# General Mandolin Topics > Jams, Workshops, Camps, Places To Meet Others >  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That jam's been replaced by one in Geneva, about 15 miles distant, at the Smith Opera House.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.  :Smile: 

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  :Smile:  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  :Wink:

----------


## 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.

----------

dburtnett

----------


## 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.  :Smile: 

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  :Smile: .

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.

----------

dburtnett

----------


## 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.

----------


## michaelpthompson

> 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.


I have no problem sharing with an audience who is here because there isn't a cover charge. The landlord buys me drinks and food, the patrons buy drinks and food from him, we all still get our value some way, even if it's not direct cash payments. I've also played venues where there's a cover charge and nobody shows up to listen so we all lose.

That's part of why I don't see this as an either/or thing. Value is always based on supply and demand. If you supply too much, the value goes down. That's what you're objecting to, the devaluing of the music. But there also has to be demand in order for people to want to part with their cash. I see all this as a sliding scale, sometimes we really put in the effort to make a professional presentation and then we require more payment than when we just have fun on our own and other people enjoy it.

----------


## JeffD

> 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.


I agree its a continuum. No strict black or white. What I am saying is that when I come to jam I come to jam. And I get my fun predominantly from the interaction with the other musicians. I don't do anything to make the audience applaud, and I don't take it too seriously if they do. And when I come to play I come to play, and I will work out something nice, carefully and thoroughly for whomever I am playing. And while there is often some ambiguity and fuzziness at the boarders, I know the difference, and I know why I am there and what I am doing.

"Deserve" is a tough word, I am not sure what to make of it. I would not want to put myself in position to determine what people deserve.

The audience at a jam session is like the public audience at a court trial. Some are there because they have a stake in the outcome, a friend or relative, sure. But what the audience gets out of it or doesn't get out of it is not a concern of the judge, jury, attorneys etc., who are there for entirely different reasons.

So I don't mind at all that the audience enjoys the jam or session. Its good for the music, its often good for the playing, its good for folks to see others who are not home watching tv but are in charge of their own entertainment. All good. And I know that I am being used, by the venue. Sometimes I mind, sometimes I don't mind. I am willing to be used, at times sure, but I don't pretend its something else. I don't pretend they love me.

I go on about this because my local jam was recently criticized by our present venue for "not bringing in enough people". Perhaps we could advertise a bit. It was hinted that our music contained maybe too many obsucure (to them) fiddle tunes.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> 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?


Money is printed gut feelings of strangers. Music is my own gut feelings. Thus, I'd venture, music is more valuable than money to me, and indeed priceless to the extent that it is a problem to find a solid conversion scale.
When music makes me happy I am grateful enough to not mind others scavenging a few crumbs of this happiness and thereby rendering me not totally useless. I am aware of my attitude being somewhat Johnny-Appleseed-romantic, but I am also grateful that I can afford such an attitude, not having to make a living with music (which would destroy all the happiness for me - my parents were both professional musicians and I know what I can do without).

----------


## swampstomper

I go to jams to learn from other musicians and enjoy myself. That can mean trying a difficult tune several times, working a bit on the arrangement and harmony, asking to see a particularly cool break or chord substitution, having five or six mando or banjo breaks in a row... for the participating musicians it is fun and absorbing, for someone who wants someone else to entertain him/her not so. There should be no pressure in a jam to conform to audience needs -- for that we have public performance (which can be an "open mike" form, facing an audience). People do listen at jams I attend, but they are not expecting to be entertained, just to participate in the jam experience w/o being able or wanting to play/sing themselves. They are quite welcome and appreciated. But they stand outside the circle, enjoying what's going on in the circle. I guess that's my definition of a jam session as opposed to performance -- the musicians are facing each other.

----------


## catmandu2

> Value is always based on supply and demand. If you supply too much, the value goes down.


Thanks michael.  This is what I was thinking of in describing the economy of musical performing.  I believe--with the ample supply of folk music players available (a supply glut)--this may factor into the perception of owners/operators, public perception, and translate into the relative "scale" for participants of the folk music "jam."

----------


## JeffD

> Money is printed gut feelings of strangers. Music is my own gut feelings. Thus, I'd venture, music is more valuable than money to me, and indeed priceless to the extent that it is a problem to find a solid conversion scale.


Well said.

----------


## mandolirius

> 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.


An audience for a "jam" shouldn't be asked to pay, imho. It's not a performance, it's (presumably) something the musicians are doing for their own enjoyment. 

For instance,  a bluegrass jam started at a local coffeehouse. No sound, no stage, musicians sit in a circle and play for each other. After a while, people started coming specifically for that and began applauding at the end of songs and, in general, acting like an audience. We didn't invite them and don't need them to be there. Don't get me wrong, we like it the positive feedback and if people are enjoying themselves coming down to listen on a Wed. night, great! But it would never occur to us to charge them for that.

The local bluegrass association hosts Tues. jams. It's free to come and listen and the players pay two bucks to cover the hall rental. 

We used to have an oldtime jam at a local pub. Same thing, we got beer and people enjoyed the music but there was never a thought of trying to get money out of them.
They were already paying for food and drinks. Some folks did tip us and we never knew what to do with the money. Five bucks and fifteen players is about thirty cents each. We usually just donated it to the wait staff's tip fund. After all, they were serving us too.

A gig is a gig and you should be paid, unless you're doing a benefit. But these other situations, jams, jams-come-performances, jams-by-name-only where there's a sound system, stage and a signup sheet are all situations where there are no rules. Maybe there's a way to make a paying thing but in my experience, most of the time they're better it they remain free of "the stain of commerce".

----------


## mandolirius

"I go on about this because my local jam was recently criticized by our present venue for "not bringing in enough people". Perhaps we could advertise a bit. It was hinted that our music contained maybe too many obsucure (to them) fiddle tunes." 

There's the thing, isn't it? The situations I'm thinking of are all neutral. In other words, we didn't expect anything from the venue and they weren't asking us to draw in crowds or do anything other than show up and play. It was always a "we'll try it and see how it goes" kind of deal.

----------


## JeffD

Mandolirious I think we are in agreement.

I would never want to charge an audience for listening to a jam. Wow, that would be wrong, making them into an audience proper and putting all kinds of performance obligations on the jammers. No they can come and watch us jam for free, as long as we are not obligated to do anything for them. 

I would like the venue to give us free drinks at least, but even that isn't a requirement.

----------


## Mandobart

Interesting how this has taken a turn towards "who pays" and "who should get paid."  In all the jams I attend and described earlier, there is no fee, no cover, no ticket charge.  Except for a couple garage bands in high school, I've never been compensated (with money) to play music.  I've helped some friends who play the local farmer's markets for tips, and turned down any share of the proceeds (don't mind if they buy me a beer, though, after we play).  There is nothing wrong with being paid for a service; I wouldn't go to my regular job if they didn't pay me.  Just for me, music is the most fulfilling hobby I've ever had.  I don't want to turn it into a job.  I know I would feel different if it was my chosen profession, how I fed and clothed my family.  Fortunately, its not, since my friends in the business locally are getting paid about what my high school garage band was getting paid thirty years ago.

I think I feel what Jeff is expressing above; the audience, whoever and wherever they are, don't have to pay.  They don't have to clap.  I don't have to worry about giving them their money's worth.  I owe it to myself and the other musicians to do the best I can, encourage them, keep it fun.  As far as the audience, I respect them and appreciate them paying attention when they do.  I try to play different songs from artists and genres they may not have heard before, because that's the kind of music I like to hear and play.  So far, its been a good time for all involved.

I'm not directing these questions at anyone in particular, just wondering out loud and throwing it out for discussion.  Should I feel bad playing music in public for free?  Am I stealing a gig from a pro who needs the job?  The coffee shop I play at with some friends never hires anyone to play.  Would it be better for them to just have canned music then "scab labor"?

----------


## allenhopkins

Discussion has veered away from the original question that I proposed: *should* jams have audiences, people who come specifically to listen and be entertained, and should the jam be structured to accommodate them -- the "open stage" kind of jam I've been in, where people sign up for a spot at the mic, and others come just to sit and listen and applaud?  Or is a *real* jam one where musicians are interacting, mainly "playing for and with each other," and others are welcome to sit and listen if they wish, but the jam's not *for* them?

The question of whether the musicians are playing for money, or not, is important, but not what I was asking.  Of course, if the owner of the venue is charging admission, some of the proceeds should go to the musicians.  If the jam organizers are renting the space, then the admission charge should primarily go to defray the rental costs.  If musicians don't want to play unless they're paid, going to jams is probably _not_ their best strategy.  Some venue owners do treat jams/seisuns, and open mic nights, as opportunities to make money by attracting audience.  Then you get into the situation described above, where the venue operator wants to control the content and "entertainment value" of the music produced by the jam.  I think that makes it a *performance,* rather than a jam, and the performers should be hired and paid.

I prefer to get paid when I play, and it takes a good cause, some strong non-monetary incentives, or the expectation of a truly enjoyable musical experience, to get me to play a "freebie" performance.  I have played some open mic situations just to be with friends, but I truly feel that many of these are musician-exploitive, with the venue owner making money and not compensating the "performers."  But, if no admission's being charged -- just people buying drinks and food -- and it's an informal, interactive event with other musicians, I'll go and play.  That's if it's not too far, and the weather cooperates, and I've nothing else important to do.  If I'm getting paid, I treat it like a "real job" -- get there early, make sure I give the sponsor what he/she wants, behave like a real professional -- which, in those situations, I am.  For jams, well, not so much.

But I don't get too philosophical or ideological about it.  Playing music is fun and fulfilling, but I can play music in my basement without the hassle of packing up, driving 30 miles, and playing for my own amusement and others' entertainment.  I go to a sing-around every week, with my guitar, mandolin etc., and get my "need to jam" pretty much satisfied.  But that's a situation where no one is "audience," really, even the ones who sit in the back and mostly listen.  Everyone gets a chance to sing, and everyone applauds after someone does sing -- even the other musicians and singers.

----------


## mandolirius

"Discussion has veered away from the original question that I proposed: should jams have audiences, people who come specifically to listen and be entertained, and should the jam be structured to accommodate them -- the "open stage" kind of jam I've been in, where people sign up for a spot at the mic, and others come just to sit and listen and applaud? Or is a real jam one where musicians are interacting, mainly "playing for and with each other," and others are welcome to sit and listen if they wish, but the jam's not for them?"

I don't know that there is an answer to that question. In the one jam I mentioned, the one sponsored by the local bluegrass club, most of the people who come are participants. There is always a structured slowjam that draws the bulk of the people. In the other one, in the coffeehouse, the audience began I guess as other patrons. They were fairly indifferent in the beginning but now people seem to be coming specifically to listen. The jam hasn't changed to accomodate them. 

I think when there's a stage and a signup sheet, it's not a jam. It's an open stage. Those two things are as different as cake and pie, to me. I think either one can have an audience but it seems to me the best jams are when the music just fits in with the venue, it's atmosphere, patrons etc. so you don't really have an audience as such, but there are people there. It's always more fun to jam in public, as long as it's a good fit. Plus, you tend to meet some interesting people that way.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Discussion has veered away from the original question that I proposed: *should* jams have audiences, people who come specifically to listen and be entertained, and should the jam be structured to accommodate them


Alright, my direct answer is no. 
A jam or session structured to accomodate non-musicians is no longer a jam or session in the original, informal and relaxed sense. Acting like jamming would be like natives dancing for tourists. I have seen "sessions" of that kind in Ireland - there was something uncanny, plastic-artificial about it, and doing it would leave me with the guilty feeling of having screwed innocent people, because they didn't get to see the real thing. I save up my screwing of innocent people for my day job as a consultant.

A good session is like a car accident: spontaeous, spectacular, loud and live, and it impresses the witnesses; but you wouldn't exactly want to stage it for them.

----------


## catmandu2

> *should* jams have audiences...?


No.  Not unless, by some means, "audiences" understand the purpose, intent, and particulars of every musical situation.  Of course, the only way audiences will learn these is through experiencing various musical situations, incuding jams.

----------


## Ryk Loske

Should .... No
Can .... Yes

Money ... here in the Kingdom "jams" are held usually for a purpose like raising money for handicap access.  It's not the purity that has some knickers knotted up.  Various groups of musicians will get together and do the hall thing for pay.  Once the monetary reason for the "jam" has been met ... the folks who have become used to their live music fix don't want to let it go ... so they continue and redirect the donations.  This is a very rural area of Vermont.  It is also the poorest economic area of Vermont.  Live music is whatever we provide for ourselves ... or whoever comes in for the county fairs.  Impure by urban standards .... but deeply appreciated by folks.

Ryk

----------


## Willie Poole

I have been to quite a few Jams in my time and here is what I think about them: First it is a good place for an unknown picker or band to get some exposure and get rid of the butterflies, next it is also a place to meet different pickers and maybe form a band with some of the "singles" that get up and play (Thats how my band got started)...I have picked at a jam in southern Pa. on a Friday night and was booked back on the following Sat. for their regular show and got paid for that so it is a great way to showcase your band, BUT, I don`t do that any more, if we play you pay...I think I have paid my dues playing for free and don`t do it much any more unless it is for a fund raiser for some needy person or family....I do go and listen to some now and then, cheaper than going to a paid show or a festival...If I want to jam I call pickers that I know and we pick here at my house or someone elses but no audience except for wives and animals....

      Willie

----------


## foldedpath

> So I don't mind at all that the audience enjoys the jam or session. Its good for the music, its often good for the playing, its good for folks to see others who are not home watching tv but are in charge of their own entertainment. All good. And I know that I am being used, by the venue. Sometimes I mind, sometimes I don't mind. I am willing to be used, at times sure, but I don't pretend its something else. I don't pretend they love me.


I wanted to touch on that idea of "being used by the venue." 

The Irish pub session I helped start up from scratch last summer, is being used in the sense of providing live music for just a round of drinks for the players. But we're also using the venue in return. It's a place to gather on a regular basis so nobody has to host it at their house. Or, wash up all those glasses afterwards.

House sessions and jams are great. It's really the ultimate way to play this music, and we do gather at irregular times in people's homes to play. But I wouldn't want to have to open the door to my house on a regular basis, where I always have to be available on those dates. Private jams can be more spontaneous. Public jams are scheduled and (ideally) self-maintaining regardless of who shows up. 

There are other non-financial benefits too. A pub session or bar jam can be "open," in the sense of welcoming strangers who just walk in with an instrument case in hand, after hearing about it somewhere. When that works out well (and it doesn't always), it can be a terrific way to meet new people to play with. That's not likely to happen at a private jam in someone's home, either for lack of publicity or for security concerns. A public venue is a safe place to meet someone new. 

With all things considered, I see it more as a symbiotic relationship with the pub owner. We're each getting something valuable out of it.

----------


## GRW3

All the local jams seem to draw a small crowd of onlookers. Mostly made up of relatives and friends on routine basis but everytime we play we attract some of the people passing through the cafe. You see them come in. Some just walk up to order and then sit in the other part of dining room. Others walk in, stop for a second to listen and eventually sit near us to listen. Some of the latter have become semi regulars. 

Is this an 'audience'? I'm not sure. Seems like more of a shared cultural experience to me. I think that is an important jam aspect.

----------


## catmandu2

> Is this an 'audience'? I'm not sure. Seems like more of a shared cultural experience to me. I think that is an important jam aspect.


Nicely put, George.  Rather than the dogmatic approach, I find benefit from the social dynamic of a bunch of people interacting around music--expecting and getting different things from the experience, some more active and others less so.

I've witnessed folks get surly about it all--which I must say feels very weird in a musical environment.  People usually work things out (i.e., learn about and become sensitive to custom) experientially.  I find it more consonant with the music, generally, to be amicable about it.

Various musical gatherings are social and cultural experiences: when you pull out a bunch of nice-looking instruments in a public place, people are gonna be attracted.  Where people gather--is a social experience.  Since we will inevitably be sharing our music, we can also share our feelings about it--in this way folks may learn about our customs.  We can be curmudgeonly about it, but this often serves to create a side effect of alienation along with the desired effect of exclusivity.

Considering the following:  Where does the music stop and social experience begin?  Can there be discrete aspects?  What/where are the boundaries of experience?

IME, it's easier to find commonality and compatibility rather than to impose these divisions.  With liberal "boundaries" and sense of inclusion, folks observing a jam _are_ participating: they may be on the verge of joining in actively--feeling it out, testing the waters--before bringing an instrument; others may be drawn into active participation--this happens frequently.  Of course, if the folks jamming are resistant, "closed," reticent, or give off dissonant vibes...perhaps not.  Many "open jams" are like this--whether intentionally or otherwise; it's easy to keep people out and at-bay with the _right_ posture and attitude.

So, obviously there are at least two types of public "open jams": one--open, permissive, inclusive; the other--not so much..

----------


## Andy Alexander

In a true open jam, everyone of any level of competency should be allowed to participate.  This however usually does not make for an optimum listening experience for an audience and will reflect poorly on the genre of music being "performed".  Venues providing bona fide performances to audiences will be negatively impacted as will the musicians that play them.  Since there is no way to control the quality of music in an open jam situation it should not be promoted as entertainment for an audience as the Geneva NY jam cited by the original poster is.  Open jams in public places should be in circle configuration.  Despite what egos some participants may have, no stage or sound reinforcement should be used.

----------


## JeffD

> But we're also using the venue in return. It's a place to gather on a regular basis so nobody has to host it at their house. Or, wash up all those glasses afterwards.
> 
> There are other non-financial benefits too. A pub session or bar jam can be "open," in the sense of welcoming strangers who just walk in with an instrument case in hand, after hearing about it somewhere. When that works out well (and it doesn't always), it can be a terrific way to meet new people to play with. 
> 
> With all things considered, I see it more as a symbiotic relationship with the pub owner. We're each getting something valuable out of it.


Aboslutely agree. Well said.

----------


## catmandu2

> 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.


I don't know.  This seems a bit like the smoker saying to the complainant: "if you don't like my smoke, don't breathe..."

----------


## JeffD

> I don't know.  This seems a bit like the smoker saying to the complainant: "if you don't like my smoke, don't breathe..."


I would never do it of course, but I have some ideas that would remove the ambiguity inherent in a jam held on a stage. The other day the stage was filled with equipment for some other show, so we jammed down in front of the stage at the level of the tables and chairs. Much better.

----------


## catmandu2

When I was hosting a jam in a facility that had a stage, I tried to get them on the floor in front of the stage as much as I could.  Yes, it worked out (for most of us anyway) much better in a large circle on the floor--some very good "real, open" jams we had that way.

This was in a place where the folks were accustomed to using the stage.  On one day, I set up a circle about thirty feet from the stage--thinking that it would be obvious we weren't going to "perform" that day--which was the custom--but rather, jam.  Those who were accustomed and preferred the stage--took the stage, while I was leading a circle jam across the room.  One or two actually started playing.  One fellow in my circle actually quit and left, at this point.  This was a day when it didn't work...and I joined the stage jam/performance.  Interesting experience that day.  It was very much about changing the "culture" of the environment..

Yes, I remember now...some real differences, and interesting experiences, characteristic in these situations.

----------


## mandolindude04

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. 

I just got through Peter Wernick's jam band camp in Boulder, CO this weekend. My fingertips are really sore! But one thing I'm noticing when I travel to jams, and festivals, song circles and such is, there are alot of us boomers, and war babies that have a real interest in the old songs. Whether it's Gospel, or folk, bluegrass or whatever, but really have a hard time just singing and playing. Now, I was kind of fortunate in my upbringing in some ways. I grew up in the Kansas City area in the 1960's. My family didn't have a TV, as that was against our religion at the time. When I was in grade school, my family attended a little bitty store front church right on Independence Ave. That place now is an animal hospital I think. Right across the street was the cop shop, and fire station. The big diesels would be rolling outside on the Ave, while we sung old hymns, and gospel songs. Most of them three chords. My dad played guitar some, but he never got the concept of minor chords. My mom played the piano and organ. We did all of that corporate singing, call and response, shaped note stuff etc. just like my grandparents, and great-grandparents did when they were on this earthly journey. My point is that my observation is, that so many of us later generations don't have this rich heritage to draw from musically. So to explain call and response to my Episcopalian friends, for me is hard, as I think, y'all have more education then me. You design computer programs, do lawyer work, how come you can't pick up on this stuff that is intuitive for me? Jam camp was good for me, as I was kind of stagnant in knowing what direction to go musically. Peter challenged the class to work on one song a week. My trouble is picking out the melody on the instrument, he gave us pointers on how to do this, which I won't tell, but if you want to know, go to Dr. Banjo and sign up for his jam camp. But I digress. I think too many of us spent our formative years watching TV, instead of having that family and friend time of singing and playing together. It's really kind of sad too. We had one fellow who had been told that he wasn't that good of a singer. Lo and behold Peter worked with him, and with a little practice this guy will have as nice of a singing voice as Mac Wiseman. But just think of all the joy this fellow missed out on in his fifty or so years of this earthly journey, not singing.

----------


## catmandu2

> But just think of all the joy this fellow missed out on in his fifty or so years of this earthly journey, not singing.


Ugh...don't get me started on that one!  My pet peeve.

Well, _one_ of them anyway...

----------


## Steve Lavelle

I think the word "jam" is too open to interpretation, and that is where much of the difference of opinion in this discussion is coming from. I don't think there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy if you are on a stage and there is a sound system in place. Stage=audience. Similarly, if you and your friends find a public bar and the owner will tolerate your making music while you sit at one or more of his tables, you should have no expectations of a free round from said owner and neither can you expect to have the place to yourselves. Only in the case of making music in a private home at the invitation of the home owner can you expect to have little or no audience. I've enjoyed many an evening with musicians in private that I'd be ashamed to play in public with because I feel I owe an audience a minimal level of rhythmic and melodic stability.

----------


## allenhopkins

Wandering a bit: the term "jam" is no doubt a contraction of "jam session," which was an improvisational jazz get-together, often after hours in a club, where musicians would show up and play with each other.  I wonder, though, if there's some relation to the older word "jamboree," which Webster says is "a large festive gathering" or "a long mixed program of entertainment."  There are fairly frequent jamborees around my area, usually a bunch of country bands taking over a club for a day, to raise money for a particular cause -- assistance for a musician's medical bills, _e.g._  A jamboree is explicitly designed to draw a listening audience, and the performers are usually organized groups, who take turns onstage performing for the audience.

Seems to me that the dichotomy being defined by this discussion, is between (a) musician-organized sessions, usually "all pickers welcome," where the jammers share music without being overly concerned or conscious whether others have shown up to listen, and (b) more "performance-y" jams, often publicly advertised, sometimes organized by the venue owner, where the emphasis is on providing music for an audience, admission is charged, and musicians and groups take turns performing onstage, generally with sound, advanced sign-ups, and somewhat more formality (though musicians still "sit in" and _ad hoc_ "bands" may form).

Am I making sense?  Not trying to state a preference for one type of jam over another, just to say that they're "different animals," though there's a fair amount of overlap, at least at some of the ones I've attended.

----------


## catmandu2

Well, this clears it up nicely.

Why didn't you come across with this from the outset...rather than tease us!   :Wink: 


Seriously, though...seems like "jamboree" is really what folks have in mind much of the time--knowingly or not.  Many older folks remember those "jamborees" and keep that tradition alive.  And a city mouse like me--would never have thunk it so...

----------


## JeffD

I have always thought of a jam in the first sense. I get together with other musicians and play music together. 

I remember a public radio news reporter visited our Tuesday night jam once, many years ago, and then on air called it a "jamboree". We were not happy about that.

----------


## Ryk Loske

As usual Allen ... you've nailed it.  Thanks!

Ryk

----------


## allenhopkins

> As usual Allen ... you've nailed it.  Thanks!
> 
> Ryk


(_Blushes..._)

----------

