GUITAR BOARD

having read the thread on best blues session I thought Id chip in
with a different slant on this. My best blues session is one that Ive
been involved in - either playing or in the audience. I reckon there
are great blues sessions happening all the time. You just need to be
there

As Im a weekday Londoner, Ive started going along to the Blues Jam
Nights which happen in the city centre. Mondays after 9:00 is at Aint
Nuthin But (Kingly Street), Tuesdays after 7:00 is the Spice of Life
(Charing X Road) and Thursdays is the Royal George (after 9:30 or so,
also Charing X Road). So wheres the best blues session ? - well Id
say any one of these three venues. What you get is some very good
players getting thrown together and just getting up and making great
blues. OK sometimes the results are a bit patchy, but the general
standard is very high indeed. Certainly, Ian Segal, who runs the ANB
sessions, is a superb blues-man. Just being in a small crowded pub to
hear him sing & play is a treat.

Im finding the whole experience very stimulating - in playing terms.
There is nothing like playing in public to bring you on. I find I still
fall back into the same old pentatonic boxes too much though, and Im
not slick enough on 9th chords and fancy turnarounds. I must get more
mobility up and down the neck. Ive taken my 335 down to London now, so
thats a statement of intent to play more and improve.

The downside for me is the smoky atmospheres. Bring on the smoking in
public ban!! Its great being in the company of like minded musicians.
All the nights are very friendly. There are about 20 or so guitar
players who frequent these sessions, so you see (and get the chance to
play alongside) many of the same people regardless of which night you go
to. Im not really good enough to play alongside some of the guys whom
I now get to jam with, but Im learning so much. A few weeks ago I
ended up on stage with a former presenter of the Old Grey Whistle
Test. The variety of styles being played is amazing too.

If youve never tried a jam night, Id heartily reccommend taking a deep
shot of courage and getting out,finding your nearest session and
jamming.

cheers

andrew blues

andrew s wrote in message
news:35hhf1F4k0o1eU1@individual.net...

If you are in Norfolk try the Blueberry off Magdalen Street in Norwich every
Weds evening!

Giles

On 23 Jan 2005 11:52:01 GMT, andrew s wrote:


Hmmm..............

As a longtime Keef-type smoker - never happier when Im playing than
with a cigarette in my mouth - Im not exactly in favour of an
outright ban.

Of course, I can understand the health issues and arguments and
strongly believe that non-smoking venues of all sorts should be
encouraged, but - at the same time - keep some venues for those who
choose to smoke.

Quite frankly, Im more concerned about the crap that I breathe in
that cars spew out.

But, lets face it, a ban on petrol and diesel-driven vehicles isnt
going to happen, even though I am prepared to lay heavy bets that fuel
fumes are at the bottom of many, if not most ailments currently
ascribed to tobacco smoke.

Then again, Id rather see a ban on alcohol before tobacco.

I mean, who ever heard of tobacco-related petty crime? And how many
people get violent after too many B&Hs?

Whats more, why does a government which sees tobacco as so evil want
to make 24 hour drinking a reality and also create a proliferation of
places too gamble?

Mixed messages - typical political spin.

Some vices good, some vices bad.

I have yet to hear any rationale that explains current political
priorities with any degree of cogency.

Ask people whats really, really important and I dont reckon that
smoky pubs are even going to get in the top 20.

People are going to say the drug problem, pollution, the war with
Iraq, congestion, poor public services, child abuse, etc, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, just how important is a smoke-free
atmosphere really?

Now wheres my packet of fags?

Steve.
--
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels. | Zappa! Guitar! Beer!
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm | Trade Zappa and Gatton!
mail: steve@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk | Save money by setting
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare. | up your own guitar!

Steve Cobham wrote in message
news:r8e7v09ktt3tioh7veto4kpm929j5242g9@4ax.com...

I pinched it and am now enjoying one...
George

all good points, ive recently given up ... and started again ... and
stopped again, its been a week now so im kind of in it for the long haul
now i think (previous record 18 months) so fingers crossed

but i was in a comedy club the other night and felt very anti-smoking, not
only that the temptation was there in my face but i was sitting with lots of
smokers and i was gagging and coughing, in the morning i knew id absorbed a
lot of nicotine simply by the intensity of my cravings

however i do not favour a ban in pubs (maybe restaurants), let people smoke
if they want to, we are all aware of the dangers, the jury is out on passive
smoking, perhaps landlords should be encouraged to have smoking and
non-smoking sections, i dunno if you sit in non-smoking your beer is 25p
cheaper or something

its not like theres a ban on hamburgers is there? 20 of those a day would
probably kill you off sooner than fags

and to return on-topic, no smoking in a blues club!?
would turn in his grave

jim ;)

Steve Cobham wrote in message
news:r8e7v09ktt3tioh7veto4kpm929j5242g9@4ax.com...

> On 23 Jan 2005 11:52:01 GMT, andrew s wrote:
>
> >The downside for me is the smoky atmospheres. Bring on the smoking in
> >public ban!!
>
> Hmmm..............
>
> As a longtime Keef-type smoker - never happier when Im playing than
> with a cigarette in my mouth - Im not exactly in favour of an
> outright ban.
>
> Of course, I can understand the health issues and arguments and
> strongly believe that non-smoking venues of all sorts should be
> encouraged, but - at the same time - keep some venues for those who
> choose to smoke.
>
> Quite frankly, Im more concerned about the crap that I breathe in
> that cars spew out.
>
> But, lets face it, a ban on petrol and diesel-driven vehicles isnt
> going to happen, even though I am prepared to lay heavy bets that fuel
> fumes are at the bottom of many, if not most ailments currently
> ascribed to tobacco smoke.
>
> Then again, Id rather see a ban on alcohol before tobacco.
>
> I mean, who ever heard of tobacco-related petty crime? And how many
> people get violent after too many B&Hs?
>
> Whats more, why does a government which sees tobacco as so evil want
> to make 24 hour drinking a reality and also create a proliferation of
> places too gamble?
>
> Mixed messages - typical political spin.
>
> Some vices good, some vices bad.
>
> I have yet to hear any rationale that explains current political
> priorities with any degree of cogency.
>
> Ask people whats really, really important and I dont reckon that
> smoky pubs are even going to get in the top 20.
>
> People are going to say the drug problem, pollution, the war with
> Iraq, congestion, poor public services, child abuse, etc, etc.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, just how important is a smoke-free
> atmosphere really?
>
> Now wheres my packet of fags?
>
> Steve.
> --
> Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels. | Zappa! Guitar! Beer!
> http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm | Trade Zappa and Gatton!
> mail: steve@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk | Save money by setting
> Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare. | up your own guitar!

jh wrote:


[ ... ]


Thats not a runner because of the effects of Greshams Law (to the extent
that it applies to anything other than money).

[ ... ]


That would definitely reduce the number of opportunities for gigs...

[ ... ]


Some vices hurt people who dont even want to take part in them. Theyre the
worst ones, I suggest.


If it were necessary to wait until people saw it as the top priority of
the day, it would never get done.

Very little would ever get done.


*Very* important.

YMMV.


Quite.

:-)

Now... on to jhs post...


You mean just leave it like it is now?


That is very true.

But when it comes to accepting other peoples secondhand smoke, the options
are not exactly plentiful, are they?

You can either leave or grin and bear it.

Why should the person who is *not* seeking to contaminate the atmosphere (or
the lungs of others) be the one who has to give way?


No, it isnt.

The verdict was returned decades ago.

We are now at the sentencing stage.


I have no fear of passive burger-eating.


YES!

I am 100% behind this initiative. It cannot come soon enough.

I do appreciate that it will royally piss off many smokers, among whom I
count a lot of friends.

But this is an idea whose time has (at last) come - and we all remember what
Voltaire said about an idea whose time has come


His more than likely *early* grave, to which he was brought betimes by his
addictions.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:13:39 -0000, JNugent
wrote:


Everyone has their own agenda and the anti-smoking lobbyists have
theirs too.

To a great extent, their arguments are flawed by their lack of
long-term research and their inability to factor in other
environmental causes.

Meanwhile, some suggested reading.

I have a lot of respect for Joe Jackson and he writes very well on the
subject:

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

Steve.
--
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels. | Zappa! Guitar! Beer!
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm | Trade Zappa and Gatton!
mail: steve@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk | Save money by setting
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare. | up your own guitar!

Steve Cobham wrote:


Absolutely correct.


That sounds like wishful thinking, Steve.


He does write well.

But his writing is a focused protest against being the idea prevented from
just doing what he wants to do. It gives me the distinct impression of a man
clutching at straws. Had the internet been with us in 1967, it would have
been full of analagous essays on why the breathalyser was only a sop to
anti-drink-drive fanatics.

His phrase For many of us, a drink and a smoke complement each other so
perfectly that being forbidden to smoke is not only infuriating but a
genuine loss sounds reasonable at first bite, but amend it (slightly) to
for many of us, a drink and clean, fresh, surroundings complement each
other so perfectly that being forced to put up with smoke is not only
infuriating but a genuine loss, and Joes piece is suddenly thrown into
some relief.

Elsewhere (and this is most amusing in a piece wherein he castigates others
for what, in his opinion, is their lack of scientific rigour), he says: The
bald statement Smoking Kills! makes us skeptical right away, since we can
see for ourselves that in most cases, it doesnt. Leaving aside his
apparent conversion to American spelling (hes British, isnt he?), he is
being as disingenuous and and as uscientific as it is possible to be. No-one
claims that smoking kills all smokers and passive smokers. Obviously, it
doesnt kill all of them.

But then, neither does drunk driving kill every drunk driver, every drunk
drivers passengers and every person who comes within crashing distance of
them on the way home. Yet no-one claims that drunk-driving should be
legalised because the claims of the road-safety campagners can, if
sufficiently-well traduced - Joe Jackson style - be made to look overblown.

I remember the introduction of the breathalyser. I was in my first year of
working as an apprentice. I was too young (and way too poor) to drive, but
the arguments that raged back and forth among my older workmates were
something to behold. The boss of the company (who has been bannd from
driving many times over the years) even posted anti-breathalyser posters on
the notice=board and encouraged his employees to write protest letters to
their MPs. Truly, none of us like being told what to do (or what not to do).
But the times, they are achanging.