stirring the pot

Alright, I'll play...

I am a musician because I make music with instruments and with my voice. I do not write songs, but if I did, I would be called a songwriter. Being a songwriter doesn't necessarily make a person a musician. Jim Morrison wasn't a musician until he and the Doors put music to his poems. Until then, he was a poet.

I play covers of songs written by others. Sometimes I play the parts as written, sometimes I take artistic liberties. Nevertheless, I am a musician because I make music where there previously was none. If I built a gun using somebody elses design, I would still be called a gunsmith. If I make music with somebody elses bassline or lyrics, I am still called a musician.

A musician makes music ;P

Nah...TBH, I really think that labeling someone (esepcially yourself) a musician has the requirement that that person UNDERSTAND the basic principles of music itself...

i.e. Being able to read/understand written note, basic theory, etc...

To me it'd be like trying to call someone a novelist when they have no concept of grammar or syntax...

I know this is probably TERRIBLY erroneous so I don't need anyone reminding me of that fact lol... but that's what it is to me.

I also recognize the fact that there are plenty of people who can make music and lack any sort of education on the point... but meh, to me it really just lacks something no matter how much talent they might have shooting out the wazoo.

Again, my disclaimer is that I know this is a terrible way to see it lol but hey, again... this is my personal opinion.

keep stirring boys (and girls)..........

I think my above statement takes for granted that one would have to have at least a basic UNDERSTANDING of the fundamentals and mechanics of music in order to play an instrument or make music. That understanding can be formally trained in music theory (ie, reading written notes) OR learned through self-guidance. There are many ways to convey musical thoughts... You can use the traditional route of standardized music theory or you can speak in your own language. I don't think you necessarily have to be able to read notes to be classified as a musician. Stevie Ray Vaughn admitted he could not read music, but he was definately not only a musician, but an innovative one. Another good example would be Flea. He can't read music either. Both examples are very often emulated and listed on many musicians' list of influences. To call them anything other than musicians is just plain silly.

Most rockers (including John Lennon), bluesmen (and women), and c & w slingers cannot read music or write it down. They were too busy making music to learn how to do it the right way.

Most Motown artists couldn't read or write a lick, but there were people around all of those folks who could.

There have been thousands of great songwriters that couldn't read or write music, but they could compose a song and get it across to others well enough.

The right way to play music is the way you're most comfortable doing it.

Difference between a musician and a player? None. Both make music.

One must be a musician on some level to compose music.

Actually, Flea can read music just fine.

He grew up playing trumpet first...and wanted to be a Jazz Trumpeter before he got into bass. He knows how to read.

Anyway, like I said, that's just my personal opinion on it....

It seems to me that music was being made by humans long before the conventions of standard notation. I think, just like any written language, standard notation was developed as a means to visually communicate musical ideas. The use of standard notation is much more prevalent in larger groups of musicians so that everyone can readily be at the same place at the same time in the music. For smaller groups typical of rock and pop, there just isn't much practical application of standard notation since communication of ideas is easy and straightforward between a few band members.

BTW - I think Neanderthals beating on drums counts for being a musician just as much as any contemporary artist.

First let me say that I consider myself a bass player.

My personal tendency is to reserve the title musician to someone with a high degree of knowledge of the language, especially but not limited to the written language, of music.

I would consider Frank Zappa, Stevie Wonder, Amadeus Mozart, and Claude Debussy, for example, to be musicians.

The guys down at the local pub I would more than likely consider to be <insert instrument> players.  It is a matter of degree.

There are those, however, that transcend my little definition.  Stevie Ray Vaughn, Steve Howe, Willie Nelson, and Jimi Hendrix would fit in to this category.  They play and/or  or write at a very high level despite their lack of formal training.

...and then there are those who can play very complex musical pieces if they're written out note for note but couldn't jam on a 12 bar blues in A if their life depended on it.  I call these folks musical technicians.  Not to their face, though.

Musicians FEEL the music, ALL of it, players just play it, just the part they are playing.

My $0.02

Someone mentioned being a novelist but not knowing grammer. Ok so here is how I see it:

Novelist=Composer

storyteller=musician

things breakdown and spread out from there. I cannot read or write music and although

 I consider myself a musician I am a bassplayer first. I rarely write music but I play bass on

other peoples songs. It works for me.

H

Hendrix had a bunch of study behind him, he was a session player, he had to read the scores.

I pretty much begrudged being called a musician for ages because I always associated it with people who used it as an excuse to not pulled their weight in other aspects of life, the sort that relied on their talent and expected everyone else to make up for their deficits. People that put their time and effort into their craft don't need the label, and just do their thing. Musician is a term other people put on them. I'm not a musician, I'm a dude who happens to play bass.

A lot of great musicians have benefitted from formal study, done properly it gives a lot of freedom. You are only limited by the stuff you don't know. Too many people pull the did [whoever] learn scales? as an excuse to not put the effort in. Chances are they did, even if it was by listening to a lot of playing, cause they didn't have the option of it being laid out nicely in a book.

To me, a musician is someone who pays attention to the everything going on within a song/piece and does his/her best to enhance the song as much as possible. It's someone who dedicates themselves to putting out the best music that they possibly can. That means they try to understand what each instrument is doing in a song and does their best to compliment everyone else.

A player is someone who doesn't really care what else is going on in a song. They're either more concerned with themselves and what they are playing (typcially amateur / selfish type players) or they are more concerned with staying out of the other players way (professional players).

I don't think it has anything to do with formal education or the ability to read and write music. Sure those things can enhance both sides and possibly turn a player into more of a musician. But more training doesn't make you a musician or a player, I think it more has to do with attitude and the way you approach music.

A musician wants what's best for the song, a player just wants to know what he/she is supposed to play. It has nothing to do with skill as there are some great technical instrument players out there. And I don't mean to sound like I'm downing players because sometimes you need a role player in a band if you've got a bunch of stronger musicians. But the playes, in my opinion, don't take that extra effort to really bring something to the music.

To me, a guy like John Campbell (bassist from Lamb of God) is a bass player. He's rock solid and plays his role perfectly but he mainly stays out of the way of the others. But someone like Ryan Martine (bassist from Mudvayne) is more of a musician because he tries to bring something more to the table. Granted it's a bit tougher in lamb of god as they've got such specific sound and Mudvayne has a bit more freedom to it but that's why they are what they are.

but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

From the Jimi Hendrix Memorial project: Because he was unable to read or write music, it is nothing short of remarkable that Jimi Hendrix's meteoric rise in the music took place in just four short years.

Jimi did no session work as a hired gun guitarist. He'd either front his own projoect in the studio or was a member of the band that was recording.

Hendrix was intuitive. That was his edge.

He never learned notation of any type.

I'm sure he would have gotten around to it eventually if he wanted to score for bigger ensembles than his three piece.

He would watch others and then spend hours alone on guitar to figure out and improve on what he'd seen and heard.

Yes learning to score music and read scores is a great help for most.

I can decifer scores, but it's a slow and tedious chore for me.

Show me what you're playing, and I'll figure it out in no time.

See, that's kind of my beef with it... I ALWAYS run into a lot of players that give me that kind of shtick.

Especially being in/running bands that require a good amount of knowledge of music... good ear training, good theory knowledge, good sight reading skills... trying to audition/play with/whatever those people that dont know the basics, is really really really... ...annoying.

Now again, hey, if that works for YOU and what YOU DO thats fine... but in the context of my life as a musician (I use the term loosely applied to myself...) it's just not practical.

A lot of the stuff we/I play isn't something you can just learn by ear. It's nto the kind of stuff you can go I will listen to it later a know it next time. We have 2 Weeks to cram in 2 hours of new material... you need to be able to sit down, read the music and learn it ASAP. Having had to work with people that have that mantra of I dont need to learn such-and-such, it stifles my creativity. and whatever else... then seeing them flail and falter as they try to play in a setting which that stuff is necessary?

-shrug- That's why I feel the way I do. And once more... it is something that really only applies to me.

You know this is funny. All whatever players are musicians. I even find that I know some true musicians that do not play or sing but have a true understanding of music. But the thing about being labeled as a bass player or drummer or flautist or otherwise is there tends to be a stereo-type associated with it. And while stereo-types are not entirely good to indulge in as there are always exceptions.....let's face it stereo-types are only developed after a pattern has been noticed. 

Take bass players for instance. The common stereo-type is that we are laid back. We are usually dependable. And the stereo type is also that we are the jokesters...to include being a bit stranger and cruder than everyone but the drummer. But this is just a stereo type right? I mean no one here has a gross out sense of humor. No one here makes humorous posts that seem like nonsense to outsiders but make perfect sense to all of us....DDD doesn't come to mind. No one here is welcoming to new people. Or always willing to be helpful and share sage and sometimes strange advice with anyone who needs it.

And I am not a fat ugly gorilla.  :D

I thought......

that you heard of someone being called a musician , by people who did not play any instrument (or had nothing to do with music) at all.

Or, just a group of different people who play music....musicians....again a term being used by someone who has nothing really to do with music.

I never really call anybody musicians...

But that guy at the begginning of the Guitar Center commercial does...

JMO

I like your point snuffdog.  It is also interesting to consider the stereotype of certain instruments and their players concerning virtuosity.  Guitar players are often thought of as being more musically affluent than, say, bass players.  While this is wildly false, the way that we play our instruments, aka usually with single notes which hold the song together, lead others to believe that we are less than great musicians. 

This is really a fascinating subject.  I have a hard time with it because I have to stop myself from condescending to other musicians who have had less classical training, always thinking that I know better.  While classical training has given me an extremely good ear for intervals and a basic understanding of WHY music happens the way it does, I have also found that a less classical understanding also allows for a less bound idea of what should be happening in a song.  My guitar player has great chops and little real training, and sometimes he does things way differently than I would do them, but in the end it gives the song his own distinctive sound that is pleasing to the ear, even though (surprise surprise) it was not the technical way that I would put it together.

The answer for me is that I don't know, but at the same time the answer is unimportant as long as you aren't using it as a way to condescend on other players.  It's a tendency that I have to fight myself sometimes...but then I just look up a victor wooten song and consider just how terrible I am.  It's not hard to bring yourself down a notch when necessary.

Unhealthily long post finished now, thanks for bearing with me.

great posts....

I see the distinction not in the word musician but in professional, as in one who makes his or hers living playing/composing/recording any kind of music. When all I was doing was such and was asked what I did I answered professional musician- then when pressed for details I said uglybassplayer. I see the word musician the same way I see the word athlete. it's just a broad term used to describe one who can play music. recording artist is a term that can seperate the pros from the non pros. anyhow- for me, anyone who creates music, or reproduces music (covers) is a musician....

for a newbie your post is right in line with what UBP has always been all about. no ego, no bs. welcome home bigbare

BP, I think you eloquently stated what I've been thinking about this.

I think I understand what you're getting at. I suppose a player is simply focused on their own role and a musician sees themself as part of a greater whole and is focused more on the music than their own role in it.

... which I don't, but if I did and entertained myself and others with masterful renditions of Jaco's 'Continuum', I'd have to consider myself a musician.

If I got paid for it (whether it sounded good or not), I'd call myself a professional.

If I could read the music, knew all the notes, chords, and theoretical parts, as well as being totally intimate with all the parts of my instrument, I'd call myself a professional musician.

However, I seem to have made a living (admittedly subsidised by working a day job) from playing an instrument without fully knowing it, nor the musical theory behind it, yet it has fulfilled both sides of the equation and satisfied neither.

Will that stop me from playing the kazoo?

Probably not.