Search This Blog

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Little Fire/Matt Scott - Claire's House gig - 9/3/12

Third gig in three days and it's something a little different.
A house gig.
Not a party with some entertainment, but a real gig in a friends house.
Claire booked Jamie (Little Fire) McGeechan to perform and Matt Scott kindly played for us all and made the evening all the more special.
Between them they've supported some big names and appeared on stages from King Tuts to the Royal Concert Hall and now it was the turn of Claires front room.
For some it may seem a strange premise, but there is far more plus points to it than negative ones.
For one the musicians are playing in front of an appreciative audience and not having to compete to be heard over uninterested patrons of a bar.
They also don't have to haggle to get their expenses covered.
Instead there's a prearranged price and everyone chips in and covers it.
Another plus point is that while the night isn't exclusive the people participating are all looking forward to a relaxed evening of hassle free entertainment and no one has to deal with the downside of socializing in a pub.
None of the women are hit on by leery strangers and none of the men feel the need to play macho games designed to massage egos.
People can feel free to drink what they want, or not, eat what the want, or not, and no one has to queue for the bathroom.
I could go on as in its totality it simply works on so many levels.
When Little Fire sat down to entertain us it was all unknown territory for everyone involved.
Here we all were about to step out into the unknown, about to try something different.
In the spirit of this he had brought along a large song book and instead of focussing on his own material edged into doing a set mainly made up of covers.
Up until this I had never seen him sing the material of others and it was a pleasurable surprise.
Nothing sounds like the original and all have a Little Fire twist to them.
The familiarity of the songs worked wonders as no one came to the experience completely unfamiliar.
Time flew past.
Literally just slipped away.
I lost count of the songs played and then it was time for Jamie (Little Fire) to have a break.
So while he wound down from his first set of the evening Matt Scott took over.
He played a good mix of his own self penned material and covers such as Springsteen's Thunder Road.
We were even privileged to get the first live outing of a new song that in different surrounding we may not have.
It was that sort of night.
One that was conducive to trying out new things.
Once Matt was finished Jamie took over again and the amount of ground covered was expanded upon.
From Neil Young to Slade and more, all got the Little Fire treatment.
Between both Jamie and Matt most musical genres were covered in their own inimitable style.
The entertainments didn't end between sets either as everyone got on like a house on fire.
Plenty of chat and nonsense was effortlessly spun out to fill the gaps.
Prior to this evening not everyone actually knew each other, but once again it was all so relaxed there was nothing uncomfortable about it and at the end of the night people swapped contact info and since have kept in touch.
It was around 2am when Kelly and myself left and Jamie was just starting to sing some more.
It was nearer 4am by the time Matt left and he ended the evening performing to a room full of 15 year olds on a sleepover.
Is this the future for live music?
Well if it is then the future looks bright.
All ages, no barrier to gender, no pressure to conform.
Definitely a gig that could stand shoulder to shoulder with any other in a so called purpose built environment.
Many thanks to Claire for hosting this.
It was a pleasure to be part of it and I'm looking forward to a repeat performance.
(Photographs were not taken on the night)


  1. Wonderful....Levison would be proud!!!

    Anytime....and shut me down? Oh and I've kept screen grabs of this for the Council - housing, licencing and social work!!

  2. Let's get your name out there eh?
    Keep everything above board.
    Okay. My name is Sandy Main. Everyone knows that, and you are Hugh McGregor.
    So what do we have here.
    Just another dig at your ex wife basically.

    I'll keep this all very simple though.
    Licensing - No issue. It was a private party and there was no fee to participate in it.
    The people who attended contributed voluntarily to the costs of the entertainment.
    Think of it in the same way as getting a caterer in for a party and everyone chipping in to cover the costs.
    Housing - No issue again. There was no complaints regarding noise and it really was nothing more than a party with some live entertainment instead of a stereo blaring.
    Social work - Pass the information and the screen shots on to them.
    At the very most they will visit your ex wife and check on the welfare of your children and find there are no concerns.

    Feel free to contact any of the above though. No one has anything to hide.

    As for shutting you down the truth is that you messaged me privately yesterday and I responded.
    You have had ample time to respond, but didn't.

    I don't personally know you and to be frank I have no interest in getting to know you.
    So once a period of time had past I blocked you.
    That you mention Leveson is interesting though as I posted a comment on FB about that after I had blocked you so I'll presume that you still have access to what i post.
    Fair enough as once again I'll reiterate that no one has anything to hide.

    Feel free to do whatever you wish regarding this party that happened in March.
    ...and when I said anytime at your passive aggressive offer to speak face to face about this I really did mean I'm fine with it.

  3. Seeing as you are so big on freedom of speech here's your original post that I didn't want to up as I didn't feel that my blog was the place for you to air your laundry.
    I'll also add some information for context.

    'Maybe if she used her child benefit and family credits for looking after her kids she might have had enough money for the Grange gig?'

    This was in response to my questioning the £11 cost of kids participating in the Children in Need events as I considered it a tad pricey.
    Especially for those who are unemployed or on low wages.
    At no point was any individual mentioned, and so far I have had no one indicate to me that my opinion was rather harsh.
    In fact every parent I know has agreed with my take on it.
    So basically you chose to assume that as I am a friend of your ex wife that one of the people that I mentioned who had struggled with the cost was your ex wife and commented on an old blog update to get a point across.
    I would call that a dig.
    An unnecessary one.

    Here's your private message to me in response to my comment on facebook about people posting anonymously.

    'Hugh McGregor
    It wasn't bile or venomous..just based on facts..but if you'd like to meet up to discuss it I would be happy to oblige.

    Meester Mainy
    I stand by what I have posted and my name is on it.
    I don't have an insight into all Claires finances, and frankly they are none of my business, but she is only one of many that I know who were unhappy about how much the participation in the schools 'Children in Need' events cost.
    That you felt the need to attempt to air your laundry publicly and make it a personal issue was to me a low blow.
    There really was no need for that at all, and as I can't respond to anonymous posts on the blog without upping them I thought a facebook post without naming names was the best option.
    As an aside I've obviously met your kids on a number of occasions and I don't see them as children who are going without or being mistreated by Claire or her father.
    Maybe in the cold light of day you could reconsider how you are interacting with your ex wife and children as I'm sure that there are better ways of communicating than having digs online on her friends blog.'

    I think that covers everything up to date.

    Now no one likes to take advice from strangers, and far be it for me to get involved in other peoples personal business, but you have dragged me into it by posting on my blog.
    What I would suggest is that you take a deep breath and consider how this all reflects on you.
    Claire has done nothing wrong and your kids are fine.
    Move on as this will do nothing more than damage your relationship with Claire and by extension your children.

  4. No idea what the sketch is, or what the guys problem is, but heres not the place to do this.
    Id keep out of other peoples marital shit Mainy.

  5. I agree Bryan.
    I have no idea what his issues are to be honest.
    I met Claire after their relationship had ended and she barely mentions him, and even then it is never negatively.
    He exists in a time before I knew her.
    I also wouldn't normally get involved, and I don't really want to, but he posted on my blog and was pushing for a response.

    Claire has contacted the SW Dept to clarify if she should be concerned about the party in her home that Little Fire played at and they have said no.
    As I have said no one has done anything wrong.
    There advice is that if this escalates then the police should be informed.
    Now that I've said that publicly he can check.
    It's a storm in a teacup. Silly stuff.

  6. Internets murder innit?