For my money, you guys are expending a heck of a lot of gray matter here. To me, "Old Time" is simply a musical genre. It is more a particular musical style than anything else. Put it alongside Jazz, R&B, Baroque, Punk Rock or any other music genre you might name. Yes, it's fun to chart OT's history and argue its evolution, and the genre indeed possesses more than its share of compelling music, but bottom line it's simply a musical genre and nothing more.

"I don’t understand the point about Tommy Jarrell. People learn to play tunes but are criticized if they don’t sound like the definitive player regularly. Go to a jam and play a tune that’s associated with a certain player in a different way and you can expect at least one comment like “That’s a lot different from x’s original version.”

Huh? I have never encountered this (and thank heaven, because I don't think any of us sound like Tommy Peoples or Martin Hayes or whomever)...my experience is that it's been about the tune, and that novel variations/versions are listened to with interest. They will be adopted if the group really likes them. As for "wanting to sound like somebody", it's usually because you admire their playing...isn't that natural? 

I kinda thought I knew what OT was...it's what the people downtown play on Sunday afternoons outside the cafe...and if you ask them, it might be "the old style of folk music that we like to play together". It's nice to know the history and understand its evolution, but whether it's necessary to draw a box around it and say "this IS" and "this ISN'T", I don't know.  (../& where's that music ethnography guy when we need him :-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonesome Fiddler

For my money, you guys are expending a heck of a lot of gray matter here. To me, "Old Time" is simply a musical genre. It is more a particular musical style than anything else. Put it alongside Jazz, R&B, Baroque, Punk Rock or any other music genre you might name. Yes, it's fun to chart OT's history and argue its evolution, and the genre indeed possesses more than its share of compelling music, but bottom line it's simply a musical genre and nothing more.

---

lol...  are you talking to Rich?

When I go to Old Time jams or some Celtic sessions, it’s not uncommon for a tune to end and the players to spend several minutes discussing which version of the tune was played, how other recordings differ, and how the tune is taught differently by an instructor at a particular music camp.

If, when I’m asked what version of a tune I’m playing, I say “one I came up with myself,” there’s sometimes a look of disappointment among the player. Once it doesn’t come from
a canon player it’s not cool anymore!

Oh? So they are disappointed when you play your version? Hmmmm...very interesting. I'd love to hear you play your versions, myself. I keep asking, but still haven't had the pleasure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

Oh? So they are disappointed when you play your version? Hmmmm...very interesting. I'd love to hear you play your versions, myself. I keep asking, but still haven't had the pleasure.

---

Not always. I've had a few people ask me to play the tune for them again so they could record it and take it home. But I have seen people react negatively to a non-canonical version. And in my previous example, the disappointment came AFTER learning the version didn't come from the "right" source.

At an Irish session where I played recently, a tune was led by someone in two parts. Following the tune, another player took the leader to task for playing it in two parts when the original was in three, commenting that "everyone in every session I've ever attended before played it in three parts. Playing it in two just sounds wrong and it throws me off."

Well I can understand that! If you leave off the third part of “Lark in the Morning” or “Musical Priest” or something, most people play it on autopilot with all parts, so the group is going to crash & burn when you skip it (unless you warn them in advance). It’s not about that person’s playing, it’s about the desire to stay together on the same page musically so that the group sounds good. (Also sometimes the third part is my favorite part and the whole reason I play the tune, ha…like “The Luck Penny” has such a lovely third part…)

I've had the most fun at jams where we all just play the tune...if anybody's versions, self included, are different enough to clash with the general musical, tacit consensus being played, seems like everybody was flexible enough to adapt so that we went through the tunes smoothly enough and all had a good time just playing together, lacking any necessity of parsing out who played it which way in the annals of musical history. Rarely, if ever, did the tune crash because we were playing so and so's version during a different so and so's version simultaneously being played. I can't imagine the lengthy exchange required to come to describe and come to agreement on exactly how any tune would be played...no wonder I hear so many stories of people just getting gassed at jams...lol...that makes sense to me.

"it’s about the desire to stay together on the same page musically"
Well put, NCNotes. The other side of that coin is how communication happens in a session, for better or worse. Sounds like maybe Rich stumbled into a high-strung session where things need to be "just so" or you will hear about it. That's unfortunate and I would personally avoid such a session. On the other hand (not knowing the situation) it could be that the players knew each other well enough to rag each other (the Irish 4 letter term would be "take the p___" which is also a common feature in the session environment. In that case no harm, no foul.

"....who played it which way in the annals of music history" - that's pretty funny, Peggy! :-)

Our jam is pretty easygoing and friendly. I HAVE left out a third part once in a while, and somebody (typically flute friend, who is one of those people who can talk and then fall right back into the tune) will lean over and say "third part!", and I'll say "Whoops! Sorry!" Rich's jam does sound kind of scary. There are jams that score high on music but low on social/people/friendliness (aka the jams that are like gigs), jams that score high on social/people but low on music (aka the learner's jam) and jams that score high on both music and people. If you find that third kind, you've hit gold!

Anyway, wandering off-topic...whoops.

** didn't mean to bash the learner's jam! Friendly great people with ipads in hand. I learned tunes there for 2-3 years! **

It’s actually a very friendly jam overall and the organizers have always been welcoming. I’ve been going periodically since the jam was started by a friend a few years ago. The exchange I mentioned happened when a player commented after a tune had been played. The group has some new faces occasionally but most of the players are familiar with each other and some play in multiple sessions. Because the jam is an open and friendly one (there are others that are infamous for being exclusive or for players who will yell at people or tell them not to play), that exchange just underscores to me that people really do often care about definitive things, even when it’s just a gathering for fun.

But the point wasn’t to go into psychoanalysis of session players and leaders, but rather to point out that in many types of open collaborative gatherings that aren’t performances, aren’t paid, and often don’t even have audiences, people really do seem to care a lot about which version of a tune is being played and whose version it is.

I think players do have certain expectations about the music they play, and while some can adapt to something different well, some will shut down instead. If there are no guidelines at all things can get chaotic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

It’s actually a very friendly jam overall and the organizers have always been welcoming. I’ve been going periodically since the jam was started by a friend a few years ago. The exchange I mentioned happened when a player commented after a tune had been played. The group has some new faces occasionally but most of the players are familiar with each other and some play in multiple sessions. Because the jam is an open and friendly one (there are others that are infamous for being exclusive or for players who will yell at people or tell them not to play), that exchange just underscores to me that people really do often care about definitive things, even when it’s just a gathering for fun.

But the point wasn’t to go into psychoanalysis of session players and leaders, but rather to point out that in many types of open collaborative gatherings that aren’t performances, aren’t paid, and often don’t even have audiences, people really do seem to care a lot about which version of a tune is being played and whose version it is.

I think players do have certain expectations about the music they play, and while some can adapt to something different well, some will shut down instead. If there are no guidelines at all things can get chaotic.

---

I don't understand how any of that could / would / should be the "one ingredient" that we use to define old time - certainly not for everyone.  None of that would  define any genre of music for everyone who plays it. It only defines the wide range of dynamics that could be expected / experienced at "A" jam at any given session. 

Obviously, every jam is going to have a different "collective of individual personality dynamics" - sometimes based on skill levels. So, who would be the authority that decides for everyone else, everywhere else: "That's old time. That's not old time." 

And even when an attempt is made to enforce a standard application - there won't be anything universal about it. It either gets shot down, or the offending players leave and start their own jam.

I told you the story behind the name of a jam band that also performed together as a group - "the back alley banned" (not "the back alley band"). Yeap.

How can you tell the difference between a bunch of grapes and a fiddle session?

Jump up & down on one and you get wine, on the other, you get whines...

xoxoxo

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

---

I don't understand how any of that could / would / should be the "one ingredient" that we use to define old time - certainly not for everyone.  None of that would  define any genre of music for everyone who plays it. It only defines the wide range of dynamics that could be expected / experienced at "A" jam at any given session. 

Obviously, every jam is going to have a different "collective of individual personality dynamics" - sometimes based on skill levels. So, who would be the authority that decides for everyone else, everywhere else: "That's old time. That's not old time." 

And even when an attempt is made to enforce a standard application - there won't be anything universal about it. It either gets shot down, or the offending players leave and start their own jam.

I told you the story behind the name of a jam band that also performed together as a group - "the back alley banned" (not "the back alley band"). Yeap.

---

I think you can eliminate a lot of the confusion by putting the focus on understanding the music instead of trying to handle the widely different personalities of players.

If everyone knows what Old Time is, it's easier to know what to expect and to be clear when you choose to go in another direction. 

Brian Wood - "It seems any change toward preserving the early tunes would involve some degree of financial investment, like starting clubs, camps, or schools. Or finding a way to publish defining recordings with an authoritative organization like the Smithsonian. It surely can't be done by proclamation."
This has already been done, except no one felt compelled to strive for a "definition." The Smithsonian, and especially Folkways, now part of it, has released many recordings, including the great and quirky "Anthology of American Folk Music," as has the Library of Congress. The first recorded documents were the commercial recordings of the early 1920's, which were truly "folk" music, although played by people who had performance aspirations. Eck Robertson provided the template for Texas contest fiddling for years to come. Fiddling John Carson, Gid Tanner and Riley Puckett, Samantha Bumgarner and Eva Davis, Fiddling Powers and Family and Uncle Dave Macon were others. This was the first commercial "country" music, whatever it was called. Like all commercial music, as the decade progressed, it had to stay fresh with better arrangements, skits, and so on.
The Library of Congress recordings of the 1930's and later concentrated on documenting the roots, as did many others from other institutions and individually. In our era, labels like Rounder, County, June Appal, Old Homestead and Folk Legacy, among others, produced more recordings than you can really listen to.
Many books have been published presenting and discussing the music and its history. One excellent general study is "Country Music USA," by Bill Malone. Charles Wolfe wrote many books, including "Tennessee Strings," "Kentucky Country," and one about the founding of the Grand Old Opry. There's Gerry Milne's book about traditional music in West Virginia, and Jeff Todd Titon's "Old Time Kentucky Fiddle Tunes." Many others, especially regional studies.
There are many music camps from Maine to California for those who want an immersive experience. And college level programs many places, including East Tennessee State University and Morehead in Kentucky.
Apparently little or none of this has filtered down to some quarters of the FHO. I'd suggest some study would be profitable.
As far as comparisons with jazz, I'd say that most similarities between jazz and "old time" music were gone by about 1930. Ma Rainey, King Oliver and the early Bessie Smith were "old time." Billie Holliday and the Benny Goodman quartet were Bluegrass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

---

I don't understand how any of that could / would / should be the "one ingredient" that we use to define old time - certainly not for everyone.  None of that would  define any genre of music for everyone who plays it. It only defines the wide range of dynamics that could be expected / experienced at "A" jam at any given session. 

Obviously, every jam is going to have a different "collective of individual personality dynamics" - sometimes based on skill levels. So, who would be the authority that decides for everyone else, everywhere else: "That's old time. That's not old time." 

And even when an attempt is made to enforce a standard application - there won't be anything universal about it. It either gets shot down, or the offending players leave and start their own jam.

I told you the story behind the name of a jam band that also performed together as a group - "the back alley banned" (not "the back alley band"). Yeap.

---

I think you can eliminate a lot of the confusion by putting the focus on understanding the music instead of trying to handle the widely different personalities of players.

If everyone knows what Old Time is, it's easier to know what to expect and to be clear when you choose to go in another direction. 

---

I recognize this pattern.   ...dog chasing its tail. 

I submit, the confusion coming from personalities is created out of those individuals who (theoretically) have put their focus on the music and then feel compelled to project their opinions on others - as fact. ***   I've defined leaders before....  It either works - or it doesn't.

I came here wanting to play some "old time" fiddle tunes, and this person is saying that the old time genre is "THIS" - hmmm:   
1) "What they say makes sense, I'll follow."; 2)  "I want to attend this session, so I won't offer any challenge, I'll go along for now." ; 3) "This is not what I am looking for, I'm out of here." Thre's definitely more options, but you get the picture.

I submit that you are assuming the role of an individual personality with a compelling opinion. ...what universally accepted standard do you think I / we "must" accept?  

Would you accept that maybe xxxxx opinion(s) / idea(s) might be different than yours?  ,,,especially, if xxxxx had focused on the music to form those opinions, instead of trying to handle your personality?

Nothing personal - just considering what might be end of that logic, the way you presented it. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

 

I recognize this pattern.   ...dog chasing its tail. 

I submit, the confusion coming from personalities is created out of those individuals who (theoretically) have put their focus on the music and then feel compelled to project their opinions on others - as fact. ***   I've defined leaders before....  It either works - or it doesn't.

I came here wanting to play some "old time" fiddle tunes, and this person is saying that the old time genre is "THIS" - hmmm:   
1) "What they say makes sense, I'll follow."; 2)  "I want to attend this session, so I won't offer any challenge, I'll go along for now." ; 3) "This is not what I am looking for, I'm out of here." Thre's definitely more options, but you get the picture.

I submit that you are assuming the role of an individual personality with a compelling opinion. ...what universally accepted standard do you think I / we "must" accept?  

Would you accept that maybe xxxxx opinion(s) / idea(s) might be different than yours?  ,,,especially, if xxxxx had focused on the music to form those opinions, instead of trying to handle your personality?

Nothing personal - just considering what might be end of that logic, the way you presented it. 

---

The "nothing personal" is quite ironic coming at the end of your latest personal attack. 
 

Your description of confusion coming from people sharing opinions as facts would make it seem pretty clear that Old Time is struggling because so many people are just talking gibberish. If that's the root of the problem (I'm not sure) then the antidote would be to eliminate the misunderstanding by presenting a cohesive and definitive narrative about it and share it as widely as possible. Then Brian's suggestion of investing heavily in promulgation of the information would be essential to success. In that sense, it would be potentially worthwhile to do what the old record companies did--gather music and put a label on it for marketing to a wider audience. If your definition of leadership is accurate, then things are looking much worse than I've suggested for the genre.

I haven't ever said anyone "must" accept anything. I simply presented an approach toward definition. I was asked to come up with my own definition since I thought that another suggested was missing some important information. I made a suggestion, not a demand. I also have no expectation of my idea being accepted by you or all other players. I haven't asked to be the leader. I've presented some ideas that I think have merit. If they are mischaracterized or misunderstood I respond, not because I expect agreement, but because I want to make the meaning clear and because I hope that the discussion will be fruitful. Maybe it can prompt someone who does want to take a leadership role to think about how that could best be done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

Brian Wood - "It seems any change toward preserving the early tunes would involve some degree of financial investment, like starting clubs, camps, or schools. Or finding a way to publish defining recordings with an authoritative organization like the Smithsonian. It surely can't be done by proclamation."
This has already been done, except no one felt compelled to strive for a "definition." 

---

You're absolutely right, and my suggestion was made a bit ironically. Thanks for an informed rundown on all the ways the music has been documented. 

Beyond that, I don't know what the hell this thread is about, really. I'm starting to wonder why I click on it, except for my weird compulsion to witness chaos. 

In my opinion - it ain't broke.   

I attacked what you said - not you.   

Most of the famous OT-ers were not real back porchers...they played for money, for fame or whatever, maybe just attention from out-of-towners with fancy gadgetry...they knew they were in the spotlight, so they were probably a lot different than the people that they heard or listened to or learned from in their pasts. So...maybe the "rules" were set by academics who collected and recorded their playing, but remember, there were humble old folks further behind, still sittin' on that lonely porch, or playing on the court house lawn on Saturdays when they came to town, or playing in the country store when the miners or loggers gathered for a Coke and hot dog and checkers by the pot bellied stove, or playing in the church house...I mean...who can say who is authentic, if we're gonna get that picky about it...lol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Rich's jam does sound kind of scary. 

---

Must be the same one we heard about where the less accomplished fiddlers leave in tears.  Brutal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Rich's jam does sound kind of scary. 

---

Must be the same one we heard about where the less accomplished fiddlers leave in tears.  Brutal.

---

No, one was an Old Time jam, the other was an Irish session. I haven't been to the really brutal sessions, but I have played at one where one of the leaders would stop a tune in the middle if someone was playing the wrong notes, tell the player to stop playing, and restart the tune. That last one is overall a friendly one as well, but you have to know the tunes if you play (no learning as you go). 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Rich's jam does sound kind of scary. 

---

Must be the same one we heard about where the less accomplished fiddlers leave in tears.  Brutal.

---

No, one was an Old Time jam, the other was an Irish session. I haven't been to the really brutal sessions, but I have played at one where one of the leaders would stop a tune in the middle if someone was playing the wrong notes, tell the player to stop playing, and restart the tune. That last one is overall a friendly one as well, but you have to know the tunes if you play (no learning as you go). 

---

...and that is what supposedly defines the genre?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Rich's jam does sound kind of scary. 

---

Must be the same one we heard about where the less accomplished fiddlers leave in tears.  Brutal.

---

No, one was an Old Time jam, the other was an Irish session. I haven't been to the really brutal sessions, but I have played at one where one of the leaders would stop a tune in the middle if someone was playing the wrong notes, tell the player to stop playing, and restart the tune. That last one is overall a friendly one as well, but you have to know the tunes if you play (no learning as you go). 

---

...and that is what supposedly defines the genre?

---

Absolutely not. I have already given the definition I think describes the genre. Playing in group settings like jams or sessions is merely one method of playing the music, although it could perhaps be argued that these settings excise the music from its traditions of being played for dances.

The social etiquette that players use at gatherings does not define the genre itself, just the practices that are popular with players.