# Music by Genre > Celtic, U.K., Nordic, Quebecois, European Folk >  Musical rules/suggestions for medleys

## AZmando

Since these celtic tunes are usually pretty short, it's common to put a few of 'em together in medleys.  When we put together tunes for medleys, what are some common rules?

I know they should sound good together, but what about the keys?  Of course, they are often just two or three tunes all in the same key.  I also know from learning a bit about classic piano ragtime that stepping up a fourth sounds good.  But that's about ALL I know.  I'm curious about other rules and ideas - what about minor keys for example?

I guess I'm looking for some do's and don'ts here.  Thanks in advance!

----------


## Jim Garber

I am not expert at ITM but the best medleys seem to be tunes in different keys and ones where there is some dramatic contrast. I don't think there is an actual rule than anyone follows. I know that a a major tune paired with one in a minor key can be quite nice.

----------


## Jim Nollman

our band always joins 3 tunes together, as a set, for playing contra dances. Each AABB fiddle tune will be played 3 times then we switch. If the caller decides to extend the dance extemporaneously, we simply keep playing the last of the 3 tunes. 

Almost always, our fiddle player  initially puts the three tunes together. She looks for certain rhythmic similarities. She likes to start low first (for instance key of G on fiddle or mandolin) then, secondly, D, and ends, thirdly, on the key of A or E. 

There are a few other attributes we use to bind the sets together. We'll often start a dance with a particular set of "easy-to-play" reels, just to warm ourselves up to speed. So we made a set out of  Possum Up Gumstump (key of G) into Hunting the Buffalo (D), to Shoofly (A). 

We used to mix reels and jigs together in a single set. But a while back, the dancers complained, so now we keep the sets segregated as a reel set or a jig set. We make sets from tunes that work well together, and pay no attention to the country of origin. We do not play unison. 

Importantly, there's also an indefinable dynamic  that drives the most successful sets, where the syncopation and phrasing of each tune actually pushes the next tune into  a "higher" realm. These only get joined together by the experience of playing the sets a lot. Someone will suggest that we try changing one tune in the set with another tune, because it will push the set better. If it works, we usually know it immediately.  Currently, two  of our favorite sets stand out for doing this exceedingly well. The first set is well known reels: Johnny Don't Get Drunk:::Buck Mountain::: Mason's Apron. The second set is jigs: Sarah's Jig:::Up the River:::Fair Jenny.

----------

Flec

----------


## JeffD

One criteria is how easy it is to go from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If it feels smooth it will sound smooth.

----------


## Jim Garber

As Jim N. noted, it is a very different thing if you are playing for dancers or just for listening. I have worked with some callers who do ask for specific rhythms even ones that may emphasize a particular beat in a particular part to fit in with a specific dance.

----------


## Randi Gormley

I've occasionally heard of slip jigs into double jigs but not the other way around; most of the sets I know or play are single rhythms (all reels, all jigs, all slip jigs, all slides, all hornpipes); I know of one set by a fiddler friend of mine that goes slow air/strathspey/reel; the Coleman set (Tarbolton/Longford Collector/Sailor's Bonnet) are so well known they're seldom played separately; a lot of people like to either put same-named tunes together (New Copperplate/Old Copperplate; Father Kelly's I/Father Kelly's II; Ballydesmond Polka II/Ballydesmond Polka III) or make up sets by their name -- we play something we call "The Elopement Set" which starts with Haste to the Wedding, goes to Saddle the Pony and then to Off She Goes. I know someone who plays a "Murder" set which ends with "I buried my wife and danced on her grave" but I don't know the first two, alas.

----------


## CelticDude

I like to "sandwich" modes - major-minor-major or vice versa.  Sometimes go from jigs into a reel (I've never gotten it to work reel into jig though).  And I do go from 2 double jigs into a slip jig, as well as other combinations.  There is probably theory about what keys go into what, but I don't know it, beyond going from from major to relative minor or other way.  Also going up in key seems to work.

----------


## Bren

One of my best session friends believes that sets should go "up" at each change. 
Her sets always sound great and irresistible - her favourite combo is D, G, A. An example would be : St Anne's Reel - Spootiskerry - Foxhunters (in A). 

But really, whatever sounds good. What sounds great in one situation might not sound so great in another with different people.

One band I play in, a ceilidh band,  has some quite "jarring" changes, like Mrs MacLeod in A then "irish version" in G, but they take a slight breath of silence between them and it really seems to kick the dancers along. 

You can't really use silences in a session - other players tend to fill them - but you can get away with it in a band.

----------


## Shelagh Moore

I don't tend to go by any "rules" on this but, rather, put sets together, often on the fly, by what sounds pleasing to me in terms of tempo, key or contrast. It's my preference perhaps, but I tend to avoid "standard" sets in favour of spontaneity.

----------


## Bren

Spontaneity is the best, but one thing about familiar sets - you'll get more people joining in.

Quite annoying when a set builds up a head of steam only to quickly peter out into a weedy solo as the fiddler plays an obscure tune known only to him/her.

----------


## DougC

An example of a rhythmic similarity to make a set are the first two bars of Dunmore Lasses and Ships are Sailing reels. 

Another aspect of making sets is that many tunes are of similar scale patterns like E Dorian and D Major.

----------


## JeffD

> One of my best session friends believes that sets should go "up" at each change. 
> Her sets always sound great and irresistible - her favourite combo is D, G, A. An example would be : St Anne's Reel - Spootiskerry - Foxhunters (in A). .


This is a powerful way to organize a set. Dancers love it to because it seems to lift up when the tune changes. 

In a session the banjo players may groan.  :Smile:

----------

Jim Nollman

----------


## mandocrucian

You need to/should start to *analyze medleys* off of CDs which *you* particularly like. Write the details down in a notebook*:  tune/key/meter/tempo ....  You should start to notice the preferences of various bands/players regarding shifts in tempos, keys, and meter (different kinds of tunes - reels, hornpipe, jig, slip jig, march, air)

I always liked _"the great Swarb's"_ (Dave Swarbrick) medleys on the Fairport Convention albums and on his own solo releases. He's probably a bit more adventurous in mixing up the various elements than many.  I also like the way The High Level Ranters strung tunes together, especially in their classic Anderson/Gilfellon/Handle/Ross lineup of the early 70s; and also (accordionist) John Kirkpatrick too. 

Ditto for early Boys of the Lough. And then there's The Bothy Band, Altan, Planxty, Patrick Street, Silly Wizard etc.  (If you have trouble figuring out the keys of tunes cause the CD tracks are going just to fast for you, look up the tune(s) at The Session  http://thesession.org/ )

*Find medleys YOU like*, and determine what is going on within those.  *And WHY do you like it?...* modulation? going into minor, shift to a different type of tune for dramatic effect? tempo changes? (and of course, the actual tune selection!) multiple reasons?  You need to have some reference examples, so you can try out tune combinations using those same type of ideas.  This is another type of "pushups", and there's a world of difference between experimenting and coming up with combinations you like and simply following someone else's script.  You follow a script and you aren't really thinking about the various aspects and the psychological effects (positive, neural, or negative) they have or don't have.  You won't build musical muscle if you avoid the workouts (both physical and mental/analytical)

*example of some of Swarb's Fairport medleys:

Medley (on *Liege & Lief*)
Lark In The Morning (jig, D)/Rakish Paddy (reel, D)/ Foxhunter's Jig (D, slip jig 9/8)/Toss The Feathers (reel, D)

"Flatback Caper" medley (on _Full House_)
Susan Cooper (reel, G)/The Friar's Breeches" (jig, D)/ John Doonan's (slip jig G)/Carolan's Concerto (4/4, D)

"Dirty Linen" medley (on _Full House_)
Last Night's Fun (slip jig, D)/The Merry Blacksmith (reel, D)/Drops of Brandy (slip jig, D)/Poll Ha'penny (reel, A)

Medley (on _Angel Delight_)
Cuckoo's Nest (hornpipe D)/Hardiman The Fiddler (slip jig, D mix)/Papa Stoor (slip jig, B)

(on _Rosie_)
The Hen's March (D, medium tempo march)/The Fourposter Bed (D,very fast reel)

Niles H.


You may also want to go to The Session and do a search for discussions about medley construction over there, cause that seems to be a recurring subject and you'll find as much you can handle!

----------


## whistler

> One criteria is how easy it is to go from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If it feels smooth it will sound smooth.


I think this is just as important as the key change.  But it is usually possible (and permissible) to make small adjustments to the ending of a tune in order to make it flow better into the next tune.  Sometimes it may be as simple as omitting a note or two, leaving a short gap; in other cases, it could involve changing a couple of notes, in a way that is barely noticeable - many players would do this without even knowing it.

The keys and modes that most Irish traditional tunes are in are such that most tune transitions would involve jumping up or down a 4th/5th, a whole tone, a minor 3rd (relative major/minor) - or no change at all - all of which are fairly 'pedestrian' changes.  Of course, keeping the same root note, there is still the possiblity of changing mode (e.g. A minor/Dorian/Mixolydian/major).  Once you bring in more unusual keys - e.g. C, F, Bb, E, F#m - there is the possibilty of jumps of a semitone (e.g. Bm to C), a major 3rd (F to A), even an augmented 4th (F to Bm).  To my ear, they're _all good_.  They might be _surprising_, but so long as there is some kind of melodic continuity, the listener won't know what's hit them.

----------


## foldedpath

> One criteria is how easy it is to go from the end of one to the beginning of the next. If it feels smooth it will sound smooth.


Very important point there. My fiddler S.O. and I have fun putting together sets at home when we play together, sometimes things we want to introduce to the local session, and more often just sets we like to play that will never make it into a session.

It usually starts with finding a new tune, and then "what would go with this?" based on other tunes we know. We usually follow session conventions, like all-jigs, all-horpipes, or all-reels for Irish sessions, or march-strathspey-reels for Scottish/Cape Breton, but not always. The next pass is usually based on the mode (key); do we want another tune in the same mode, or a shift in feeling? 

And then the final pass, the one that determines whether the next tune makes it or is discarded, is whether the change "flows" and can be fingered easily enough, like Jeff mentioned above. 

Fiddlers hate jumping over a string if they can avoid it, so that's one criteria. Usually we can tell immediately if the shift works or not. Some tunes just slide perfectly into the next one, and others fight it. Maybe if you're deep enough into the music you can know if it will work in advance, just by running the tunes through your head. I've met musicians who seem to be able to do this, on the fly. For the two of us though, it's trial and error. Just try it and see if it works. 

So of all the things discussed in this thread, I'd say this is probably the most important consideration: Does the next tune flow, with fairly easy fingering? Or is it a fight to get there? 

Bands sometimes get around this with a "stop time" interval between tunes: a pause that lasts for just a second, and then blasting into the next tune. Bands like Solas do this frequently, and it can be very effective for tunes where the key change is more important than having a smooth note transition right at the beginning. But you can't do that in a session, or at least I've never heard it.

P.S. /begin pedant mode
Your mileage may vary, but I've never heard the word "Medley" used in this music. It's always a "Set" where I've heard or read about it. 
/end pedant

----------


## JeffD

Something to avoid is grouping tunes by the name of the tune. This leads to some horrific combinations, the head of a zebra on the body of a hippo.

Case in point is Dancing Bear, followed by Barentanz. The change in rhythm will irritate dances and listeners alike.

----------


## Jim Bevan

I agree with the keys going up -- my sets often start in G and end in A-major.

Another "rule" I like to go by (it's my own rule, of course, I made it up) is having the first tune be a three-parter. (Maybe it's my classical background, where the first movement is usually longer and bigger-feeling than the other two or three movements.)

I also tend to go from obscure to well-known, just so everybody at a session can join in as it progresses.

If I had the computer chops, I'd invent a "set generator". I'd give all my tunes criteria like dance (reel, jig, etc), key, form (AABB, AB, AABBCC etc), and popularity. I'd give the program some rules, like "no more than one AB in a set", "obscure=>little-known=>well-known" or "little-known=>well-known=>horrendously-overplayed", etc. My simple interface would have two buttons: "Tunes", which would open up a window for inputting the tune criteria, and "Generate", which would display the groovy (or not) new Set Of The Day.

----------


## journeybear

I don't play a lot of this sort of music - and when I do I spend half the time playing catch-up  :Wink:  - but I have some friends who do. Here are two sets from their album. In the first one, both tunes are in D. Smooth transition. but maybe just a bit ho-hum. In the second, the first tune is in D, the second tune is in G. Still a smooth transition, but it's more dramatic. That's the IV key change the OP mentioned.

BTW, kudos for their arrangement of "Rosetree," in which mandolin appears and plays a nice harmony in the A part the third time through.  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Jim Bevan

When I'm in town (Santiago de Chile), I play with a band that has a set that goes from Sliabh Russel into The Rakes of Kildare -- both A dorian tunes.

Ya'd think that it might sound boring, but when Rakes starts, the guitarist plays a D chord (on a 12-string DADGAD-tuned guitar) -- man that sounds cool!
(He goes back to A for the B-part.)    :Mandosmiley:

----------


## LongBlackVeil

> I agree with the keys going up -- my sets often start in G and end in A-major.
> 
> Another "rule" I like to go by (it's my own rule, of course, I made it up) is having the first tune be a three-parter. (Maybe it's my classical background, where the first movement is usually longer and bigger-feeling than the other two or three movements.)
> 
> I also tend to go from obscure to well-known, just so everybody at a session can join in as it progresses.
> 
> If I had the computer chops, I'd invent a "set generator". I'd give all my tunes criteria like dance (reel, jig, etc), key, form (AABB, AB, AABBCC etc), and popularity. I'd give the program some rules, like "no more than one AB in a set", "obscure=>little-known=>well-known" or "little-known=>well-known=>horrendously-overplayed", etc. My simple interface would have two buttons: "Tunes", which would open up a window for inputting the tune criteria, and "Generate", which would display the groovy (or not) new Set Of The Day.


That set generator is a terrific idea IMO. Maybe you should get in talks with an app devolop and turn it into an iphone and android app. There are certainly people that will do that for a price

----------


## Jim Bevan

Ya...   :Cool: 

I'm hoping that someone savvy enough here will jump on it, and we'll all have a say in the parameters, we'll all benefit, and we'll all be proud of our MaCair Tratusegen (Mandolin Cafe Irish Trad Tune Set Generator).

(Seems that we'll need a handier name for it...)

----------


## whistler

> If I had the computer chops, I'd invent a "set generator".


That's a great idea, but horrible at the same time.  I have no doubt whatsoever that the technology exists, and I am almost certain that there is someone out there with both the understanding of the music and the programming knowhow to make it work - and once Mk.1 had been set to work, it could only improve.  It would be a nice thing to achieve, but I hate the idea that it could become commonplace for musicians to be referring to gadgets in sessions, just to enable them to play a bunch of tunes.  How many players nowadays would _not even think_ of tuning up with out the aid of a clipon (or built-in) tuner?

Am I just getting old?

----------


## Jim Bevan

When I first thought it up, it was 'cuz I was wondering if I could handle the transitions between tunes if someone said "We're going to play ___, ___, ___" without having ever navigated those transitions before.

I thought a set generator would be a handy practice tool.

----------


## xiledscot

Well back here on planet music,we have no rules,as to what is and what is not acceptable.
Other people have said that if it sounds good,feels good and the audience like it,then it probably will be good. I tend to agree with that. Spontanaity is also a credible parameter. 
Talking of parameters. Do you want this written in C  ,  C++  or perhaps Java?
Writing a programme would not be difficult,except.....................
We are dealing with musicians here.
Who is to set the parameters? Will it be possible to get any concenus of opinion?
For example. What key is a tune played in ?  Just because a famous group of guys,back in the 70's played a particular tune in A, it doesn't follow that the tune simply must be played in A.
Likewise tempo. Jigs and Reels etc.can be played  at a whole range of different speeds. (and don't let any-one tell you differently)
I agree with my Welsh Buddy................even if there was money in such a thing,would I waant it?
We think not!

----------


## Jim Bevan

Yes, but to keep it simple, I think that you'd just have the four categories (dance, key, form, popularity), and go with the normal arrangements (I've never played the Kesh in D major, and ya, it's possible, and it might sound cool, but let's not overcomplicate things unnecessarily).

The overall rule is: Don't repeat a tune.
The rule for dance is: The three tunes have to be in the same category.
The rule for key is: Well, you just list all the keys in an order, like, say: G dorian, D minor, G mixolydian, D dorian, G major, D mixolydian, A dorian, D major, A mixolydian, E dorian, B minor, A major, B dorian, F# minor -- going through the cycle of 5ths, going up a 5th in each key signature (I left out keys that I can't think of a tune in). And you program the generator to not go backwards, to pick any three keys at random, but progressively through the specified order.
The rule for form is: You can have as many AABB tunes as you like, but you can't have more than one of the other forms in a set.
The rule for popularity are: You have four levels -- e.g. obscure, little-known, well-known, overplayed -- and the program goes in order, without skipping (meaning, 1-2-3 or 2-3-4).

You input a list of tunes, and you input pre-specified (like, choose from a drop-down menu) definitions into the four categories, e.g. Kesh: jig/G major/AABB/overplayed.

A fancier interface could let you turn off parameters, if you want to, say, ignore the key rule etc.

I think that would cover it enough to generate a nice enough set to try it out, see how it feels, and have fun.   :Smile: 
And at least it would be good practise for making transitions...  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Jim Bevan

Having recently seen a guy at a session (an older guy, playing banjo) reading tunes off an iPad, I agree with the concern about technology creeping into sessions (my wife says that texting is ruining sessions), but I don't agree with the fear of creating new, possibly helpful technology just because of the potential for abuse.

----------


## journeybear

Or misuse. All the tools at our disposal are just that - tools, created with the idea in mind (supposedly, hopefully, originally) of making things easier in some way for people using them. Ultimately one still has to know the songs and how to play them, which all the technology available can't teach you, but can help you learn. I've run into people who are overly reliant on whatever new gadget they have acquired, and are losing sight of their own experience. 

The singer in one of my bands showed up this winter with a tablet, which she attached to her mike stand, to display the lyrics so she wouldn't flub them. She hadn't practiced enough with this, or didn't have it set up right, or hadn't checked the lyrics she had downloaded from websites for errors, or hadn't put them in alphabetical or some other kind of order, or some combination of these factors, because the overall effect was a general slowing down, too much time between songs being spent dialing up the next one. I understand the attraction to use devices like this, and if you have them all customized and optimized, and have spent time with them so your operation of them during a show is swift and easy, they can be very helpful, indeed. But if you aren't ready to go with your gizmo, you're better off with your memory. At least when you're singing and looking right at the audience rather than a tablet, you'll stand a better chance of developing a rapport, which is elusive, often hard to achieve and more easily lost. That's more important than being spot-on perfect, anyway, IMHO.

----------


## Bertram Henze

I happen to like dramatic transitions from Major to Dorian, such as Calliope House/Lilting Banshee (D->Ador) or Lord McDonald/Ballinasloe Fair (G->Ador). Fitting with the moods of these modes, I also like to call them "sober" transitions.

...as opposed to "dreamy" transitions, which all go from Mixolydian to Mixolydian (aka "mad major") - once you've reached the nirvana of Mixo, waking up into another mode is bound to be unpleasant. A good example is Sean sa Cheo/High Reel.

Simple enough parameters for that generator.

----------


## Jim Bevan

Ya, good idea. 
(But will it start getting complicated? I've been told that programs that generate random results based on lots of rules are quite complex to create.)

In order to keep the order of going around the cycle of 5ths, to keep the feeling of lifting, "key" would need to be defined as the number of flats or sharps, instead of a note-name.

So, we divide the afore-mentioned "key" category into two: "key signature" and "mode" -- e.g. what was "D major" in the "key" column is now "##" in the "key signature" column, and "major" in the "mode" column.

The key signature rule: "A maxmimum of two of the same key signatures"? I'm not sure we really need that -- maybe we just need the old "go in order" rule.
The mode rule: "Don't have two of the same modes in a row".

Makes sense? I'm not 100% sure -- I love the sound of E minor going into G major, but that's going backwards in the order...

----------


## Bertram Henze

To play these tunes with feeling, you've got to have an ear for how they are supposed to sound. Then, you are well past the painting-by-numbers phase and automatically have an ear for how to combine them and don't need a generator any more. Only then, as kind of a-posteriori theory, you might set up parameters for the very generator you don't need.

A long time ago, I programmed a generator for triplets of shirt, tie and suspenders that would go together out of a virtual closet repository, based on max. number of colors, fabrics and patterns. It was a demo for MDA software design and did its job for that, but by the time it worked I could pick my clothing blind without the generator.

----------


## Bertram Henze

One combination that never goes, by the way, is tunes that are too similar. Like Cooley's Reel and Pidgeon on the Gate. Apart from the boredom, the transit is incredibly hard to do and might lead to mixed versions and derailment from one into the other.

----------


## Jim Bevan

Well, the question, I think, isn't "Do I need it?" -- the question is "Would this be fun?", and ya, I think it would be.

Sitting around a dining-room table with a few musician friends, playing with it, seeing if the sets are cool or not, seeing how well we can go from tune to tune -- sounds like a fun evening to me.

It wouldn't be any more indispensable than most apps, and it would be as fun as most apps.
If it were available, I'd certainly give it a try, and I'd most likely enjoy doing so.

----------


## Jim Bevan

The program's rules for generating sets wouldn't allow Cooley's and Pigeon on the Gate to be in the same set.

----------


## mandocrucian

The *context* of the OP's question was never clear. Was this regarding sets/medleys for a ITM (how militantly hardcore, or progressive, and what level of player proficiency?) session(s) or was it for the OP's "band" or regular player friends?  BIG difference!

The_ "standard key"_ is fine for a session of strangers - if they know the tune, they probably (can) play it that _"standard"_ key even if they play it a different key with their band or out of chjoice.  Yes, certain tunes are much more playable in certain keys on specific instruments, which is probably why doing it in that key(s) became the norm in the first place. (or if transposed too high, or lower, puts parts of the tune out of the register of some instruments) Some of the ITM instruments (keyless flute, concertina, pipes,..) are somewhat _semi-diatonic_; they are suited to some of the keys but become more difficult (or possibly impossible) to play in others.

Personally, I prefer the sound of some tunes ("Sailor's Hornpipe" in Bb rather than G) or ("Fisher's Hornpipe in F rather than D --- but F actually was originally the standard key) in an _un-standard_ key.

The notion that _"The Kesh Jig"_ is a G tune (only) is rather narrow-minded (at the least). It's a simple tune and playing it in D or A should not be a big hurdle for an intermediate>above player.   I use it as an exercise tune on metal flute (capable of playing in all 12 keys); the tune is in my head so my fingers must follow my ear in any new key.  So besides the initial keys of D and G, I'll also put it into E and Eb (work some of those other keys/levers/fingerings), F and A. 

Newer "composed" tunes seem to have a lot more flexibility as to key...since it is _"NOT traditional"_ it seems that moving the tune to a different key for playability or other reasons isn't a major transgression. (Of course, not being trad, may still be enough to earn the wrath of the genre Nazis).  John Kirkpatrick's _"Jump At The Sun"_ is often played in Dm, Em, Am, and Gm. (I don't recall what JK's original key was - I'd have to put on my copy of his first LP and check.)

_"Jump At The Sun"_ goes nicely with _"The Kesh"_.  And if you have the flexibility to play either tune in multiple keys, there are a lot of combinations.

_TKJ_ (G) > _JATS_ (Em) : Major key to the relative minor. 
_TKJ_(G) > _JATS_ (Fm) : Also good
_TKJ_ (G) > _JATS_ (Ebm...._oooh scary!_ ): Cold stop at end of _TKJ_ is more effective than a walkdown lick 

or you can go up for the second tune:
_TKJ_ (G) > _JATS_ (Am) > _TKJ_ (A)  - returning to The Kesh in a different key
or
_TKJ_ (G) > _JATS_ (Bbm) 

Or put _TKJ_ into moveable keys if you prefer _JATS_ in a specific key
_TKJ_ (E) > _JATS_ (Dm) 
_TKJ_ (F) > _JATS_ (Dm) 
_TKJ_ (E) > _JATS_ (Gm) 
etc.

And the *only way* you are going to find out what works for you sonically, is to *try stuff out* . This is the _original_ computer program, using the original _"computer"_ (your brain).  Otherwise, you're gonna start programming your Band In A Box to playback the tunes in different key combination to audit them sonically. (*Too much hassle*, imo,  and devoid of any/all of the benefits to your brain>ear>finger circuitry of transposing the tunes on your instrument).

As I said in the beginning of this post, *context* is a huge factor. If you are more of a beginner, or a hardcore ITM type, and this is for the an ITM session/jam setting, adhere to the standard key.  But if those factors aren't that applicable, ask yourself if the _"standard key" response_ isn't just *laziness*. (Mandolin is not a semi-diatonic instrument, it is fully chromatic, capable of playing tunes in EVERY key signature - if/when you do your technical pushups.)

Thank you!
_"Dark Lord of the Mandolin"_ 
aka_ "He-Who-Must-Not-Ne Named"_

----------


## Jim Bevan

If you want to play the Kesh in D or F or even Ab, enter them into your set generator as "Kesh G", "Kesh D", "Kesh F" etc.  (Duh?)

If your glass is half-empty, then of course a set generator isn't an adequate replacement for the human brain.
If your glass is half-full, a set generator is at best a useful tool for practising transitions on-the-fly.

----------


## Jim Bevan

> Since these celtic tunes are usually pretty short, it's common to put a few of 'em together in medleys.  When we put together tunes for medleys, what are some common rules?
> 
> I know they should sound good together, but what about the keys?  Of course, they are often just two or three tunes all in the same key.  I also know from learning a bit about classic piano ragtime that stepping up a fourth sounds good.  But that's about ALL I know.  I'm curious about other rules and ideas - what about minor keys for example?
> 
> I guess I'm looking for some do's and don'ts here.  Thanks in advance!


The OP is taking a left-brained approach to building sets, and trying to design a set generator would be exactly that.

Why all the criticism? If _you_ don't want to think that way, then don't, but don't tell him he's wrong to try looking at it that way if he (as I do) finds it interesting.

----------


## foldedpath

> As I said in the beginning of this post, *context* is a huge factor. If you are more of a beginner, or a hardcore ITM type, and this is for the an ITM session/jam setting, adhere to the standard key.  But if those factors aren't that applicable, ask yourself if the _"standard key" response_ isn't just *laziness*. (Mandolin is not a semi-diatonic instrument, it is fully chromatic, capable of playing tunes in EVERY key signature - if/when you do your technical pushups.)[/I]


Now waitaminnit.... the "standard key" for tunes one usually hears in ITM isn't just about "laziness." It's about _fingering efficiency_, which frees up the ability to articulate (ornament) the tunes.

Irish, Scottish, and Cape Breton fiddlers very seldom get out of first position, even if they have the technical ability to do so, in other genres. In the "standard session keys," the tunes fall easily and logically under your fingers in first position on fiddle. Same thing on mandolin. With efficient fingering and the frequent use of open strings (anathema to Classical and Jazz players), one has more opportunity to do all the extra stuff; the twiddly bits of ornamentation that make Irish music sound Irish. You also have access to the open G and open D strings under the melody line as drones, or double-stops, which work best in the "traditional keys." No surprise there, as so much of the music was written on the fiddle, especially the later stuff.

It's much harder to ornament if you're playing out of closed positions further up the neck, and you lose the open string drones for double-stops. That's why a classically-trained fiddler like Kevin Burke plays almost 100% in first position... for the twiddly bits... even though he's perfectly capable of playing the tunes in any key.

Same thing on diatonic whistles and flutes. I can play (in theory) most of the ITM repertoire on my keyless D flute. Start moving out of the "standard keys" and not only can I not hit some of the notes, I can't use the cuts, rolls, taps, crans, and other twiddly bits that are easily done in the standard keys for the tunes. Well, I guess I could if I just bought a bunch more flutes in different diatonic keys, like whistle players do, but that can get expensive. And it's the reason why ITM folks tend to settle in on "standard keys."

Note also, that even when tunes are sometimes commonly played in more than one key, they're usually in keys that still fit well in first position. There are yet more reasons too, like the way Cape Breton fiddlers often favor playing in A mixolydian, not just because it's related to Scottish pipe tunes, but because they often write tunes where they vary the A part by shifting down an octave while still staying in first position (different fingering, but there are enough strings to do that on fiddle and mandolin).

Can the mandolin more easily move outside the standard keys than some of the older, more traditional instruments in ITM? Sure. Are we gaining something by doing that, or losing something? 

So no, standard keys aren't about laziness. As a mandolin player, I think there are things to learn about _why_ they're usually played in those keys, and I'm still learning. This isn't jazz, 'ya know. 
 :Grin:

----------


## mandocrucian

> Now waitaminnit.... the "standard key" for tunes one usually hears in ITM isn't just about "laziness." It's about fingering efficiency, which frees up the ability to articulate (ornament) the tunes.


Read my post *again.* Paragraph 2.

----------


## foldedpath

> Read my post *again.* Paragraph 2.


Okay, but what about my main point, that the standard keys facilitate ornamentation, and the use of drones. Being "much more playable" doesn't quite cover that, does it? Or to put it another way, is it even _possible_ to play with the kind of ornamentation and drone effects one hears from first position players, further up the neck in closed position? Does anyone do that?

Actually, I think it was just the term "laziness" that got to me.  :Smile:

----------


## Jim Bevan

> The notion that _"The Kesh Jig"_ is a G tune (only) is rather narrow-minded (at the least). It's a simple tune and playing it in D or A should not be a big hurdle for an intermediate>above player.   I use it as an exercise tune...


C'mon Niles, you shouldn't do this with every thread.

I had five or six years of intense jazz improv training in Philly, I can play any melody in any key on four or five instruments blah blah blah...

That isn't what the OP is asking, and that isn't what this thread is about.

----------


## JeffD

> John Kirkpatrick's _"Jump At The Sun"_ is often played in Dm, Em, Am, and Gm. (I don't recall what JK's original key was - I'd have to put on my copy of his first LP and check.)


I play Jump at the Sun, in Dm and Am. Two or three times in one key and two times in the other.

So this is another option, instead of changing tunes in a set, it is sometimes fun to change keys on the same tune. It adds lift without a moments disorientation as to emphasis or rhythm. It provides "the same thing only different."

----------


## xiledscot

“Ya, good idea. 
(But will it start getting complicated? I've been told that programs that generate random results based on lots of rules are quite complex to create.)”

I have a friend who is an expert in Random Generators.
Here:-   http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/...erator-with-Ja

So I think the answer is ........Ya ! But would it be fun? Well read through the article and if you understand it then the answer is certainly Ya !  Would it be too much Hassle for someone of normal capabilities .........you bet.

I think I will stick to what my ears are telling me. 

Oh and by the way Bertram.  'Suspenders' have a completely different meaning in Scotland,but maybe you already knew that.

----------


## zoukboy

A big part of the fun of playing in a session is improvising tune transitions on the fly. A few ready made sets in a session is alright, especially if they are to help orient novices who have difficulty with making or thinking of tune transitions (and avoiding cases of that dreaded session malady _tunus interruptus_), but that really hasn't been the norm, and in many sessions if you propose playing a set (unless invited to "play a couple of your own") you are likely to be met with rolling eyes.

I think the playing of sets is a phenomenon that comes originally from ceili bands and then through the influence of commercial recordings and concert performances. The influence of both on the tradition is pretty substantial.

That said I think there are some guidelines (no rules) for choosing tune transitions that are satisfying:

First, learn a bunch of tunes  :Smile: 

Second, check out the tunes that have key/mode transitions embedded within them, either as chord changes or as modulations between the parts (examples: "The Fermoy Lasses" E aeolian 1st part/G major 2md part; "Tripping Upstairs" D major 1st part/B aeolian 2nd part; "Jackie Small's Jig" E dorian 1st part/D major 2nd part; "Blarney Pilgrim" D mixolydian 1st part/G major 2nd part/D mixolydian 3rd part). These combinations reveal relationships between the modes (I to vi for major/aeolian; I to ii for major/dorian; I to v for major/mixolydian) that can easily be exploited for tune transitions, and the way these tunes transition between modes/parts are sometimes good models for what works between tunes.

Third, it's a good idea to learn the modes (Ionian [major], Dorian, Mixolydian, Aeolian [minor] for Irish traditional music) and how to harmonize them, and also the cadences that go with each. Such information helps one understand why certain transitions work harmonically, and there is always a harmonic dimension embedded in the tunes whether they are being accompanied with harmony or not.

FWIW, I will be doing a workshop on this at the O'Flaherty Irish Music Retreat in October: http://oflahertyretreat.org/

Cheers,

----------

DougC

----------


## Jim Bevan

> A big part of the fun of playing in a session is improvising tune transitions on the fly. A few ready made sets in a session is alright, especially if they are to help orient novices who have difficulty with making or thinking of tune transitions (and avoiding cases of that dreaded session malady _tunus interruptus_), but that really hasn't been the norm, and in many sessions if you propose playing a set (unless invited to "play a couple of your own") you are likely to be met with rolling eyes.


Let's say you're the best Irish Trad fiddler in your town. You know 1000 tunes etc. You get a call from the next town over from one of those guys who hosts a session -- you know the type: he's by far the best Irish Trad player in his town, he knows it, and he controls his sessions, he leads every set, and others just try to keep up. He always hires a co-host, but this week the co-host can't make it, and that's why he's called you. You show up, and all night long, he's saying things (to just you) like "Ok, now we're going to play My Former Wife into The Four Courts into Waiting For Janet", and he expects you to make all the transitions as smoothly as he does. Could you do it? I couldn't, and I'd probably go home after and try to figure out how I could practise for such an event should it ever happen again.

I met my wife four years ago at a session that she was hosting (and still hosts, when she's not on tour with me. She's hosting one right now, actually, as I write this, but I'm not at home). 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.

Ya, these are rare (or hypothetical) instances, 'cuz usually sessions involve people taking turns leading sets they've already practised, and everybody just drops out at the transitions and comes back in wherever (depending on their tastefulness), but still, I'd like to have a set generator just as another practise tool, just to be able to be more prepared for those on-the-fly don't-drop-out occasions. Wouldn't you?

I'm not trying to talk everybody into using one -- I'm just trying to talk someone into building one for me.   :Wink:

----------


## DougC

> First, learn a bunch of tunes 
> 
> 
> Third, it's a good idea to learn the modes (Ionian [major], Dorian, Mixolydian, Aeolian [minor] for Irish traditional music) and how to harmonize them, and also the cadences that go with each. Such information helps one understand why certain transitions work harmonically, and there is always a harmonic dimension embedded in the tunes whether they are being accompanied with harmony or not.


It is amazing how people, (like me...) can play for years an not know a thing about why tunes work, or don't work. Now I know a few things, and find it not only interesting, but much easier to put stuff together.

  I had to laugh at the mechanical method proposed. It makes sense in a weird sort of way, but the hard way is the best my friends. 

Actually the muse as you play is 'music theory from a gut level'.  The theory gives words to the actions.

----------

xiledscot

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Oh and by the way Bertram.  'Suspenders' have a completely different meaning in Scotland,but maybe you already knew that.


The alternative option was to confuse the larger group here with "braces"...

----------

xiledscot

----------


## zoukboy

> ...all night long, he's saying things (to just you) like "Ok, now we're going to play My Former Wife into The Four Courts into Waiting For Janet", and he expects you to make all the transitions as smoothly as he does. Could you do it? I couldn't...


Provided I knew the tunes, I could do it. That's what sessioning is.




> 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.




> ...'cuz usually sessions involve people taking turns leading sets they've already practised...


Hopefully not. Playing other peoples' sets in sessions is not really sessioning, in my opinion. If it is a group of novices who need direction that is one thing, but the give and take, and handing your tune off to someone else to follow it with one of theirs and _surprise_ you is a big part of the fun.




> I'd like to have a set generator just as another practise tool, just to be able to be more prepared for those on-the-fly don't-drop-out occasions. Wouldn't you?


No, not really. I prefer time and experience and a large repertoire.




> I'm not trying to talk everybody into using one -- I'm just trying to talk someone into building one for me.


I am sure it will be really popular. I just hope people don't start using them in sessions!

----------


## Jim Bevan

If I haven't played The Four Courts in three years, then ya, I might have a little trouble trying to remember the opening phrase while I'm busy playing the first tune. Seems like a reasonable difficulty for a even a seasoned session veteran.

The one oddity (that they agree on a set before they play it) doesn't disqualify it as a session to me -- they sit around a table, they drink beer, they talk a lot between tunes, they play tunes that not everybody knows, musicians drifting through town show up, random players start up sets etc etc.
You must have a pretty rigid definition of what a session is, Zoukboy, if that one detail means it's no longer a session.

Of course sessions involve people taking turns leading sets! Everybody drops out at the start of the second tune etc -- that's how they do it all over the world (and I've been there).

I prefer time and experience and a large repertoire too, but I use tools like recordings, notation software, a metronome, and videos etc when I'm at home practising. I'll bet it's a pretty common routine for session players.

----------


## JeffD

> 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


Wow. That doesn't sound like much fun. Its sounds more like a simulation of a session for tourists. So planned.

About the most organizing I like is the kind of jam where in the middle of the tune you are on last time through someone will announce another tune, look around, and if two or three people nod, its off to the races on that tune. Keeps going and going until someone says last time and you end on that tune, which is 3, 4, or 6 tunes from the beginning.

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. 

Usually sounds good or sometimes spectacular, because even a musically ignorant audience can feel the "energy". But in general we are doing it for ourselves, not for the audience, and if the audience likes it, well good on them. Just hope they don't clap.

----------


## DougC

One of my pet peeves is 'showing off' by purposefully playing obscure tunes. It is used to intimidate others. This is different from playing a tune that though not played often is proudly presented as an accomplishment. To me the purpose of a session is to play together and enjoy the tunes, common or not. And the usual progression goes to more challenging stuff later in the evening.

----------


## 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  :Smile:  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.   :Smile: 
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.   :Smile: 

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... :Whistling:

----------


## 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

----------


## 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  :Wink: 

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.

----------

DougC

----------


## 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.)   :Confused:

----------


## 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. 
 :Grin:

----------


## 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...  :Cool: 

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.

----------

