Listening and Learning

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 2:48 am

If you were to have the choice of sitting in a small venue and listening to someone play in session, would you prefer listening to Jane and John Doe, competent whistlers, or a superstar of the Mary Bergin or Joannie Madden variety?

Mary Bergin, please.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 2:55 am

Sweetone you have an approach typical for a classical musician. What she said was she doesn't like over produced overpolished music. She didn't say liked mediocre music.

This music can be played well and very well with letting the technology of the recording studio take over, the best recording are pften those of players sitting at home in their kitchen playing away.
A solo fiddle recording like Bobby Casey's Taking Flight [or the 'home'recordings on Casey in the Cowhouse], are the best you can get[just to put a name to some], I wouldn't be able to think of any fiddle player able to surpass that music, yet it's just the man and his fiddle enjoying a tune.

As a more recent example you should listen to Kevin Crehan's CD, just the fiddle and very well thought out but no production to get in the way, plain good traditional music. That's what we are talking about here.

Michael Sullivan · Post by **Michael Sullivan** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:23 am

I agree with Wombat. There's more than one way to enjoy music and sometimes the participational enjoyment and the enjoyment of a performance can be mutually exclusive. But there's nothing wrong with that. Trying to keep up in a session of amazing players could be more frustrating than worthwhile--better to just sit back and take it in. In the same way sometimes I imagine symphonies aren't much fun for the percussionist or the french horn: at least not the same kind of fun as for me in the fourth row.

Also perhaps worth remembering that great teachers and great musicians are not always the same people, and great lessons and great sessions not the same events.

Isilwen · Post by **Isilwen** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:51 am

In response to the first posting in this thread:

Personally I'd prefer either or. If these particular "whistlers off the street" were quite competent in their skill, then I wouldn't mind learning from them. I also wouldn't mind the opportunity to get to play with a competent "star whistler."

I just like the music, and if it's good music, then it's even better!

colomon · Post by **colomon** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:52 am

On 2002-10-22 09:23, Michael Sullivan wrote:
...and great lessons and great sessions not the same events.

While it's certainly possible (heck, common) to have a lesson which is not a session, I'd argue that any great session is also a great lesson. Seeing how great players handle themselves -- what tunes they play, how they play them, the swing and the feel and the little variations you've never heard before -- that's utterly invaluable. It's the purest form of a lesson.

Which isn't to say that it's necessarily a lesson the student is ready for. I mean, I learned a lot at those sessions with Peter Horan last year, but I wasn't really ready for them yet. I would have learned so much more if they'd happened to me now. (Tenses get confused there, but you know what I mean.)

energy · Post by **energy** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 10:21 am

Hold on, folks! Are you hearing what you're saying? Here's the situation: Two sessions in your town tonight: One is frequented by the regulars in your area, excellent amatuers who show good muscianship, and the other is gonna be a bunch of world-class professionals who music is simply incomprehensible at times; you're going to go the session with the less immaculate players just because you can learn more!?! I'm incredulous...when you've got a chance to hear players at that level in an informal level, who cares if you can't learn a thing?? Go for the music!!! The music would be its own reward... I can't believe that any of you faced with this situation would really go to the session with the less talented musicians. Even on a weekly basis.

The real issue for me is which of the musicians play with more feeling. Just because the technique is better doesn't mean you're a better musician.

_________________
True Believer
Nate

[ This Message was edited by: energy on 2002-10-22 12:23 ]

totst · Post by **totst** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 10:47 am

On 2002-10-22 12:21, energy wrote:
.

Just because the technique is better doesn't mean you're a better musician.

_________________

Ah! So true..so true..

sweetone · Post by **sweetone** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:14 am

On 2002-10-22 04:55, Peter Laban wrote:
Sweetone you have an approach typical for a classical musician. What she said was she doesn't like over produced overpolished music. She didn't say liked mediocre music.

This music can be played well and very well with letting the technology of the recording studio take over, the best recording are pften those of players sitting at home in their kitchen playing away.
A solo fiddle recording like Bobby Casey's Taking Flight [or the 'home'recordings on Casey in the Cowhouse], are the best you can get[just to put a name to some], I wouldn't be able to think of any fiddle player able to surpass that music, yet it's just the man and his fiddle enjoying a tune.

As a more recent example you should listen to Kevin Crehan's CD, just the fiddle and very well thought out but no production to get in the way, plain good traditional music. That's what we are talking about here.

On the Kerry Whistle site you can see and listen to life recordings of several well know Irish musicians and groups as Lunasa, Flook, Mike McGoldrick, Phil Hardy himself etc. They are playing live, no studio involved, nothing overproduced, just plain music but played with absolute virtuosity. This got nothing to do with the fact I'm a classical musician as well, just like music at its best.

_________________
Listen, play and have fun!

[ This Message was edited by: sweetone on 2002-10-22 13:15 ]

colomon · Post by **colomon** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:17 pm

Yeah, Peter, your examples of "Jane and John Doe competent" musicians would appear to be well-known, well-thought of, indeed great, yet homespun musicians, each with CDs. When I picture competent whistlers, I think of Colleen, Dale, Emily, all from our local session. Actually, competent sounds a lot like an insult applied to them -- they're all good players, but not greats, nor are they exactly household names.

I think this is what causes part of the difference in opinion. I think sweetone and I read the question as, would you rather listen to average musicians or great ones -- witness my including Peter Horan in with the "superstars". You seem to have read it as would you rather listen to great musicians who have a simple style or super-talented flashy musicians.

LeeMarsh · Post by **LeeMarsh** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:37 pm

I'd rather go to the better session player.

Being a good performance or recording musician is not always the same as a good session musician. I've been to sessions where the performance/recording musician was miserable in session, to much individual ego in the way to enjoy the gathering. I've also been around musicians with dozens of credits on dozens of CD's that are simply a joy to have in a session or any informal venue.
If the "star" was one of these later type, I'd pick the "star' session. If the 'star' was one of the former ego-ride types, I'd pick the amature session.

With the ego-centric star type,
it just befuddles me
that the Creator
would put so much music
in such a shallow soul.

I'll choos the session where you ...

_________________

Enjoy Your Music, Lee Marsh 

P.S. Just wanted to note that 95 percent of the musicians that I've met who would qualify as 'star' performers are also the type that are a joy to have in session where you see their passion for the music up close and personal.

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-10-22 15:46 ]

PhilO · Post by **PhilO** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:48 pm

Although I get your point, I've seen Mary Bergin and Cathall McConnell along with Bill Ochs play at the Blarney Star in Manhattan, and wouldn't want to miss that caliber performance.

Regards,

Philo

Blackbird · Post by **Blackbird** » Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:16 pm

Although I would take the chance to see the stellar performer if I could afford it, I very much agree with Tyghress' point. To me, the real music doesn't happen up there on the stage behind all the microphones and filtered through the preconceptions of the sound guy. Even for those stellar musicians, I think a lot of them would say the best part of being a professional player is getting to play in the living rooms of other pros all around the world, and maybe sometimes in sessions, too. That's where the delight of music happens. So I'd rather spend most of my time in an atmosphere where I can make some kind of contribution, than listening passively or even actively.

But I confess, I have never made a very good audience member. Even as a child, going to a play or concert only filled me with a longing to be in the middle of things. Maybe it's just ego, but I would always rather be doing than observing. When I play CD's, I have to sing or play along, and the concerts I enjoy the most are those where the singers encourage choruses from the audience. The Karen Savoca concert I attended the other night had some of that magic - she's an artist worth listening to, if you get a chance, and her partner is a brilliant guitarist. Not Irish at all, but very down to earth, roots-inspired songs.

Tyghress · Post by **Tyghress** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 6:39 am

My thanks to all who are participating in this thread. The insight and discussion is enlightening.

Peter has some of the essence of my original question when he pointed out that I honestly don't like 'produced' trad music, however grand the musicians. It isn't about personalities! Having met a few top grade musicians who range in temperment from painfully shy to folk-off-the-street-friendly to yeah-I-know-I'm-good, I have to point out that stellar talent and/or professional status doesn't mean they're in-your-face about it, or exude the air that they're too far above you to matter. Just the opposite, really. I'm sure there are obnoxious professional folk musicians. I've just never met any of them. Everyone I've met has been 'nice people'.

But I would prefer spectating at an unfamiliar session than than being in the audience of a professional show. As far as my own sessions...honestly I'd be torn. The Wednesday night session to me is a major social event to me. Let's just say I wouldn't travel [bold]far[/bold] on a Wednesday night to see a pro.

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 6:56 am

On 2002-10-21 19:30, avanutria wrote:
Whoever would be more willing to hang about afterwards and give out some pointers to the beginners.

This makes good sense to me!!

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 8:50 am

On 2002-10-22 14:17, colomon wrote:
You seem to have read it as would you rather listen to great musicians who have a simple style or super-talented flashy musicians.

I was only responding to Sweetone giving two examples of very well played top of the range traditional musicians playing without any overproduction, straightforward vituosity.

Sweetone still doesn't get the point, considering the musicans he quotes.