Does playing an instrument make you a musician?

[bburk]

You make some good points in this thread TZer, but I've gotta' take issue with this one...

By this discussion's logic, a writer can technically be described as anyone who writes, right?

yes.

writ·er Pronunciation: \ˈrī-tər\ Function:noun Date:before 12th century : one that writes: as a: author b: one who writes stock options

Hey, I wrote this - I am a writer! I need to update my resume'!

Congrats! Welcome to the elite club of literate people who write things.

I suppose you could put it on your resume if you don't have anything better on there. Which section would you put it in? I'm hoping toward the end in the 'hobbies and interests' section...

Consider this scenario: You are a boss looking over a person's resume' who described himself as a "musician" and you ask that person, "If I handed you sheet music of a very simple melody, would you be able to play it?" - and that person said, "Well, no. I can play guitar, but I cannot read music." How would you feel about that person choosing to describe himself as a "musician"?

Similarly, if that same person described himself as a "writer" and you asked if he could write a simple sentence, grammatically correct sentence and he said, "Well I can write a sentence, but I am not sure if it will be grammatically correct." How would you feel about his use of the description "writer"?

Oh I see, you mean like you had put it on there as 'professional experience'. Well then that would imply that you were a pro. That's a little different and obviously writing a post on TB doesn't qualify you.

In fact my resume does list me as a musician. It's down in the little "other interesting stuff about me" section. I've never had anyone expect me to be a working pro. Usually I get some comment to the effect of, 'cool, what do you play? What kind of music do you like...?"

If I was applying for a job as a musician, I assume I'd have to rearrange my resume to highlight my musical experience. In that context the term would take on a more restrictive meaning. Of course, a resume like that probably wouldn't even contain the word 'musician'. I'd just rely on the 'experience' section to speak for itself.


Answer me this: Who is the writer of post #258?

How is that any different that if I walk into a club and ask the bouncer "Hey, who is the musician tonight?" Do I need to have a conversation about whether the guy on stage can read music, or is getting paid, or plays "from the heart"? No. He is playing music, he is obviously 'the musician'

 

[tZer]

Answer me this: Who is the writer of post #258?

Indeed it is I who authored post #258. Does this mean I should call myself a writer?

How is that any different that if I walk into a club and ask the bouncer "Hey, who is the musician tonight?" Do I need to have a conversation about whether the guy on stage can read music, or is getting paid, or plays "from the heart"? No.

It's no different.

But I believe, as misguided as the OP may be, the point he was trying to make is somewhat interesting, which I believe to be; Amongst those who play music, who personally identifies with the word "musician" and criteria to they place upon the word?

You see, because anyone and everyone with very little real musical skill or talent can technically be called a musician, I am not all that interested in their feelings about the definition of the word. Clearly they don't think much about it one way or the other or they would probably not throw it around so freely and would indeed choose to use more descriptive words like, "instrumentalist" or "interpretive audio artist" or "non-musical hack/poser".

People I know who actually call themselves "musicians" tend to also have a lot of education and experience. Those I know who call themselves "[instrument] players" seem to have a certain reverence for their peers who are more academically adept. They tend to use the example set by their more learned colleagues as the criteria that more accurately defines a person as a "musician". Whether it's right or wrong is moot.


"The writhing throngs of anyone and everyone who can utter sound that can be called music" is just not enough for me. But again - anyone who wants to call themselves a musician is free to do so and I will not argue with them about it.

 

[dlloyd]

By this discussion's logic, a writer can technically be described as anyone who writes, right?

You bet. You may not be a professional writer, but you certainly appear to enjoy writing.

Consider this scenario: You are a boss looking over a person's resume' who described himself as a "musician" and you ask that person, "If I handed you sheet music of a very simple melody, would you be able to play it?" - and that person said, "Well, no. I can play guitar, but I cannot read music." How would you feel about that person choosing to describe himself as a "musician"?

Many of the musicians I respect and look up to do not read music... Professionals and amateurs alike. Jimi Hendrix could not read music, but I'd have felt fairly comfortable calling him a musician.

Similarly, if that same person described himself as a "writer" and you asked if he could write a simple sentence, grammatically correct sentence and he said, "Well I can write a sentence, but I am not sure if it will be grammatically correct." How would you feel about his use of the description "writer"?

Being a reasonably able writer would be a prerequisite for any job in which I might employ someone in the future. It isn't something I would expect to see listed as a hobby.

 

[JebSmells]

Being able play a bass, guitar, violin, piano, sax or whatever well does not make you a musician, being musical and good at music makes you a musician...

 

[bburk]

Indeed it is I who authored post #258. Does this mean I should call myself a writer?

I'm not making any judgements about what you should do. All I'm saying is that you can.

But I believe, as misguided as the OP may be, the point he was trying to make is somewhat interesting, which I believe to be; Amongst those who play music, who personally identifies with the word "musician" and criteria to they place upon the word?

I'm not sure I agree that was his intent. While you and I are mainly arguing semantics, the original reason I got interested in this thread was because I perceived that OP was attempting to invent a definition for the sole purpose of excluding someone from some percieved status inherent in the term (title?) 'musician'. And, I think it's pretty clear from some the the recent posts that this was the case.

I wonder instead of the pointless poll attached to this thread we wouldn't get more telling information by asking the following question:

"are you a musician?" yes/no

Note that this question requires the person to supply their own definition of the term. My bet is that there would be vastly more 'yes' answers even though there are probably far less 'musicians' by your definition on this board than mine (just a guess).

My feeling is that of those that want to redefine the term, in general, do so to include themselves, but exclude others. It's at least true of the OP for sure.

Out of curiosity TZer, are you a musician by your own definition?

People I know who actually call themselves "musicians" tend to also have a lot of education and experience. Those I know who call themselves "[instrument] players" seem to have a certain reverence for their peers who are more academically adept. They tend to use the example set by their more learned colleagues as the criteria that more accurately defines a person as a "musician". Whether it's right or wrong is moot.


"The writhing throngs of anyone and everyone who can utter sound that can be called music" is just not enough for me. But again - anyone who wants to call themselves a musician is free to do so and I will not argue with them about it.

To be fair, my definition (and the dictionary's) is not quite the same as the above.

My definition (and the dictionary's) require not only that the person have the ability to produce music, but that they actively do so by some means. i.e. someone who walks by a piano and fingers a few notes isn't a musician. Someone who studies the piano, practices and produces music *is*

 

[Matt Call]

Crap. I voted for the wrong one.

 

[QORC]

Being able play a bass, guitar, violin, piano, sax or whatever well does not make you a musician, being musical and good at music makes you a musician...

not according to Merriam-Webster.


according to snobs, yes.

 

[QORC]

Thing is... a "musician" is a term, not a title. It's not a degreed letter. It's not a job. It's really kind of a subjective thing to agree on. My noisemaker may be your musician.

It has nothing really to do with the quality of the music, the talent of the player or the amount of money you do or do not make. It has nothing to do with your level of knowledge, quantity of training or REASONS for playing music. There are obviously millions of levels of musicianship, but the base term "musician" by literal definition, covers pretty much every person who plays music.

It's crazy that this is a 13 page thread.

The greenest and newest noob on this board who aspires to one day play on more than one string and earn some free beer at the local biker dive is a musician so long as he's actually playing music, singing music etc. His level of musicianship pales in comparison to almost anyone, but the term for what he does doesn't change.

exactly. I wish some of the knuckleheads here would read and reread your post

 

[jsm81]

This is a very interesting discussion, in many regards. I work at a local builder's supply as project salesperson. The clients I work with, often call themselves builders or contractors, but very few would consider themselves carpenters. Even in this business (which I understand maybe worlds apart from the music world) there is a distinction made between skilled work and labor. I myself enjoy wood working, but in no way could consider myself a builder, and by no means ever consider myself a carpenter. I think the same can be said regarding playing an instrument. I have never made the sacrifice or investment to study my so called "craft" professionally, nor do I make any sort of a living off of playing the bass. So by my own example, I could not consider myself a bassist or a musician, only a bass-player - one who likes to play the bass (or maybe play on the bass, depending how you look at it).

 

[Samthebassist]

Crap. I voted for the wrong one.

lol who did u vote for?

 

[bburk]

This is a very interesting discussion, in many regards. I work at a local builder's supply as project salesperson. The clients I work with, often call themselves builders or contractors, but very few would consider themselves carpenters. Even in this business (which I understand maybe worlds apart from the music world) there is a distinction made between skilled work and labor. I myself enjoy wood working, but in no way could consider myself a builder, and by no means ever consider myself a carpenter. I think the same can be said regarding playing an instrument. I have never made the sacrifice or investment to study my so called "craft" professionally, nor do I make any sort of a living off of playing the bass. So by my own example, I could not consider myself a bassist or a musician, only a bass-player - one who likes to play the bass (or maybe play on the bass, depending how you look at it).

Really? Are you sure they wouldn't identify with the word 'carpenter'? I come from a family of construction workers and I don't think any one of 'em would object to being called a carpenter.

Besides, the words carpenter, builder and contractor all have totally different meanings.

carpenter just means 'one who builds with wood'
contractor implies some supervisory and clerical duties.
both of these are builders.

Fifteen years ago I heard the word 'carpenter' used much more often than 'contractor'. I think a lot of guys just started using 'contractor' because it sounds more important (and to be honest, it more accurately describes the work involved).

 

[Matt Call]

lol who did u vote for?

I voted for Nick. I think I was under the assumption that the options were: "yes" and "no."

...I'm an idiot. You, however, are not. You're totally right.

 

[mitb]

i think a musician is someone who's main occupation is music and an instrument. for that at least you must read notes and have understanding of music theory.
its like knowing how a language sounds and try to speak it, without knowing the alphabet and the grammar rules.
because of that i do not consider myself a musician, maybe an amature musician.

 

[dlloyd]

i think a musician is someone who's main occupation is music and an instrument. for that at least you must read notes and have understanding of music theory.

Being able to read is certainly a useful skill for a musician to have, but it does not define you as a musician. Here's what Miles Davis had to say about Jimi Hendrix...

'When I called back home from the studio to speak to Jimi about the music I had left him, I found out he didn't read music. There are a lot of great musicians who don't read music - black and white - that I have known and respected and played with. So I didn't think less of Jimi because of that. Jimi was just a great, natural musician - self taught.'

 

[Samthebassist]

I voted for Nick. I think I was under the assumption that the options were: "yes" and "no."

...I'm an idiot. You, however, are not. You're totally right.

yay thnx!!

i feel special now!

 

[tZer]

Out of curiosity TZer, are you a musician by your own definition?

I do today. When my friend asked me the very same question a few years ago I said I did not. This sparked the very same discussion we are having here - Why? And what is it that (I) consider to be the criteria I would have to meet before I called myself a musician?

I explained to him that, in spite of my ability to be musical on many different instruments, that my extremely weak grasp of music theory made me feel that there was at least one very important area of music that I needed to get more familiar with before I could be comfortable calling myself a musician.

Further, I cited the fact that I only passively pursued evolving my musical skills and knowledge through the occasional jam session and playing in various cover bands, not by picking up my instrument everyday and investing time developing my skills. Again, basing my personal definition upon examples set by people I knew who were actively engaged in nurturing their skills.

If I started considering myself a musician in spite of what I knew about what I didn't know, I felt like I would be diminishing the value of the term to suit my ego as opposed to doing the work I knew I needed to in order to live up to an ideal. True, the definition permitted me to legitimately call myself a musician, but that was not enough for me accept it as a definition of me. If I wanted to be able to answer "yes" to the question, "Do you consider yourself a musician?" I knew I had work to do.

The good thing about that conversation is that it clearly motivated me to do what I felt was necessary to improve those areas where I felt I was lacking. Since then I have been studying, taking lessons, playing with various and diverse groups and nurturing my personal world of music. Today I do consider myself a musician - a moderately skilled and ever evolving one, but a musician none-the-less. I've invested, and continue to invest, the sweat equity in my strengthening my weaknesses as opposed to continuing to rest on my laurels. I've incorporated personal musical development into my everyday life.

There are people in my circle of musical friends who are not skilled in reading or theory but who are very talented. Most, if not all of these players humbly do not consider themselves musicians for many of the same reasons I didn't. If you tell them that you consider them to be musicians, they will politely thank you, but it changes little about how they perceive themselves. That is what I am talking about.

You (the ubiquitous 'you') can consider quite correctly, others to be musicians, but it comes down to what they consider themselves that ultimately makes the definition have teeth.

To be fair, my definition (and the dictionary's) is not quite the same as the above.

To be fair - you are correct and I was being a bit snarky. Consider this a snark-retraction! ;-)

 

[QORC]

i think a musician is someone who's main occupation is music and an instrument. for that at least you must read notes and have understanding of music theory.
its like knowing how a language sounds and try to speak it, without knowing the alphabet and the grammar rules.
because of that i do not consider myself a musician, maybe an amature musician.

bully for you.

bottom line:

"consider" yourself anything you want to. If you don't consider yourself to be a "musician" or do, that's your business.

but don't try and tell others what they are or are not. The last time I checked, this is not a universally licensed profession. There are no internationally recognized standards as to what constitutes a "musician" or not. The dictionaries don't even agree.

So you consider yourself whatever you wish. Just don't project snobbish and biased definitions on ME while you're doing it.

I'm a musician. No one can tell me otherwise.


out

 

[tZer]

bottom line:

"consider" yourself anything you want to. If you don't consider yourself to be a "musician" or do, that's your business.

but don't try and tell others what they are or are not. The last time I checked, this is not a universally licensed profession. There are no internationally recognized standards as to what constitutes a "musician" or not. The dictionaries don't even agree.

So you consider yourself whatever you wish. Just don't project snobbish and biased definitions on ME while you're doing it.

I'm a musician. No one can tell me otherwise.


out

I humbly submit that I have not considered or called you anything. I have said that if you consider yourself a musician, good. I am happy with whatever you feel you are and wouldn't dare to try to make you change your mind. I have tried very hard to explain that my feelings about you, or anyone else, with regard to whether or not your or they like musicians are irrelevant - that it is your own feelings about yourself that matter.

I have said many times what it is I feel is necessary for ME to consider MYSELF a musician.

 

[QORC]

I was replying to Mtb. but for anyone here who has narrowly defined what a musician is, which excludes some, then my point would hold. If the shoe fits, wear it. Consider yourself anything you wish. Don't try and project it on others.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Musician= a person that plays an instrument and expresses them self through it.

So, would anyone care to agree/disagree, that the above would be a clear definition, without going too right-wing of left-winged?
Cause, a generalization is about the best this thread will get.