Wednesday 4th February 2010
Huddled in the snug of the Startled Stoat last night, just before closing time when the instruments had been lovingly laid to rest in their velvet cocoons and the last strains of the reels and jigs had died away, the question arose.
“What about the Anchor?”
For such an innocent question and so late at night, there followed a debate of such heat and forthrightness that one could have been forgiven for thinking that the assembled throng had been magically transported to a market tavern in the morning time.
There soon emerged two conceptual camps. Let us call them the purists and the socialists. The purists want sessions to preserve their identity by only playing tunes essentially being a closed group within the pub. The socialists prefer sessions to be aware, interactive with the other clients and to be a more open and social affair. This was embodied in the question “Would you sing Wild Rover if somebody asked?”
This did nothing to resolve the original question which was “Should the session stay here (Molash) or should it move back to the Anchor?”. There have been good email debates about the pros and cons. In the snug, there emerged another two camps. One advocated caution in moving to a new and unproven management of a pub which has already failed once while the other urged throwing caution to the wind and living for the moment.
There is probably a research project available in drawing a matrix of these two areas of two camps and drawing conclusions. The purists and the socialists and the conservatives and the free spirits. I suspect that purist conservatives will field quite a side and so will the socialist free spirits. But are there any purist free spirits or more unlikely, any socialist conservatives?
I am not stating any preference here, other than to record that I am happy to turn up and play wherever the session pitches up, and join in with the general kind of entertainment being partaken with good grace.
Who said there wasn’t any politics in sessions?