Beware wrote:
a person who composes but has no idea what key they are in is not a musician.
what about a drummer.
Offline
lolusa
boomlinde wrote:
ovenrake wrote:was about to say this
I don't want to see any confusion between performers, composers, producers, dj's, and musicians.
What exactly is a musician if not any of these other things you mention?
I suppose if musician meant anything, it's an umbrella term for someone involved with music.
Offline
Sweden
saskrotch wrote:
you can get into semantics but there are composers who write without playing an instrument, and musicians who only play what other people have already written.
This thread is all about getting into semantics 
I don't really see what you're getting at here, though. Music still need both a composer and a performer, whether the performer is automatic or the performed work was written 200 years ago.
Beware wrote:
it's strictly an academic term
No, it's not. Where did you get that idea? If it's strictly an academic term, I'm sure it has to be well defined, so if it's true, you ought to be able to cite a definition from a reliable and authoritative source supporting your notion. What level of theoretical knowledge do you have to have to be able to call yourself a true musician?
ovenrake wrote:
I suppose if musician meant anything, it's an umbrella term for someone involved with music.
My point exactly, which is why I'm surprised that you agree with saskrotch that "musicians are people that play instruments."
Offline
Brunswick, GA USA
Since the only intelligent thought in this thread (including mine) was the one about "if doctors need a degree to practice, why don't artists," and its rebuttal, "nobody dies from looking at shitty art," I am going to be devil's advocate and refer to something I read where a musician argues that the job of a performing musician or any artist is to make people feel better. Since people (like Phish- and Dead-heads) will put themselves through obnoxious lengths to see shows and feel better, this makes performers as culturally important as doctors. Unless you count crowd tramplings or alcohol and cannabis convictions, nothing these guys ever did has caused an audience member to die or go to jail. Then again, there was Great White...
I should add that I do not agree with that sentiment, though I might have when I was 22.
The architecture comparison was okay too. Many artists don't understand the statement, "sure, that's cool, but most people won't want that."
Last edited by chunter (Dec 6, 2010 1:36 pm)
Offline
Sweden
chunter wrote:
Many artists don't understand the statement, "sure, that's cool, but most people won't want that."
It's probably not so much not understanding "sure, that's cool, but most people won't want that" as it is disregarding that statement completely for the sake of artistic integrity and purity.
Artistry, unlike any of the licentiate professions that have been mentioned in this thread, isn't necessarily about satisfying the needs of other people. It's not about directly saving lives, protecting the innocent or building better homes. It's a form of free expression, and I think that it's quite ridiculous to compare this basic human right to the responsibilities of being a medical doctor or a lawyer. As an artist or musician, you have no more rights or responsibilities in what you produce than any person exercising their freedom of expression in any kind of utterance.
Last edited by boomlinde (Dec 6, 2010 2:03 pm)
Offline
brooklyn!
nickmaynard wrote:
Beware wrote:a person who composes but has no idea what key they are in is not a musician.
what about a drummer.
godinpants wrote:
drummers aren't musicians obviously.
but seriously, dgaf about this debate.
Offline
England
I like having conversions with people who beleive that bands like Tool or System of a Down are the only real musics.
Offline
astral cat
Sycamore Drive wrote:
an-cat-max wrote:actually, i think you mentioned it..
Go back and read the whole sentence and stop trying to be a smart arse Tom.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse... you really did mention money...
Offline
Maybe this'll work better if we post audio with comments. I think these are musicians:
Claude Debussy
Bill Evans
Elliott Smith
Greg Saunier from Deerhoof (countering the "drummers aren't musicians" comment)
I don't differ composers from musicians, after all their 'ability' is part of the compositional process. (anyone thrashing through Chopin & Rachmaninov knows what I mean)
Offline
I think these are "Musicians":
I think these are just "Guys in a Band":
The difference has nothing to do with what they use to make music with, but their apparent intention and the level of care and skill that goes into doing what they do. Musicianship transcends the fickle conventions of society and exists as a means to its own end. Being a guy in a band transcends your inability to get laid.
Last edited by PlainFlavored (Dec 7, 2010 6:52 pm)
Offline
Michigan
dont mean to fuel the fire, but i guess it does have something to do with the debate:
what about noise musicians?
Offline
BOSTON
are fictitious musicians 'musicians'? or are their creators 'musicians' by proxy, despite not being musicians?
what about if YOU are deaf and have never heard sound before, but play an instrument and people enjoy it, can you be a 'musician' then?
if you have synesthesia, are painters 'musicians' then?
people buy millions of albums of waterfall sounds and rainshowers, are they 'musicians'?
what about people who need to pigeonhole others with nebulous semantics in order to feel better about themselves? can they be musicians too?
how about ducks?
Offline
Unsubscribe
Jellica wrote:
I like having conversions with people who beleive that bands like Tool or System of a Down are the only real musics.
Making small talk with drug dealers is one of the unfortunate perils of prohibition.