Bardic vs. Chaos....

Oh, my--bardic vs. chaos.

I "grew up" in bardic, but I've Done chaos, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

As people have noted, Bardic gets distinctly difficult if you're looking at a *big* circle. Another difficulty arises if any decent percentage of that big circle is composed of relative newcomers, because they often don't have a handle on What To Request, and a lot of time is spent figuring out what song they're describing or coming up with a subject they want to hear something about.

 ////

If I were going to invent a permutation to account for that, I think I'd set up something like "Audience Bardic", working something like this--

# an inner "performers' circle", limited in size (say, 20-30 folks),
    made up of people who are comfortable with at least leading songs     when their turn comes around. Physically, it's U-shaped instead of     circular, so that there's an open space at one side....

# ....which is where you put the "gallery seating". Those in the
    Gallery are not required to sing or perform, but should be made     explicitly welcome to sing along on choruses and join in on group     numbers if they know the words.

# Here's the kicker. The choice of song goes around the performers'
    circle as with a regular Bardic ("pick/pass/play" still applies),     but at regular intervals (say, every fourth turn, or every 20 minutes),     the Moderator gives the Gallery a collective turn--someone can     request a song, or someone in the Gallery can perform, or a subject     can be tossed to the inner circle by the Gallery. (Arguments among     the Gallery, if any, should be adjudicated by the Moderator.)

# One further modifier--in cases where there are more performers than
    will comfortably fit in the inner circle, a rule may be established     that no one can hold a seat in that circle for more than (for example)     three circuits or two hours while someone is waiting for a seat in the     circle. It should be noted in advance as to which chairs open up     first to avoid possible arguments--that is, "okay, newcomers start     filling in from *that* end".

This would obviously require a fairly high degree of moderating, but then so would one of those unreasonably large Bardics....

(Somebody do please tell me if I've just re-invented the wheel. <g>)

 ////

Chaos likewise depends a lot on both the group synergy and the ability of the moderator. Its great advantage is that when it's working, the interplay of performers, the witty repartee, the well-chosen follower all contribute to an energy and "jam session" feel that simply can't be reproduced in a pure Bardic setting, where you're restrained by the circle in terms of who-follows-whom.

It does, however, demand more of participants--experienced folk need to keep themselves from walking all over novices, and novices need to be quick and decisive about claiming a turn. Chaos is *not* the best first format for the shy-and-retiring-but-talented person who relies on others' goodwill to break into the rhythm. And it can get tricky if folks who'd ordinarily avoid crossing paths happen to find themselves in the same Chaos circle.

If I had one filk room at a con and one full night of filking to program, I probably would not run that room as a Chaos circle. But if I had two rooms, or a long con with multiple filk-nights, I would give serious consideration to running some of that programming as Chaos.

 ////

And that's the rub; appropriate circle-format depends as much on what sort of time and space you have available as it does on how many people you've got. If you have one large room, you're likely to be stuck with one circle--and at that point, *neither* traditional Bardic nor straight Chaos is really the right pick if you're anticipating a large turnout. Poker-chip Bardic is one compromise in that situation; the variant I've outlined above may be another.

It's another aspect of filk-evolution--only in this case, circle-formats haven't evolved fast enough to compensate for the increasing number and wider talent-variation of interested participants. Received on 05/11/96