Evening all,
A few days ago I was watching a band doing a show in the neighbourhood. They were a coverband. I myself am not really a big fan of coverbands, because I'd rather hear something new, or the original artists perform their own pieces. That being said, I had a great night, thanks to the band (and one lovely lady, but that's a different story
). You see, they had the most awesome stage show ever, for a local coverband that is. The singer was hanging from the rafters, stagediving, the works. All the bandmembers were looking like they had the time of their lives and everyone was dancing. They even got me dancing, and that's saying something.
They weren't, however, very good instrumentalists. The singer had a voice that was nothing special (kinda generic), the guitarist fumbled more than I would deem acceptable and the bassist was eq'd very badly, to the point that his sound was a barely intelligible throb. The drummer was the one who kept this outfit together.
Despite these problems, they got everyone dancing and merry and whatnot. This got me thinking... these people are not very original. They're not very good at their instrument either. But they entertain marvelously. Could these be three seperate things altogether? And if so, what other characteristics would an allround musician have?
So. I propose three different aspects of being a musician:
-
The Instrumentalist;
This would of course be measured by your proficiency on instruments. Your craftmanship, if you will. Can you play different instruments? Is your technique faulty at best, or is it flawless? Do you know more than one way to play it? (Slapping versus tapping versus picking versus fingering etc).
I would also contend that your command of music theory would fall into this category, as theory is also a tool to create your vision.
The session musician for instance, would fall into this category, being a person with as good as flawless technique and a thorough grasp of music theory. In his role as session musician however, he would not write any music himself and (with exceptions of course) just play what he is asked to play. Likewise, as his venue is the studio, the entertainmentfactor would not come into play.
-
The Artist;
This is the visionary, the man with the plan, churning out conceptalbums and writing profound music and lyrics. This category is where the creative minds are. The people who have something to say. the people who have a vision and have chosen music as their way of conveying what's in their head to the world. Also, it is not a domain for musicians exclusively, as of course people like Da Vinci, Rembrandt and van Gogh would fall into this category.
This aspect is measured by the artisticness ('s that a word?) of your work. Some people would fall without question in this category, Bob Dylan comes to mind. However, I would also count people like the Sex Pistols as great artists. Lord knows they aren't great instrumentalists (Neither is Dylan btw), but what they did was revolutionary and they changed music forever with it.
-
The Entertainer;
This would speak for itself I would think. The coverband I started this post with would fall into this category. People who entertain greatly, who know how to make people feel good, be it through music, through dance, or through stand up comedy. This would also be applicable to, for instance, circusartists.
Also, of course, Spinal Tap would fall into this category. Reasonable instrumentalists and artists, but
very funny. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
These three categories would not be mutually exclusive. Think of them more as three aspects of musicianship, all of which would be present in every musician, to a degree.
Now, these are my own three categories. You may disagree with this classification and by all means, criticize it, add to it, or change it. But what I was wondering, is what you think yourself more of as? An instrumentalist, an artist or an entertainer?
