Am I a musician?

[Robert Booth]

hi, folks:

 

I've been following the various discussions about talent and, to me, it begs the question: is there a difference between a person who can play an instrument and a musician?

 

I myself play harmonicas, dulcimers, concertinas, accordions, recorders, etc., but have never really considered myself a musician as such, because my skill on these is fair to pretty good , according to which instrument I am using, and I seldom play for anyone but myself.

 

Do you differentiate between the two, or do you feel that being able to play an instrument is an automatic ticket to being a "musician"?

 

When does a neophyte cross over from one catagory to the other (assuming that you make the distinction?)

 

Who decides?

 

Is playing for others a necessary part of being a musician?

 

Robert

[David Levine]

We're all on the same road.

 

Some are farther on down the road and others are just starting out.

 

You should know whether or not you're on the road.

 

Seems like this is a day for encryption ....

[catty]

There are denotations for every avocation--they should serve to help in understanding, in this case, level and degree of proficiency.

 

There may be useful differentiations between: musician and player. One way to denote such differentiations is to define 'how" one plays, or for "what purpose." One may make music for "music's sake" and thus may play for dances, for others' amusement or primarily for one's own entertainment--in the case of the latter, public performance isn't necessarily a priority. Others pursue a high degree of musical accomplishment--usually by mastery of an instrument--and consequently produce music with an emphasis on "public consumption." It is all music, however, and arguing its relative "legitimacy" is the domain of academicians (and forum goers..)

 

So, there are formal degrees of practice and proficiency, as well as native talents and applications. A person who can evoke effective music by virtually any means--be it voice, an everyday implement or device...possibly even without training or formal study--is likely a "musician" in the highest literal sense. In this case, the particular instrument may be secondary to the experience of music itself; a "musician" is likely to succeed--that is, evoke music--from any instrument. Still, others may be better defined as "players": proficient in executing musical "values" on an instrument, yet lacking theoretical knowledge or practice in "music-making," or for that matter may not even care about making "music" if it didn't involve playng their particular instrument. In the case of the latter, it could be that music is secondary to playing the instrument, etc. Indeed, we've heard the playing of some being called: "not very musical" playing.

 

While there are many examples of the usual combination--persons being both musician and player, it is possible to be one and not the other: the case of the "non-musical" player is illustrated above. The converse is possible, too: the non-playing musician--one who scores, sculpts, paints, pantameters, dances, choreographs, or any vocation that evokes musical feeling..

 

But then, the term "musician" needs defining: is it "one who makes music"? or something more intangible involving a thorough discussion of aesthetics. We might need to ask "what is art"? The player and painter is easy to define in terms of plastic execution, but what is it that the painter paints? Is it a painting, is it art, or both? Then, what do we call the person painting--a painter, an artist, or both?

 

Additionally, we can speak in terms of the standard classes: amateur, semi-pro and pro, but it would still bear defining in operational terms (such as money-making, for instance). The terms are nebulous at best--e.g., in my own case, I spend a huge amount of time involved in various pursuits of music and performance, yet only a portion of this makes money. So while I am often a "working" musician, I wouldn't be classified as a pro.

 

But, for the sake of brevity, if you play your instrument while striving for musicality, you're very likely a bona fide musician

Edited November 23, 2008 by catty

[asdormire]

Do you spend the rent/food/etc. budget on new instruments?

 

Alan

[catty]

I have a similar means of defining "is it art?"

 

If your spouse/partner hates it, it probably is..

[LDT]

I'm not even a player...I'm a practicer....lol!

[Sailor]

I have a similar means of defining "is it art?"

 

If your spouse/partner hates it, it probably is..

 

 

Hurrah - I'm a musician!

 

Other people seeing/hearing you play your instrument consider you a musician (mabe not your neighbours ). But the analogy with artist is a good one. Perhaps we are on our way and eventually become a musician. When hearing the soundclips of Concertina.net members I know that some have allready arrived. I'll join you folks! (some day)

[tamborileru]

I think the diference is betwen two words: play and do.

 

A player play the music with instruments, but the themes are from other persons.

 

A musician do the music to play himself or to be played by other persons.

 

This is my point of wiew.

[Pete Dunk]

Do you differentiate between the two, or do you feel that being able to play an instrument is an automatic ticket to being a "musician"?

No, and no.

 

'Being able to play' is definitive from a technical viewpoint. Playing music is something else and involves so much more.

 

Now me, I play for personal pleasure, I enjoy it and it's (mostly) for personal consumption. Now and again I get all big headed and play for a small audience or make a recording for youtube. Bad mistake! If I play only for myself I'm a self acknowledged superstar.

 

Yeah, right!

[Marien]

I would say, a musician is someone who makes music. It doesn't need more than that.

[Daniel Hersh]

I agree. Better to be inclusive and to encourage more people to play rather than to get discouraged and give up because they're not good enough in someone else's eyes. It's still music, even if it's not at the level where others would pay to hear it.

 

I would say, a musician is someone who makes music. It doesn't need more than that.

[Mark Evans]

Robert...you are a musician. Playin' all those instruments..come on Lad! If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck.....it's a duck, sho' nuf.'

[Chris Drinkwater]

I would say, a musician is someone who makes music. It doesn't need more than that.

 

I make music, therefore I am a musician. I play golf, therefore I am a golfer. Both statements are true, though usually someone who calls him/herself a musician, does so because they play an instrument professionally and make a living from it, or try to, as do golfers. I think that if you make a living from playing music you are entitled to call yourself a musician, however well or badly you play. If you simply play for pleasure, whether just for yourself, or in a session or do the occasional floorspot, then I would describe such a person as 'musical'.

 

Chris

[yankeeclipper]

I think that if you make a living from playing music you are entitled to call yourself a musician, however well or badly you play. If you simply play for pleasure, whether just for yourself, or in a session or do the occasional floorspot, then I would describe such a person as 'musical'

 

There are good musicians and bad, beginner and experienced, amateur and professional - none have any special claim on the title "musician." If you make music, you are a musician. The English language is wonderfully malleable and ambiguous - ask any politican.

[Larry Stout]

Because I play fairly regularly in public (a weekly session and a monthly dance) I'd call myself a musician. I actually thought of myself that way back when I didn't play often in public. Because I don't get paid for this I'm an amateur. Because I occasionally do get paid (perhaps twice a year) for a wedding or a workshop gig, I suppose I'm semi-pro, but very semi

I'd extend those titles to the people I play with as well. Perhaps those who have made a CD or two might be less semi in their pro status, but none of them have quit their day jobs (unless you count retirement).

[catty]

Two disparate perspectives, indeed: Chris's is what one would find in the OSHA manual of occupations, while yankee's and Larry's are practically oriented.. Impossible to conclude definitively: some say "commercial art is not Art" while others say "all art is commerce.."

 

I think it's more functional to define such relative terms contextually.

Edited November 23, 2008 by catty

[Daniel Hersh]

I wonder if this is a US vs. UK distinction. I'm in the US and Yankee's terminology is more what I'm used to than Chris's.

 

Daniel

 

I think that if you make a living from playing music you are entitled to call yourself a musician, however well or badly you play. If you simply play for pleasure, whether just for yourself, or in a session or do the occasional floorspot, then I would describe such a person as 'musical'

There are good musicians and bad, beginner and experienced, amateur and professional - none have any special claim on the title "musician." If you make music, you are a musician.

[stevejay]

Artists Only by the Talking Heads

 

I don't have to prove...that I am creative!

I dont' have to prove...that I am creative!

 

If that makes sense you probably have a musician's soul at the least.