From: bogul@nospambog.net   
      
   "AM"  wrote in news:oTFle.203$HN1.51@fe02.lga:   
      
   > "Lane Gray, Czar Castic"  wrote in message   
   > news:opsrfjygwi8955ol@stylgar...   
   >> On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:03:49 -0600, AM  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "bogul"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:Xns965F8C8A7C3D2bugulbugus@216.196.97.142...   
   >>>> An interesting sub-plot the the original thread...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I gotta ask. What are you seeking out in a "jam"?   
   >>>   
   >>> A jam is simply people *playing* together.  No hierarchicality is   
   >>> necessary - - - unless one is excessively egoistic.  No control is   
   >>> necessary - - - unless one is excessively narrow-minded.  Obviously,   
   >>> Control Freak Egomaniacs are psycho-spiritually incapable of meeting   
   >>> these two crucial conditions.   
   >>>   
   >> Well, if the piece getting played is a *song*, then one would expect   
   >> the singer to have a good deal of input, as one would consider it   
   >> his/her tune.   
   >   
   > Most folksingers define singing as "any sound emanating from a bodily   
   > orifice," and thus, are not worthy of any special deference.   
      
   Basicly a meaningless tolling statement.   
      
   >   
   >>That said, unless the jam is held at someone's house (and the   
   >>homeowner plays the role of the jamnazi), someone laying down rigid   
   >>rules  isn't very cool at all.   
   >>   
   >>>> or... perhaps better stated... what to you would truly   
   >>>> constitute a Jam?   
   >>>   
   >>> This, I described in Paragraph 5 of the previous post:  "Union with   
   >>> the Creative Force through an egalitarian, synergistic, co-creative   
   >>> process, unfettered by subjective preconception of what must occur."   
   >>>   
   >> Here I'd say that the Dave Matthews Band or Phish have given you an   
   >> odd concept of a "jam session."   
   >> If you're at a bluegrass jam, expect the songs/instrumentals to   
   >> roughly conform to the general aspects of bluegrass (i.e. generally   
   >> three chords; generally in 2/4 time; most verses either 16 or 32   
   >> bars, with choruses of generally equal length; you don't play your   
   >> breaks in polyrhythms or take Charlie Parkeresque high-energy bebop   
   >> flights of fancy), just like you wouldn't break out your Lynyrd   
   >> Skynrd licks if you sat in at a Dixieland jam.  The idea of a jam   
   >> session "unfettered by subjective preconception of what must occur"   
   >> will generally not exist anywhere. A room full of 'grassers will   
   >> generally expect the music to sound like bluegrass, a Dixieland jam   
   >> will generally conform to the standards and conventions of Dixieland,   
   >> a blues jam will generally conform to the standards and conventions   
   >> of the blues, et al, et c.   
   >   
   > As Frank Zappa once said, "Without deviation from the norm, no   
   > progress is possible."   
   >   
      
   In order to deviate... a norm must be established... Any norm established   
   started as a deviation... So to give a "norm" the back of your hand   
   simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and appriciation for   
   musical roots. Zappa was great... but didn't "always" deviate... Much of   
   what he did is now considered norm... shall we belittle it as well?   
      
   > Now, "shut up and play your guitar!"   
   >   
   > AM   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)