I think in informal situations like jams there may be a tendency to play too much - after all the roles are not really defined. But if you listen to a good band, in any genre, you'll hear that everyone has their part to play. Watch some Tuba Skinny videos on YouTube. Or Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives, or The Band.
I was fortunate to have a close friend years ago who was a brilliant industrial designer in the music industry and also knew a lot about how music works, although he wasn't an outstanding player himself. He was also a big Bill Monroe fan, and he sat me down in front of a really good stereo system and played Bill Monroe records. He pointed out how one instrument at a time would play backup during vocals and then take a break, and how Bill Monroe's vocals seemed as though he was telling a story just to you.
In my days playing with the Highwoods Stringband I thought of our band as a kind of string quintet, with two violins, and the banjo perhaps playing the viola's role. I thought of my guitar as akin to the cello, playing chordal foundations and counter melodies. I just came across a couple videos of us playing informally, and I'm not playing anything like just the bass/chord rhythm you often hear. We had a very good bass player for that, which freed me up for other things. Also a little like the trombone in a traditional jazz band.

More understanding is more. And less understanding is less.

Sure. I understand the need to play, but back off, and play a double stop, like a B3. Learn to do fills. Then, there's sometimes when you can't tell the fiddler anything because he knows it all. He/she needs to be able to hear the mix, somehow. If he/she still stomps on the vocals, there's always wire-cutters! Or maybe you just lose his or her phone number.

Hmmmm .... Less is more. I don't know how many pro fiddlers have said this to me. Compliment the vocals and stay off the singers note. If the singes goes up, go down. In an instrumental play the tune then, add to the tune. Share the fills and the backup. Music can and often does become "cluttered" with too much going on. Jams will usually be cluttered unless you have managed to find one with only a half a dozen players. I just try to enjoy what is going on. Or if something is problematic, I hit the road. Play on neighbors.

This story reminds me that it really is best for musicians to be able to play more than one instrument. You don't have play them both (or all) well, but the experience of approaching another instrument, desiring that sound, struggling for a while, maybe even listening especially for that part in recordings & bands. You learn to listen differently that way, and it makes you better.

This guy sounds like he was in a bit of what I think of as the "adolescent" phase of fiddling, as in: "hey everybody stand back and look at me -- I am burnin up the track with all my awwsumm tallentt." You know. Don't be that guy. Really, don't.

Many years ago when I was in a hard core bluegrass band, the rule was your instrument did the back ups right before your break and then you shut up, unless otherwise directed to play. The rule didn't fit sometimes, but generally, it made for nice clean vocal fields for the singers to plow. You were expected to play the rests and spaces in the melody, with maybe a few lead in notes.

That was in a band setting. In jam sessions, it's the rare one indeed where all players are hip enough to know and adhere to good jam etiquette. Me, I play when the tune leader tells me to, and back off to just chopping or at most playing a very simplified, chord based back up. Depends on who is playing. For mando breaks, I chop, guitar breaks I stop completely, banjo, dobro an others, a simple back up riff.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with the ornamentation thread. It’s important to know how to employ the skills that you learn appropriately. There are some instances where the violin is supposed to drive everything, but in most group settings, the violin plays a part and it needs to fit into the overall framework instead of dominating it at the expense of the other players.

In some ways it can enhance the enjoyment of the playing when it comes in and out of the forefront (e.g. playing in the background while another player takes the spotlight, only to come back later with a very intricate and lyrical response). The conversation between players works better if it’s not one-sided.

When I was at the Richmond Folk Festival a couple years ago, there was an informal jam at the hotel where all the participants were put up for the weekend. It started with an old-time fiddler and a Venezuelan harpist who were playing South American tunes, then more and more people stepped in and joined, until there were probably about 20 players. It was a wonderful evening and it was exciting to watch as various players took breaks and added a personal element to the music. Since the South American music was the prevailing genre that night, everyone went with it and listened to the native players to get ideas. That way, each solo had a sense of cohesion to it. I’d never played any of that music before, but it was pretty easy to pick up. I was standing next to a very good Brazilian violinist and one of his rhythm guitar bandmates, and they, along with the leaders of the session, made it very easy to get a sense and find a way in.

At one point a fiddler walked in and asked to do a blues song. The jam switched gears seamlessly for that one number and it was a lot of fun to hear the players who were less familiar with blues find their way into the mix.

I would tend to agree that what sets most very good players apart isn’t simply panache but the ability to pull meaning out of a simple melodic line. This is why players can play a written line using the exact same notes but come out with interpretations that are drastically different. Great music has lots of room for interpretation, and good interpretation isn’t a matter of adding more music but adding more meaning.

“Less is more” is a good saying to ponder. It doesn’t mean to do nothing or to just go for the bare minimum, but it does remind one not to become overly focused on embellishment. Sometimes the straightest path to a meaningful interpretation is to boil the work down to its essential elements and then build up from there.

I was at a jam last weekend and was just sitting there with my fiddle upright on my knee listening to the tune go around until it was my turn to play. One of the guitar players commented afterwards about how I was like a horn player just sitting out until it's time to do my thing. It was a nice reminder that I definitely don't need to be playing non-stop.

Ga this drove me crazy at a session few weeks ago!!

Our sesh leader brought her Irish harp. She was playing it and singing a tune…so lovely. But some darn jam people kept playing over her singing, and over the harp!! I wanted to throttle them! And they are good folks…maybe have less of a musical background/training than others in our session…but just clueless, argh.

If I was a bolder, more senior person I would have said something. But as an occasional visitor I just sat and suffered…

One of the people playing over her is the same way with conversation…she is not too interested in what you have to say…would rather talk while you listen…

Ok sorry for my rant! And yea I am also guilty sometimes of playing too much, I think.

And I wanted to add that the best people I have ever played with…will just sit down and hang out, relaxed…and after awhile listening, they will join in but they add just that perfect sound that makes everything sound better…or a few little inspiring bits here and there that just make ya wanna melt!
When they walk in, I feel my spirits lift and I know it’s going to be a good session…

Well, I dream of being a player like that someday, hahaha. Hopefully no spirits sink when I walk in, hahaha!

The best players i hear "command" an atmosphere in which they sound good.
Being a folk musician is not just about putting their fingers on the right strings and moving the bow up and down, or how many tunes they know. It is a performance art, as much as any other. A good player will create a bubble in which they communicate with an audience. At whatever level. That is how they get away with less than perfect tone, intonation and timing. And still command an audience.

Edit: i think this is (2nd edit: maybe) where Tommy Jarrel and Paganini meet ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

 

where Tommy Jarrel and Paganini meet ?

---

That's a fun way to think of it, the performance should captivate.

An example of where perfection isn't necessary: my uke group had a gig Friday. It was hot AF but the brewery has good beer and the crowd was ready for us (even talked with someone who specifically came because we were playing, that's always nice).  We had a few stumbles here and there but used them as a way to interact with the audience (so it became a source of humor) and when all was said and done, there were nothing but smiles all around and a lot of yelling for more when we were done (a first for us). I assume we sold it like Paganini despite being less than perfect 

Since audiences have been mentioned, they are definitely part of a public performance, and can even be part of a "less is more" approach. I'm attaching a clip of Jennifer Cleland singing a song at a show we did in New York in 1977. The audience enjoyed seeing a young woman who could sing, play the bass, and even yodel. They burst into applause, and once they were involved, clapped along during the instrumental breaks. But once it was time for Jenny to sing again they stopped completely, which I really like.
PS - Although there must have been a sound system involved, this recording was made with two high quality condenser mics placed in front of the band so you can hear the natural dynamics of the group (and the audience).

<3 <3 -<3

For bluegrass fiddling, it helps to listen to Paul Warren on those late 50s/early 60s albums, at how much he doesn't play (and how much Earl and Josh Graves don't play for that matter).

On the other hand, Kenny Baker sometimes played all the time, so if you're as good as he was I guess it's okay.

I think it’s worth mentioning that Old Time and Bluegrass jam customs are pretty different, as are jam and performance conventions. As an Old Time jam player, I’m pretty used playing all the way through, and everybody else does too. It’s normal, and you learn some stuff that way. It’s not a performance, you just play together.

When I have ended up at a Bluegrass jam, and someone asks if I “want a break” I eventually figured out what they meant. Meanwhile my thoughts were pretty much - no I don’t want a break, we’re still playing.

It occurs to me that some of the rudeness that is annoying people comes from this sort of difference in jam culture. Also Bluegrass jams drive me nuts because you never really get to play, then if you do want “a break” you’re expected to wig out on a tune you’ve been stuck doing drones on for the last who knows how long, when you could have been playing.

So anyway, thanks for listening.

"Less is more" is in the same category as: "Make it sound good no matter how boring it is to play." Both things I agree with in a band settings.

Jam sessions have other rules and every jam has different rules. Figure them out and play along and have a good time.

Whether you're a clam factory or not, if you don't fight for your solo-ing time in band situations you'll never get good. You just gotta be confident that, in time, you are going to get good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

The best players i hear "command" an atmosphere in which they sound good.
Being a folk musician is not just about putting their fingers on the right strings and moving the bow up and down, or how many tunes they know. It is a performance art, as much as any other. A good player will create a bubble in which they communicate with an audience. At whatever level. That is how they get away with less than perfect tone, intonation and timing. And still command an audience.

Edit: i think this is (2nd edit: maybe) where Tommy Jarrel and Paganini meet ?

---

I agree that Paganini was a graft showman and that he took solo performance to place it had never been before. I don't agree, though, that he did so at the expense of tone, timing, or intonation. There are surviving critical pieces on him as a performer, but they tend to be written by people who seemed to really not like his stage presence and who were willing to invent some unfavorable anecdotes about his tone to tarnish his reputation--other great players who met Paganini were astonished by his musicality just as much as his stage presence. He was expanding violin technique in his day and the music he wrote displays a masterful knowledge of the instrument. He invented some techniques and left an indelible impression on the violin world. Players of all genres know the name today.

Tommy Jarrell is likely the most recognizable name to the average Old-Time player. His contributions to the genre as an inspiration to players are still seen among some of the current major players. However, I really can't see any comparison to Paganini on any level. The two are just so completely different. 
 

Probably the closest resemblance to Paganini would be Doug Kershaw, who made a concerted effort to look like Paganini and recreated artists' depictions in his own promotional material. This comparison is mostly surface level, though. Kershaw embraced the idea of the showman and incorporated a number of elements of spectacle to his shows.

Incidentally, after Paganini's death there was a violinist who tried to make a career out of putting on a show in a way that in his mind recreated Paganini's presence. He went by the name "Paganini Redivivus" and managed to find a few places that would allow him to perform. By all accounts, the playing was terrible and it was just a perversion of Paganini's artistry that was so bad it was laughable. There was a bit of amusement at its awfulness, but that wore off quickly and the performer mercifully faded away into obscurity.

Could Tommy Jarrell have been a better player if he had met Paganini? Well, that depends somewhat on whether Paganini would have agreed to teach him. Had he done so, I would say that yes, Tommy could have learned a whole lot of technique if he was willing to learn. Paganini might have quite enjoyed listening to Tommy play and would have been able to emulate the style. There would have been plenty of potential. I don't see a downside to their imaginary meeting, although it's easy enough to imagine that they might have met, played, and then resumed as they were before.

In regards to the following part of a post by The Violin Beautiful’s.

I think this would have affected Tommy Jarrell’s individual voice which I would not like. And I can’t see (perhaps my vision is limited) how that voice wouldn’t have changed. Sure he would still have had his own voice as all fiddlers do, but I would hate to think we would have lost the one we get to hear.

“Could Tommy Jarrell have been a better player if he had met Paganini? Well, that depends somewhat on whether Paganini would have agreed to teach him. Had he done so, I would say that yes, Tommy could have learned a whole lot of technique if he was willing to learn. Paganini might have quite enjoyed listening to Tommy play and would have been able to emulate the style. There would have been plenty of potential. I don't see a downside to their imaginary meeting, although it's easy enough to imagine that they might have met, played, and then resumed as they were before.“

So, I guess I’m saying I do see a down side.

For What Its Worth: I have taken classical instruction (only about 6 lessons) and they helped me immensely. As I said in another post, everyone thought I must have bought a new fiddle. And they were serious. Haha

Just lately I've seen a couple shows where there are a wholebunch of guitarists on a stage paying tribute to another guitar player. It never sounds very good. Turns out high level guitarists are very polite for the most part. One doesn't get too far being obnoxious. So everyone is making room for each other and not very much music is made. But it's a shining example, if you're able to absorb it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmiller510

In regards to the following part of a post by The Violin Beautiful’s.

I think this would have affected Tommy Jarrell’s individual voice which I would not like. And I can’t see (perhaps my vision is limited) how that voice wouldn’t have changed. Sure he would still have had his own voice as all fiddlers do, but I would hate to think we would have lost the one we get to hear.

“Could Tommy Jarrell have been a better player if he had met Paganini? Well, that depends somewhat on whether Paganini would have agreed to teach him. Had he done so, I would say that yes, Tommy could have learned a whole lot of technique if he was willing to learn. Paganini might have quite enjoyed listening to Tommy play and would have been able to emulate the style. There would have been plenty of potential. I don't see a downside to their imaginary meeting, although it's easy enough to imagine that they might have met, played, and then resumed as they were before.“

So, I guess I’m saying I do see a down side.

For What Its Worth: I have taken classical instruction (only about 6 lessons) and they helped me immensely. As I said in another post, everyone thought I must have bought a new fiddle. And they were serious. Haha

---

Your post is a little confusing. You say that Tommy Jarrell's voice would have changed for the worse had he learned something from a legendary classical player, but you end by describing the gigantic difference it's made to your own playing to take lessons, so much that listeners were under the impression you'd bought a new violin. That's a considerable difference, and I would think that's something to be quite happy about. If Jarrell had wanted to play differently and had taken the opportunity to learn, I don't think that would have been a bad thing so long as he was accomplishing what he intended. 
 

I don't quite agree that playing with a musician of a different discipline will forever change you. After all, many famous players have collaborated in this way and their voices have remained uniquely theirs. Playing with Yo Yo Ma didn't make Mark O'Connor sound less like himself. You might say that the people he listened to and chose to emulate shaped his sound (as suggested in his "Heroes" recording). While I do think one can learn a lot from any exposure to different forms of music, it doesn't cause such a radical reshaping of one's own playing unless that's the intention. Geminiani played a good amount with O'Carolan, and although their relationship was a positive and fruitful one, it didn't really have an effect on their respective styles. Centuries later when Menuhin played with Ravi Shankar, neither player changed style; in fact, Menuhin has been widely criticized for not being able to adopt the style very well, just as he struggled to get a sense for Grappelli's swing. Perlman had much more success when he played Klezmer music. Jean-Luc Ponty studied violin performance in conservatory but ended up going his own direction. He played for a time with Franlk Zappa, but his style has always remained uniquely his own. Stuff Smith played  with Ponty and Svend Asmussen  at a jazz summit but each of them retained a unique style. I'm sure all of them found it a great experience and learned something from it but it didn't cause them to change their respective sounds. 

Reply to The Violin Beautiful. (first of all, I'm a bit unclear right now coming out of some pretty major surgery, but I'll do my best.)

First of all I think that a lot of this is conjecture (though not particularly misplaced thought) as we don't really know what happens in any situation until it happens.

Yes, 6 classical lessons really helped me so I'm not opposed to them at all.

My point is that everything affects us and changes us to some degree, not necessarily for better or worse, just change. I am a huge fan of Tommy Jarrell's sound (though I have no hope of ever sounding like that) and think that study of classical music would have changed that. Just my opinion, which could be quite wrong. You disagree and that doesn't bother me, I'm not arguing right or wrong, just offering my take on it. Your examples of people who haven't changed are good though I don't know any of them well enough to really comment on them.

As musicians, everything affects us, and I don't want to think about Tommy Jarrell playing differently on the June Apple recording. Just my selfish take on that one, of course.

And here's a thought that just occurred to me. If Tommy Jarrell studied classical technique and it didn't change him, what was the point? I'll quit here and take some more pills. Haha

Hope this makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmiller510

Reply to The Violin Beautiful. (first of all, I'm a bit unclear right now coming out of some pretty major surgery, but I'll do my best.)

First of all I think that a lot of this is conjecture (though not particularly misplaced thought) as we don't really know what happens in any situation until it happens.

Yes, 6 classical lessons really helped me so I'm not opposed to them at all.

My point is that everything affects us and changes us to some degree, not necessarily for better or worse, just change. I am a huge fan of Tommy Jarrell's sound (though I have no hope of ever sounding like that) and think that study of classical music would have changed that. Just my opinion, which could be quite wrong. You disagree and that doesn't bother me, I'm not arguing right or wrong, just offering my take on it. Your examples of people who haven't changed are good though I don't know any of them well enough to really comment on them.

As musicians, everything affects us, and I don't want to think about Tommy Jarrell playing differently on the June Apple recording. Just my selfish take on that one, of course.

And here's a thought that just occurred to me. If Tommy Jarrell studied classical technique and it didn't change him, what was the point? I'll quit here and take some more pills. Haha

Hope this makes sense.

---

You're right that the idea of Paganini meeting Tommy Jarrell is pure conjecture. I can't really have any way of knowing exactly what would happen. On the other hand, we do know what happened when the other players I mentioned met because each of those meetings really did happen. 
 

I think you have a point that interacting with others changes you in a way. All experiences broaden the mind and experience. However, I don't think that means that playing style necessarily changes as a direct result of each experience. In the long term, I think cumulative experiences can lead one to a shift in expression, but it's hard to pin it on one particular moment. Players often reinterpret things over time on their own even without any outside influence.

For me, the thing that appeals with Tommy Jarrell is his playing style, not his tone or technique. By the time he made his recordings, age had caught up to him and taken its toll. If I recall correctly, this issue was discussed at the beginning of a documentary about him, where the narrator lamented the fact that there is no record of him from the time when he was at his best, and what we have (at the time of the documentary) is a very charismatic player whose earlier successes can be faintly heard through the infirmities of advanced age. I admire Tommy Jarrell as someone who inspired a lot of players and freely shared the nostalgia for an old way of fiddling that he himself preserved from his own family's traditions. 
 

Getting back to the original topic, I would say that "less is more" is perhaps best applied to things that are more surface-level, like embellishment. But when it comes to things like technique, tone quality and production, and communication with the audience, I would say instead "more is more."

The more people in the group the less you have to do. Learning to play in an ensemble is a learned skill, knowing what to do when, especially when backing up a vocalist. This may be a bit of a blanket statement but I’ve noticed that many tune players OT and Irish are at a loss when it comes to back up. The styles just don’t demand it compared to a bluegrass band where everyone has to weave in an out of the focus. Having a solid chord foundation is essential to playing back up. It's amazing how many fiddlers don't know the chords! In my opinion  constamy chopping is a bore and a missed opportunity and gets old fast.