Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:22 PM

Nothing you would ever hear at the Press Room, Jeri.

The practice of not singing another's song has always struck me as a courtesy more than anything else. Barry always gets a nod from Charlie before going ahead with Yangtze River. I have never yet heard anyone sing Kendall's "Don't Look Good Naked Anymore"; "Fire Down Below" is Jeri's mostly because no one can get it quite as right as she. "Aunt Cora" is Lynn's. Funny but I just dragged out Kendall's first CD with "Maggie May" on it and found it strange to have anyone but Tom sing it. But I can't imagine anyone objecting if a singer chose to. Again, courtesy.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Deni-C
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 01:43 AM

At our club we tend not to do each other's songs becuase that would cut down the number of songs the club performs and would be boring, but how are visitors to clubs supposed to know what club regulars sing.

when they turn up we ask them IF they sing, not WHAT they sing....

Best Wishes
deni

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: vectis
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:46 PM

If I hear a song I like and think it would suit my singing style I ask the singer for the words and tune and author.
If they are kind ehough to pass the song on a always attribute it to the author rather than the singer.
PS
Thanks for the song George. If I can't get the tune to the verses I'll take up your kind offer...
Mary

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:52 PM

Russ,

4) Ownership is also about dues-paying. Newbies don't get the same treatment as old-timers. Newbies have to learn their place. But, a newbie who gets toasted for singing someone else's song AND graciously treats it as a learning experience AND comes back, passes a test.

The test is that he's a sucker and will put up with any crap to be around the "in-crowd", right?

If a new person turns up, do they get told which songs they're barred from singing? If so, and they still do it, that's rude from them - they've been told the rules and chosen to break them. A quiet word from the organiser at the bar afterwards to the effect of "Charlie's not got many songs, so he does that one and we leave it to him" is one thing, but getting "toasted" for it is something else altogether. I strongly suggest the "toaster" chooses their target carefully, bcos verbal abuse plus alcohol is a good combination for a punchup...

Graham.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:14 AM

And then there are some folk clubs where you cause great offence if you sit in somebody's regular chair !

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:23 AM

Genie,
To me its not the number or restrictiveness of the rules but the quality of the musical experience that is the deciding factor.

Graham,
"The test is that he's a sucker and will put up with any crap to be around the "in-crowd", right?"

That's one valid way of looking at it.

But I see nothing wrong, per se, with following the rules of an "in-crowd". Sometimes the quality of a musical experience makes it worth the effort to put up with some crap, sometimes it doesn't. I can't claim to bat 1000, but I am not as quick as I once was to rule out participation purely on the basis of the crap.

"Toasted" was perhaps too strong a word. I tend to exaggerate for effect. But I've been on the receiving end of what was intended to be a "quiet word" and still felt toasted.

In my experience, it would be extremely unusual for a newbie to be handed a list of "restricted" songs or even simply told at the start what songs were off limits. That presupposes a degree of formal organization which is quite foreign to the sorts of small groups I think we are talking about. Part of the informality is that newcomers often/always learn things "the hard way" because there are no written rules.

Anyway,
These days, to me the issue isn't the number of rules, or their restrictiveness, or the ingroup/outgroup mentality. I'm sort of a bottom-liner here. If I feel that participation in the group is musically worth the effort, I'm willing to jump through some hoops. I'm just not as keen as I once was to have things done my way. I will occasionally submit and be assimilated and then exercise a subversive influence as a mole from within.

In my experience rules look very different depending upon your viewpoint. What looks like arbitrary ingroup crap to a newbie can "feel" right and make a certain sort of sense when you're a member.

The closest thing to the sort of musical freedom some of the participants in this thread seem to yearn for is found doing music with friends I've known and played with for years/decades. They'll put up with almost anything. They'll still whine though.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM

While I don't mind giving any of the material which I perform to anyone else, I do object to be expected to sit down and write out the words then and there. If the other person is on e-mail it makes life much easier as I have most sets of words on my PC (and my HP Jornado PDA).

At one session that I sometimes go to, there is a particular singer who has "borrowed" a few songs (not ones which I've written) from me, and frequently sings one of my favourites before I get a chance. He is not a very good singer (although he's hardly a beginner) and I've now given up singing several songs at that session, because even when they haven't already been sung, I feel that I might be seen to be "putting down" the other singer when I do sing them.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Genie
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:39 PM

Russ ( To me its not the number or restrictiveness of the rules but the quality of the musical experience that is the deciding factor.)
I couldn't agree more.

The only thing that really bothers me about having a LOT of 'owned' songs is that it can really restrict the musical experience within that group. If someone who has a different verion of so-and-so's song* doesn't ever feel welcome to perform it, or if someone who does a superb rendition of a song isn't ever 'permitted' to share that because someone else routinely does a mediocre rendition of it, I think that's a real shame.

The time these kinds of 'rules' would seriously detract from my musical experience in a group (or setting) would be when, say, all 20 of my very best songs (my showpiece songs) were "already owned" by someone else in the group, so that I never had the chance to 'put my best foot forward' (in the sense of performing) or to do the songs that were the most enjoyable to me to play/sing.

When it's just a few songs, and I have other places where I can do them, it's no biggie to let a group member 'own' them.

Genie

*I am not talking about songs "owned' by their authors.