/dons flameproof suit
Some interesting thoughts here in this thread, and I'll throw in my $0.02 now.
I'm throwing out some background here, not to brag or be snobby, but to throw some light on where I'm coming from with my viewpoints. Apologies in advance for the length
IMHO, the paid bit that Dave brought up makes a lot of sense, hence the job title "Musician", but that's a horse that's been beaten in this thread quite a bit.
I've played keys since I was 5, trumpet from 5th grade until about 8 years ago, sung since middle school. Started with the bass in 8th grade, had to give it up in high school, got back into it about 5 years ago and it's now the instrument I'm most passionate for. I've been a high school chorus director for 13 years, and a paid church organist and music director for 10. I've also done a lot of freelancing on keys, vocally, and on bass and currently play bass with the praise team at the church where I'm a member (not the one where I'm the paid organist... yes my Sunday mornings are a bit crazy, fortunately the churches are only two blocks apart in a small town). I've got the theory background, compostion background, vocal and instrumental background. I consider myself a musician first and foremost. However, I also consider myself an educator as well, and the success of my students seems to indicate I do a pretty good job.
Anyway, when I was in marching band, symphonc band, and orchestra in college as one of the lead trumpets, one of the greatest compliments I received from the director was that I wasn't a "trumpet player" but rather a musician. I had the chops to go up in the scream register and wail the F above high C at the end of a show no problems, but I didn't do it all the time just because I could. I was more concerned about fitting in with the ensemble (I won't go into the guitard/trumpet player analogy that seems to be very appropriate in most cases). and doing what was the best for the overall sound. The MUSIC is what's the most important thing. (hrm... sounds like a bass player mindset....)
Any choral ensemble I've directed I've always stressed the importance of proper vocal technique for proper tone production and more importantly, lifelong vocal health. HOWEVER... I also stress that it's far more important to go beyond the technique and put yourself into the music, give yourself completely to it and open up to the performance and to the rest of the ensemble and the audience - the resulting synergy will be amazing. I've seen vocal groups with immaculate technique that were lifeless and robotic to me. I've got a small-town rural school with no private vocal instructors less than an hour away, so the vast majority of my students only have my guidance, yet we routinely pull off collegiate level repertoire quite well, and the compliments I'm most proud of are how the students performances on stage are always passionate.
An earlier poster mentioned the guitarist who can shred the F Blues, but if they change keys they're like a first time player. To me, "instrumentalist" and "vocalist" imply mainly a higher level of formal technical training in their given choice of instrument/vocal part. I've also seen **** players who have no formal training but are quite good at what they do.
From my perspective, "musician" is a term independent of professional status, unlike "Musician" the job title. It is very possible to be a "Musician" but not a "musician". (bracing for the flames). "musician" to me, is one who has skill on their instrument, and gives themselves completely to the music and what it requires to be performed well, and in an ensemble setting, putting the ensemble first. Solos are wonderful when called for, but the ensemble and the music come first. I used to be a bit of a chops snob, and in some ways I still am, because I think there needs to be a certain level of facility on the instrument/voice to obtain the awareness needed to fit the ensemble and the music. When I've judged battle of the bands for the schools student council, I always give the kids specific feedback on what I liked in their show, and always encourage them to keep pushing themselves on their instruments, and to listen to the masters of their chosen instrument. It may not be their cup of tea, but hearing what CAN be done may open a door for them that they'd have never seen before, and inspire them to go on to do some amazing things they'd never thought possible.
My wife always comments when she sees me play on the occasions when I'm able to totally lose myself in the music about how amazing it is to see, and how enthralling it is. She makes the same observation when she sees other performers doing the same thing. Being able to make that kind of connection with an audience through music is what, imho, makes a "musician". The rush I get when I'm performing on bass or keys and I reach that level of being "in the music" or when I'm directing a choir and my vocalists get there is priceless. It requires complete dedication to what you're doing at the moment, and not mailing it in. When I see someone else performing and they reach that place, I have a lot of respect for that and feel a sincere appreciation for how they gave of themselves during the performance.
I guess my $0.02 turned into a $1.25, sorry about that, but I'm curious to see what others think.
), but a lesser of that group can be categorized, as "professional musicians" (One's that make their living, mostly from music) and famous musicians, which I would refer to a "rockstars,popstars and other wealthy artists from other genres (jazzstar, r&b star etc, don't really fit as far as names, but are mentioned as well) which will be defined by several different people, several different ways. Would these 3 categories work as a generalization?
