"jams." IME, there's not much audience. Seems fair. Seems like that's a better place to get one's feet wet performing than a popular fair with pro sound and expectations.

I like that. A lot actually. If I find myself in an open jam on a stage, I will stand or sit with my back to the audience (depending on whether its BG or OT of course). If management or someone else asks me to turn around, I'll request a fee as appropriate for a performance.

[michaelpthompson]

I feel no obligation to work for free. Slavery was abolished a while back.

So music for yourself is fun, music for others is work and must be compensated? I guess most of us don't make such a black and white distinction.

[Markus]

If I find myself in an open jam on a stage, I will stand or sit with my back to the audience (depending on whether its BG or OT of course). If management or someone else asks me to turn around, I'll request a fee as appropriate for a performance.

For some of us, they pay us NOT to face the audience

[catmandu2]

I've never had a problem with the variety of business practices. I'm not attracted by the policies of many, and so I avoid them. I play for the establishments that I find more suited to my needs.

I also feel that, folk music is different than other idioms. Frankly, so many folks participate in the music that it is readily available and owner/operators may feel, since it is such a common commodity, it must be "free." In my town, there are typically buskers on the street performing for "free"; perhaps owners/operators regard providing a roof and house sound as a "next step up."

If venturing into a public place, the reality is having to deal with the outcome. With all of the variety of venues, business practices, audience types, expectations and behavior of players and spectators, it is a difficult task to regulate behavior. Best to be selectve about where to play.

I confess, though, some amusement by the rarefied self-regard of the old-time player who considers the "jam" such a valuable commodity that it must be compensated for. Surly old-timers with these attitudes can be pretty dour. With the onset of the internet--where anyone with PC access can learn to fiddle like Tommy Jarrell--I expect the trend to increase.

[catmandu2]

I think another custom that might be established is that if the park, or pub, or venue wants a performance they can pay the band.

Sure, if a performance by a band is expected, I agree. It may be that owners/operators regard a jam as unrehearsed, loosely structured, more social than professional, and for the benefit of the players...ergo, not warranting compensation beyond some amenities. That spectators enjoy music, and owners/operators seek to capitalize on this is not particularly surprising nor irksome, to me.

I think it's reasonable for establishments to regard jam sessions as "amateur" events--since they often involve amateur players. If you want to be paid, perhaps seek a more readily recognized musical vocation.

[Bertram Henze]

I just follow the custom of Irish pub sessions which everybody seems to get along with in a happily unorganized way. In that setting, the musicians are more of "special customers", with the obvious differences being that we play and the others don't, and that we get some kind of discount on drinks and the others sometimes pay a round.

The percentage of non-musicians (I am not sure wether calling them audience would be really appropriate) varies, and so does the amount of ground noise they generate. Some face our circle and actively listen and watch, others face each other and talk (perceiving us rather like some kind of biological jukebox), and you never know in advance what will happen, just like you never know which and how many musicians turn up (even the usual suspects might take a night off). Unpredictability is a feature here, not a bug. Thus, there is no such thing like an organized "format" as such. And I like it that way, because it doesn't get more relaxed than that.

I am there to play music, and I am certainly not there
- to work for money (or work at all, for that matter)
- to be a superstar in the spotlight
- to be a musical museum exhibit

[JeffD]

So music for yourself is fun, music for others is work and must be compensated? I guess most of us don't make such a black and white distinction.

I have no clue what most of us think.

Its not about me, its about making sure music has value. Tangible value.

Music is always fun. Nonetheless it should cost somebody something. Somebody needs to pay the piper, give the fiddler a dram, whatever. The idea that public music is really great, but not worth a dime?

[Jim]

I would always prefer to "Jam" for an audience though if the jam isn't good I'll leave because I'm not interested in playing if it doesn't sound good. I will sound better if I feel I'm playing to someone.
Bars & Pubs with "Jam Nights" seem to make most of their money selling to the participants and not from representing it as a free show. Music is everywhere and for the most part free. There is nothing wrong with giving it away for free, it's sharing.
I would rather play an open mic where I or a group performs a worked out arrangement as opposed to a bunch of people trying to play together with little or no organization.

[JeffD]

I would rather play an open mic where I or a group performs a worked out arrangement as opposed to a bunch of people trying to play together with little or no organization.

I absolutely agree. If there is an audience I would rather have things worked out and worked on.

In a jam situation I love a lack of organization, a real traffic jam where tunes are flying and energy is pumping. And it often sounds rougher and not as ready for prime time. Which is why I prefer a jam behind closed doors. To enjoy the jam.

[michaelpthompson]

Its not about me, its about making sure music has value. Tangible value.

Music is always fun. Nonetheless it should cost somebody something. Somebody needs to pay the piper, give the fiddler a dram, whatever. The idea that public music is really great, but not worth a dime?

What I was commenting on was the dichotomy. In my world, I do play for pay. Just last night, our band entertained a pub full of customers, and the landlord paid us in cash and drinks. I don't do that for free, just for the reasons you mention.

Other times, we play in a pub mostly for our own enjoyment, but it tends to attract onlookers. Sometimes they request songs, sometimes they even join in. All too rarely, they buy a round for the band .

The pub owner provides us with drinks and food because what we do for our own enjoyment also enhances his business. We interact with the patrons in a manner similar to a performance, but we are much more laid back, more likely to engage in conversation, jokes, etc., than when we do a paid performance.

I've seen similar situations at TRAD Irish sessions. The musicians are basically playing for their own enjoyment, but the pub owner encourages the activity in some tangible fashion (often drinks and/or food, rarely cash) because his patrons enjoy observing the process. It's not paid entertainment, but often rises to a professional level of musicianship anyway.

So I guess I'm saying my experience indicates more of a continuum, a sliding scale, than an either/or situation regarding payment. What I'm hearing from you is that if you're not paid, then nobody deserves to enjoy your music but you and the people who play with you. I don't know if that's what you really meant, but that's what I'm getting.

[JeffD]

I don't mind sharing. I have no problem with sharing. A jam is sharing. Its sharing tunes and musical energy and enthusiasm with the other musicians.

I just have some issues sharing with an audience who is here because there isn't a cover charge.