|
|
| Are vocalists musicians? |
| Yes |
|
87% |
[ 7 ] |
| No |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Sometimes |
|
12% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 10:24 pm
I like this guild as much as I like classical music, which is plenty much, but I was wondering about one thing: Its description states that this is a guild for musicians, vocalists, or classical music lovers. This seems to place vocalists in a separate category from musicians. As a vocalist myself, I was, at first, offended, but used to hearing the claim that vocalist =/= musician. However, I am now conflicted, because I began my musical journey as an instrumentalist, and I now play several instruments, so I cannot claim the same offense as someone who is solely a vocalist. So, I ask, what defines a musician, and is someone who is purely a vocalist considered a musician? Are there certain criteria they must meet? ~ My thoughts: I believe a musician can be defined as someone who practices the making of music. Note that a) they do not have to be able to read music, and b) they practice. Vocalists a bad rep because we can easily learn music by rote, while instrumentalists often need to be able to read music. While reading music is an extremely valuable skill, many amazing talents have developed despite a lack of music literacy - would you reject them as musicians as well, simply because they can't read the music? (I wouldn't dare.) Vocalists also get a bad rep because anyone can claim that they are a singer ("Here, let me sing this karaoke song that I think I'm really good at! I'll prove it to you!" Sorry, friend, you may be a singer, but you ain't no musician in my book). An inexperienced individual cannot simply claim to be an instrumentalist - there is surely practice and prior knowledge of technique involved. Devil's advocate asks: twisted If we practice when we're singing with the radio, doesn't that count? And don't we learn technique through practicing and through talking? - Yes, this is somewhat true, and it could be said that everyone is a singer. In fact, I often like to say that everyone can sing! It's true - if you can talk, you can sing! It doesn't have to be good singing, it's just such a joyful expression to share with people that it would be a shame to waste the opportunity. BUT. Even though everyone can sing, that does not make everyone a musician. Musicians gain knowledge of their instrument and practice with certain goals in mind of mastering certain specific techniques or skills. I would not consider all "vocalists" to be musicians, but I would not deny the title to those that are. THOUGHTS? PERSPECTIVES?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:35 pm
I think they meant [instrumentalist], vocalists [and/]or classical music lovers. (I added and/ is because if read in one way, the 'or' is saying that instrumentalist and vocalists are not music lovers)
I call myself either a musician, or an instrumentalist and vocalist since I am learning both.
On another note...
Singing classically is no walk in the park. Trying to learn by rote or by listening to some audio recording can only get you so far. Also, vocally speaking, I have learned and experienced that you should be at least 18, when your vocal chords are somewhat mature, to seriously learn vocally, before that age if you are not careful you can permanently damage your voice. That is why I am a little iffy about Jackie Evancho.
Also, classical singers are also judged by their diction, and English is one of the harder ones to master.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:33 pm
To me any one person that can make an aesthetically pleasing sound with there voice. Compared to some one with instrument is indeed a musician.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:08 pm
Honestly, I just see it as distinguishment. I know some vocalists who don't consider themselves musicians and I know musicians who don't consider themselves vocalists, though all musicians are capable.
And sometimes must sing. For theory purposes of course, which is a pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:08 am
I believe that everyone has music in then. Music is an art, and singing is an art. That's why it's called "Performing Arts", because it still something performed, whether no one listen or someone does. Sure, people can practice to become a better vocalist, but it still performance and still is music. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:40 pm
I can see where you're coming from, but I think this is where the definition may well be about the type of study rather than the primary instrument. Sure, someone who learns a couple pop songs by rote is probably, by many definitions, not really a musician. But the same could be said of a guitarist who can only play a few chords, or a rock band's keyboardist that just bangs octaves unceremoniously. But none of these are part of a classical context, so it's not fair to apply classical standards to them. If they want to consider themselves musicians in a non-classical context, then that's fine, although I think most people would agree that their relative lack of intensive training, technical proficiency, and classical mindset would not qualify them as classical musicians.
But to apply the value judgement another way, is someone a musician if they have only studied a non-Western musical instrument or style? What if their musical tradition is purely aural, so they can't read any form of music notation? This is where the problem of "musician" breaks down, because it's all culturally contextual. In the same way that specialists of non-Western music probably don't fit exactly into a classical, Western perspective about musicianship, Western non-classical music-makers also often don't fit into a classical perspective about musicianship. The question is less about whether or not they're musicians, and more about whether or not they possess skills that would enable them to create music successfully within their own contexts. Violet the Maestro Honestly, I just see it as distinguishment. I know some vocalists who don't consider themselves musicians and I know musicians who don't consider themselves vocalists, though all musicians are capable. And sometimes must sing. For theory purposes of course, which is a pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Elocutionist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:43 am
I agree with you that "musician" is a term that applies to everyone that works and studies at their craft, and that not all singers are musicians, but several of your points irk me, support the "singers as non/lesser musicians" stereotype. bloombees Vocalists a bad rep because we can easily learn music by rote Excuse me, most singers do not learn music easily by rote! Even if you learn the melody and/or rhythm that way, and are a natural performer, there are other things that, frankly, most instrumentalists don't usually deal with. You have to memorize words, and even your own first language can be difficult to sing correctly, never mind other languages. Technique, frankly, is more difficult to learn because your instrument is your body. If something is wrong with a violin, a french horn, a piano, you can look at it and what you are doing. With anything a singer does, they have to feel it. The differences between the feeling in your own throat of good versus bad technique is extremely subtle. Not that playing an instrument is easy, it's not, but there is an incredible difference between being able to see what you're doing, and having to feel it. How many beginners could play their instrument blindfolded, in the dark, and be able to tell what they are doing wrong? And with earplugs, because how your voice sounds to you is not how it sounds out in the audience. And while I know of some good musicians who can't read music, most of the time people who don't read music don't because they refuse to spend the effort to learn. bloombees Vocalists also get a bad rep because anyone can claim that they are a singer....An inexperienced individual cannot simply claim to be an instrumentalist - there is surely practice and prior knowledge of technique involved. "Hey, my band is awesome, look at how cool I am on the guitar!" Drums are even worse. Anyone who can hold two sticks thinks they're a drummer/percussionist. bloombees Devil's advocate asks: twisted If we practice when we're singing with the radio, doesn't that count? And don't we learn technique through practicing and through talking? Actually, normal talking is very bad technique. Good singing technique in speech sounds funny--think of Lina's diction coach in "Singing in the Rain".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:48 am
Violet the Maestro And sometimes must sing. For theory purposes of course, which is a pain. My college made everyone sight-sing and sight-play. It's silly, since an oboist will never sing their piece. And while it's necessary for a singer to be able to plunk out their part on the piano, there are only two times a singer will need to play more than that. 1) As a teacher to accompany your students (and I had teachers who could barely play chords--it's called hire an accompianist). 2) Playing in a bar. Both the instrumentalist singing and the vocalist piano-playing were usually painful, tortuous, and an affront to Music itself. Mine certainly was. But the wake-up chord progression was the worst--the teacher always stopped on a horrible dissonance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
