Michael Schreiber
Commercial User
My conclusion is that this guy may have been a great instrumentalist, but he was not necessarily a great musician. He may even have been an expressive interpreter of the works of others, but he was either unable or unwilling to express himself which is one of the aspects that we take for granted in good musicians.
Great example, thanks for sharing - was fun to read, and someone else immediately came to my mind
Good point, and I agree with you. Still, I'd respect him for his skills, and if he transports the feeling (even if it's not his own) through his playing to me in the audience; I'd feel like listening to a musician.
Like a wizard; hardly any wizard invents his own spell, but as long as he can cast a spell, well: Wizard, to me
But I agree, everyone might have his own standards and definition of what makes a musician.
I mean, some people even decide whether others "can play" or not - so, it's only fair to let everyone decide for themselves whether one is a musician in their opinion - or not.
Frankly, if I were the conductor, I'd surely be tempted to think of said clarinist as a non-musician. My standards would be way different from what they are now, since as a conductor I might feel like "Why am I the only one who's working hard and got an understanding on what the music should be like - those lazy, incompetent players just don't get it" - then, I'd rage quit

