Does playing an instrument make you a musician?

[DanielleMuscato]

There is no one perfect word for it; that's what I'm saying. Language is flexible and meanings differ depending on who you ask, and they also evolve over time. Artist implies creating something new & original, but I don't think that's a necessary condition of calling someone a "musician." Playing an instrument alone, I think we've established here, doesn't make you a musician, either - it does make you an instrumentalist, though. Training in music theory allows you to anticipate what will work and what won't when you're composing or improvising, and teaches you how to examine and further appreciate other music, but remember - the music was there before the theory. The theory was developed based on what composers were already doing, and it continues to evolve as musicians "break the rules" and try new things.

To have a system of communication that's effective, though, you have to have agreed-upon definitions, even if they're not perfect, and even if they're not universally accepted. As long as you can get pretty specific, and get your point across, language is doing it's job. That's why we have synonyms -- so you can get more specific one way or the other, depending on what angle you're going for. Instrumentalist, musician, composer, songwriter etc are pretty much synonyms, but they each have their own definitions, too. One definition of "musician" can't possibly cover EVERY scenario, but it's necessary to have a working definition that we all pretty much agree on, so we can communicate. The working definition, the one that is most commonly accepted or what most people "think of" when they hear the word, is someone who earns their livelihood by playing, recording, performing, and/or writing music. This is explicitly not the "correct" or "only" definition, just the most commonly accepted one. That can change over time, and definitely changes depending on who you ask.

You can further clarify this by adding adjectives, such as "professional," "hobbyist," "aspiring," "semi-professional," "wannabe," "retired," "former," "future," "bad," "good," etc.

If you say instrumentalist, you are saying more-or-less than your instrument (the vehicle through which you deliver your music to the world) is something outside of your body, like a clarinet, or a bass, etc. This would be contrasted with a vocalist. But both are musicians, and whether they are artistic or not is a different point - that depends on whether they introduce creativity to what they play, or write. Just my opinion

 

[LumpyGravy]

Whoever can take the biggest bong hit is the musician.

 

[WickedPissah]

dont know if it relates, but see my sig. She makes a good point.

 

[Chris Breese]

You gotta be kidding me.

Do you play music? If you do, then you are a musician. Do you suck? Do you love it? So what?

If you get paid for it, bonus!

Don't let the wordy posters here fool you by talking you in circles without really saying much. Wow. If you play music for a living, that must make you an authority. Or is it an opportunity to maybe gloat a little bit? No one is impressed by that. What's the definition of 'resentment?'

I suppose we need to decide who the authority is. If having an opinion makes you an authority, then I guess we all are an authority on here, right? Are you an authority if you make your living playing music? What if you make a living playing music and you suck? It is possible!

Maybe the discussion should be focused on levels of musicianship. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons... Then we can really rub it in each other's faces...

I can hear it now. "I'm a level 9 musician, what are you?"

Music? Musician.

 

[Samthebassist]

You gotta be kidding me.

Do you play music? If you do, then you are a musician. Do you suck? Do you love it? So what?

If you get paid for it, bonus!

Don't let the wordy posters here fool you by talking you in circles without really saying much. Wow. If you play music for a living, that must make you an authority. Or is it an opportunity to maybe gloat a little bit? No one is impressed by that. What's the definition of 'resentment?'

I suppose we need to decide who the authority is. If having an opinion makes you an authority, then I guess we all are an authority on here, right? Are you an authority if you make your living playing music? What if you make a living playing music and you suck? It is possible!

Maybe the discussion should be focused on levels of musicianship. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons... Then we can really rub it in each other's faces...

I can hear it now. "I'm a level 9 musician, what are you?"

Music? Musician.

WOOO! right on....exactly my point......

 

[Darkstrike]

Maybe the discussion should be focused on levels of musicianship. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons... Then we can really rub it in each other's faces...

I can hear it now. "I'm a level 9 musician, what are you?"

Sadly, this does exist.

 

[Samthebassist]

Sadly, this does exist.

i like my definition.....its good......

i dont think that if u just can play an instrument tho.....

otherwise i'd be a.....
violinist
cellist
guitarist
pianist
drummer
recorder-(ist?)
and like a billion other things.....but im not

im just a bassist...a musician.....if u'd just read my def.....you would get it.

 

[puff father]

I've met more than one person that has dedicated many hours and years to their craft on an instrument that (IMO) aren't musicians. They have developed chops and technique but when they play, what they play is lifeless and mechanical sounding. They have become technicians on a musical instrument but not what I think of as musicianship. If a machine can play any song at any speed, it doesn't make it a musician.

OTOH: I have heard some that despite their limited technical ability (not because of lack of dedication but rather of in-born, physical 'giftedness') on an instrument can keep a crowd of people spellbound when they play. The music is alive and vibrant and communicates on that visceral level that mere technique cannot reach. IMO that is a musician and the technician is not.

As far as it hinging upon whether one is paid or not paid, I think that is irrelevant. FWIW, it can be a real challenge to make a living in any of the 'arts' including music regardless of one's skills. Having that "rocket scientist" thing to fall back on is a smart move! You can still be a musician even if it isn't how you make a living.

 

[mustang-monk]

i dont really think that there can be an objective definition of what is and what isnt a musician. i think its really up to the individual to decide. i think the only real defining feature of a musician, is thats theres some form of musical output from that individual the rest is up to you.

 

[Jazz Ad]

Musicians are people who play music. Nothing more, nothing less.
I never saw anyone arguing about this but self infatuated, elitist, pedantic know-it-alls.

 

[Matt R.]

Musicians are people who play music. Nothing more, nothing less.
I never saw anyone arguing about this but self infatuated, elitist, pedantic know-it-alls.

 

[Chris Breese]

Musicians are people who play music. Nothing more, nothing less.
I never saw anyone arguing about this but self infatuated, elitist, pedantic know-it-alls.

 

[DanielleMuscato]

I think it just depends on what *you* consider "musician" to mean. Is it an identifying characteristic (a la Steve Miller's "The Joker": "I'm a picker; I'm a grinner; I'm a lover; and I'm a sinner")? Or is it a job title? Or is it something else, or even a combination of all of these?

I think of "musician" as a job title. If you introduce yourself this way:

"My name is Firstname Lastname, and I'm a musician," no one will think you mean anything *other* than that you are saying you are a professional musician, in my experience and opinion.

The reason I said that you have to have a job playing music if you want to call yourself a musician is because of this reason.

I'm not saying you have to have a job playing music in order to have talent, skill, passion, and love for the instrument. I'm just saying, those things alone do not make you a musician, since (IMHO) musician is a job title.

This is no different (again IMHO) to saying someone who, for example, loves to study people and their relationships and how they live together in society, etc, introducing himself as an anthropologist, even though his day job is as a web designer. It doesn't matter how talented or passionate he is about anthropology, or how much love for the subject he has. If you met this guy, and he introduced himself to you as an anthropologist, and you later found out he's a web designer, you'd think he lied to you. I don't see much of a difference here.

It's the same for anything else. Having a passion for cooking and aspiring to learn technique and styling does not mean you should introduce yourself as a chef. Having a passion for working on your car and aspiring to learn techniques and styling does not make you a mechanic. Having a passion for the human body and the healing properties of touch does not make you a masseuse. Having a passion for drawing buildings on AutoCAD does not make you an architect. Having a passion for swimming with dolphins and snorkeling does not make you a marine biologist. Having a passion for music and aspiring to learn technique and styling does not make you a musician. These are are all job titles. There has to be money attached or it's not a job; it's a hobby.

There is no shame in that, and many, MANY people have music as a hobby, just like many people snorkel as a hobby and don't call themselves marine biologists, and many people work on their cars and don't call themselves mechanics, or many people give massages to their friends and don't call themselves massage therapists. What makes having a passion for music and aspiring to learn technique and style any different than these things?

Speaking of technical skill without passion, this is an interesting video:



I don't see how you can reasonably argue that a professional guitarist who records, writes music, and travels to perform in front of people is anything but a "musician;" however, by your definition:

"A musical Preformer [sic] (professional or not) of any kind that [sic] is dedicated and puts their [sic] heart, mind, soul and spirit into their [sic] instrument , whom [sic] aspires to learn technique and music styling"

she isn't one.

As far as "Level 9" musicians, etc, I never said anything about degrees of what makes you a musician; actually, I offered a very clear-cut definition that easily enables you to say "yes" or "no." It's the same as defining any job versus the same activity but as a hobby: You have to be regularly employed and make more than your expenses, except in the special case of just starting out in a new field (just like any start-up business).

Regular = steady in occurrence, returning, recurring, or received at [somewhat] uniform or fixed intervals - in other words, one paying gig doesn't count; you have to do it steadily

Employed = earning income directly from one's own business, trade, or profession, or as a specified salary or wages from an employer

Make more than your expenses = not losing money doing it, which would make it a hobby by definition

Special case = you are starting a new business (i.e. just getting started as a professional musician), so it's acceptable to lose money for the first year or so until you gain a decent following or establish a name for yourself. After that, if you continue doing it any still lose money, you should start considering it a hobby.

TO ME, a musician is the above definition, by way of playing, teaching, recording, performing, writing, etc music. Passion will make you a better musician, just like passion for architecture will make you a better architect. Both are creative fields, but you can still be an architect without passion for the job, just like you can still be a musician without passion for the job, even though the design/music suffers.

YMMV

 

[PocketGroove82]

I believe there is a difference between players and musicians.
I know tons of people who can play, but the second you try to get them to play something other than the stuff they repetitively practice/jam on, it is obviously that they aren't well rounded or even half rounded, for that matter.

I know it's a matter of semantics, but I consider "Musicians" to be people versed in the nuts and bolts of Music. While a player has some skill at an instrument.

Like the guitar player who can smoke the $#!^ out of an F Blues, but when asked to do it in F#...sounds like it's the first time he ever picked up the instrument.

I also believe there is a huge different between singers and Vocalists. The worst to work with is a singer who thinks they're a Vocalist. YIKES.

 

[DanielleMuscato]

i dont really think that there can be an objective definition of what is and what isnt a musician. i think its really up to the individual to decide. i think the only real defining feature of a musician, is thats theres some form of musical output from that individual the rest is up to you.

I think we can get a better real defining feature than that. A wedding DJ who plays only straight recordings (not live spinning/mixing) has some form of musical output from that individual. A Karaoke singer does, too. There are other defining features.

For what it's worth, and I know I've said this before, what I consider the defining feature to be is that you make at least part of your income from it (it being playing, recording, teaching, performing, writing etc music).

As always, YMMV (and that's what I love about semantics)

 

[DanielleMuscato]

I believe there is a difference between players and musicians.
I know tons of people who can play, but the second you try to get them to play something other than the stuff they repetitively practice/jam on, it is obviously that they aren't well rounded or even half rounded, for that matter.

I know it's a matter of semantics, but I consider "Musicians" to be people versed in the nuts and bolts of Music. While a player has some skill at an instrument.

Like the guitar player who can smoke the $#!^ out of an F Blues, but when asked to do it in F#...sounds like it's the first time he ever picked up the instrument.

I also believe there is a huge different between singers and Vocalists. The worst to work with is a singer who thinks they're a Vocalist. YIKES.

Now, there's an interesting twist. What's the difference between a singer and a vocalist?

Personally, I consider a singer to be anyone who sings as their instrument, but is self-taught. To say that you are a singer without further clarification, to me, implies that you mean professionally.

For example, if you came up to me and said, "Hi, I'm Firstname Lastname. I'm a singer," and that's all you said, I would presume you meant that you sing as your job.

As far as a vocalist, I think of it exactly the same way - if that's how you introduce yourself to me, I will think you mean that you do it for a living - but the difference (in my opinion) would indicate that you meant you are trained in classical voice.

For what it's worth, the singer in my band uses the terms somewhat interchangeably, although he usually says "singer" when he is talking about the band. He was a vocal performance major in college (opera, not contemporary/commercial music). When he's teaching voice, he says "vocalist" instead (I think because he can charge more that way)

This whole thread is a matter of semantics... Like I said before, there is no one right answer, and that's what's fun about this discussion... Everyone has an equally valid opinion, because the definition is completely fluid and based entirely on your individual frame of reference.

However, I gotta say that knowing the nuts & bolts (I presume you mean music theory and proper technique?) is not required to be a musician, in my opinion. Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, SRV, etc are not "theory" guys and their technique is downright rotten by classical standards, but nobody would dare say they are not musicians, not that I'm aware of.

Interesting thread.

 

[PocketGroove82]

Yeah Dave, here is my definition of singers vs. vocalist.
Vocalists are the musicians which groups like Steely Dan hire as backup.
Singers, on the other hand, are people who make it round two on American Idol.

I aspire to be a well rounded musician rather than a bass player, and therein is the difference for me.

 

[capnsandwich]

Yeah Dave, here is my definition of singers vs. vocalist.
Vocalists are the musicians which groups like Steely Dan hire as backup.
Singers, on the other hand, are people who make it round two on American Idol.

I aspire to be a well rounded musician rather than a bass player, and therein is the difference for me.

I have to agree with this and I also aspire to be a well rounded musician also rather than a bassist. That's why I never put down the guitar after 20 years but rather picked up the bass after 10. I still love bass about 10 times more though.

 

[Samthebassist]

I have to agree with this and I also aspire to be a well rounded musician also rather than a bassist. That's why I never put down the guitar after 20 years but rather picked up the bass after 10. I still love bass about 10 times more though.

yeah....i think thats the difference...

playing and being a musician i mean......

I know that i'm a musician.....and no1 can take that away from me.....

 

[supermonkey]

Whoever can take the biggest bong hit is the musician.

DING! I win!
Now, who wants to help me prove it?