peeplj wrote:Bloomfield wrote:
Incidentally, James, what do you make of the non-psychological responses that were offered to the article, you know, the part where the article is otherwise argued with?
The article raises issues that parallel the old dichotomy here on the board between those for whom the session is the soul and purpose of the music, and those who don't feel that way.
I thought you felt that way from your "criticize the article and brand yourself as a snob" post, and I don't think I quite see it that way. In fact I doubt that most of the people who are get considered snobs (or snobes, I guess) here on c&f but of course never get named would regard the session as the soul and purpose of the music. Even more so, I don't think the article is about session snobs vs. session slobs, at least it wouldn't be if it were done well. One of the problems with it that I have tried to point out is the authors seems to have allowed more of her own feelings and prejudices to enter the picture than was helpful.
Some folks read the article and have a sympathetic reaction to the author; I did. Exactly why I did, when I religiously attend our own weekly session, and am a conservative voice who continually helps keep the session centered around traditional music, I really can't tell you.
Other folks read the article and evidentally found it in whole or in part objectionable. Perhaps this is because they see themselves reflected in the article, perhaps not in a very flattering way--or perhaps for other reasons entirely.
I will say this: we don't have to do much towards enforcing the quality of our session players. Usually if someone shows up and doesn't play well, they quickly realize it and stop playing of their own accord. In fact we have the opposite problem: several pretty good players who can't be convinced that they are good enough to play in a public venue. Instead of discouraging anyone, we try to encourage, and guide. And we have had sessions where more teaching went on then playing, and that's ok, too. It all goes together, and we learn from each other.
Perhaps if you're ever down this way, you can sit in on one of our Tuesday-night sessions. You would be welcome!
--James
My first and negative reaction to the article was simple that it struck me as a thin and badly written piece. If that is "well researched" our academic standards are lower than I had feared. (For one thing, she seems entirely oblivious to methodology, not a good sign for a sociologist conducting field studies). Too bad, actually, because the subject could be interesting IF the author had put a bit more effort into it (say, if she had hung out long enough to develop a sense for distinguishing better from worse music) and if she had resisted the temptation play on the snob thing.
But I don't need to go on with that stuff. The point is simply, I don't think the article or the discussion is about who is nice to newbies or non-ITM musicians at the session an who isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be.
Finally, thanks for the invitation to the session. I won't miss it if I make it to Texarkana next (I don't have concrete plans just at this moment, I regret to say
). Let me also add the following: The sessions that I like to go to, and where I could be considered a bit of a regular or inner-circle player are incredibly friendly. Everyone there bends over backwards to accomodate newbies, visitors, guitarplayers, bodhranster. If you just sit in the vicinity of the players, with that look on your face or an instrument peeking from under your person, you get dragged in, encouraged, asked for a tune, thanked for stopping by and playing, and asked to come back. That goes even if you play like shyte. We had a guitarplayer for two years or so, who played from music and very poorly, sped up, and compensated the deficiencies of her skill with volume. I mean, she sat there banging the bejaysus out of her guitar the day that Daithi Sproule was there, playing sensitve and interesting plucked accompaniments.
(Incidentally, she was the one who would grumble about other people bringing "their" session to "ours," when visiting musicians would be asked to play us some of their tunes; no, she wanted Father Kelly's into Cooley's into Star of Munster every week.) Thing is: No one kicked her out, she was asked to slow down here or there, but that's it. People appreciated her person and liked talking and drinking with her.
So where does this whole snob thing come in? Think about it. No matter how friendly or accomodating I and my session buddies may be about people and interacting with them, we still care about the music. That means that I am probably not going nod and say yes when someone tells me that Gaelic Storm is the greatest Irish Trad band since Planxty, or that it doesn't matter whether you play from sheet music or tongue every note, or any of the typical stuff that bubbles up here.
In the same vein, disagreeing with the style and substance of that article does not automatically make one a session snob who wants to be Irisher than the Irish.
(Doesn't the fact that the other players made fun of her for this negate the argument that Irish muscians in America are "trying to be Irish?")
