Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum What is a musician? How do you become a musician?

Over on the Teaching how to read music- solfege versus letter names thread, laguna_greg responded to Saranoya:



(I've changed the quote style used for saranoya's embedded comment from the quote marks laguna_greg used to make it clearer here in this requote who said what.)

I want to ask laguna_greg to expand on this, and have a discussion about this with all of you. I thought the resulting discussion might overwhelm the other thread, hence a new thread.

Greg, can you say more about what you mean by musician, and how one becomes a musician?

Musician to me: Someone who creates a rhythm, it is irrelevant if anyone else likes that rhythm.

Not a musician, but an Elitist: Someone who says someone else isn't a musician.

OK, well...

Let me start by asking - what makes an artist? How does one become an artist?

An artist is not merely someone who has an imagination, or is inspired by something within themselves. There are bankers who would fit in that category.

Rather, an artist is someone who has the requisite imagination, and has ALSO developed the skills and the discipline(s)of the craft necessary to realize their inspiration in material form. For painters, that means they must learn to draw, and develop the skill until they do it very well. After all, drawing is the basis for their craft. Without it, their expression can only be very limited. Then they must master color, form and composition, their materials (which are less an issue in this medium than they are in music), and know their own history. And they must develop these things to such a high level of proficiency that they "think" in color and line just like everyone else "thinks" in words.

Musicians must do something similar. They must have mastery over their instruments and/or voice, to begin with, to an exceptionally level that must approach an unlimited virtuosity (in this day and age, anyway). But that's just the beginning. Then they must master their materials, just like a painter. And these are listening/hearing, rhythm, the analytical skills of harmony/counterpoint, as well as our history, repertoire and literature. And these must be developed to the level where they are no longer abstract pursuits but speak to you like a language. If a competent painter "thinks" in color and line, a competent musician must be able to "think" in harmony and rhythm, or they'll suffer severe limits on what they can express. Neurological research shows that music is processed in the brain like a language skill. And that is how far we must take our own training, until it becomes as intelligible to us as what we read in the newspapers.

Consider that conductors are often the very best (or worst!) examples of this level of consummate skill. They must learn their scores without ever being able to practice on their "instrument", in this case an orchestra. And they have to show up at the first rehearsal already knowing impeccably the entire work from start to finish, as well as being able to tell everybody what they need to do and how they need to sound, all without having practiced on an "instrument". And they need to do it better than anybody else in the room, or the players won't listen to them. they also have to hear when the violinist at the farthest desk in the second section is playing flat. Now, that's a pair of ears of you! Conductors also need to be capable composers and arrangers in every style possible.

Composers have a similar problem as most of the things they want to compose can't be performed by them alone. They must be able to hear these things in their heads almost perfectly before they write them down. If they don't understand what they hear in their heads, there will be a lot of things they will simply be unable to compose. They must also be able to conduct competently, and they must also be conversant enough with the voice and all the orchestral instruments they write for so they can tell the performers how their music is supposed to be played.

Now THAT'S a musician. We should all be able to do those things. These skills can learned, and without too terribly much trouble.

Music is a language, not an abstract exercise in philosophy or mathematics. We as musicians must learn to "speak" the language, and speak it very well. Otherwise, we will not understand what it is we are trying to do with the music we play, and our playing will sound like it.

Greg, thanks for your reply. (And ShiverMeTimbres, too.). It will take me a while to sort out some of the complicated responses I'm having enough to formulate a post. I am reflecting on all this, and I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

Instead of defining what an "artist" is, wouldn't it better to define some common sense objectives?

For pianists it is necessary to develop automatic links between notes on the page and where they are played if a pianist is going to read well. That is the most important skill for reading.

But it is also true that often pianists get stuck there, not linking the symbols to sound. I call this "piano-deafness".

So how do you get the ear working?

That's the elephant in the room.

A conductor has to see "G" or "sol" and then hear what pitch that is linked to. On Bb trumpet that is F, but on double horn it something else. It can be just about anything on various trumpets with crooks (C trumpet, Eb trumpet, D trumpet and so on), so hearing a pitch on a concert pitch instrument is only a start.

I've seen countless discussions about how to to this, but there is no magic bullet.

In my experience it is WORKING with different instruments and playing a few of them that gets the job done. But I audiate very well with piano scores and anything that is concert pitch plus any of the instruments I have played/taught (all the brass instruments).

I can do the same with all other instruments, but I have to first figure out the transposition. I'm not at all good at hearing orchestral scores. Not enough practice with some of those instruments.

I just read both threads. There is so much to comment on but for now I'm going to post here because I have my yoga lesson tonight
If you asked me this same question when I was just starting my professional studies I wouldn't have known what to tell you, It is only recently, after a long time researching, that I can start feeling like I know what I'm doing.I'm sensing it and I'm following my intuition, what feels right and makes sense to me. Going to college will get you to a starting point and I recommend it but the real job is up to you. Figure it out. Ask yourself this question and try to find answers. Only you can respond this question to yourself.

Gary,

I appreciate your goal there, and I agree with it. But where are your objectives going to come from?

Sometimes you have people who have all the requisite skills to play the piano but do not make music. I've heard two sisters, both with Doctorates in music, play duets. One was musical, the other was only technically proficient.

Many concert goers believe they've heard music when in fact they've only heard technical proficiency.

Music has to move people emotionally.

I think it's quite appropriate to decide some people are musical and others are not. One thing as teachers we strive to transmit is our own particular musical aesthetic. If you find a teacher who doesn't understand this, s/he is likely not musical.

...and it's the kind of thing that can't really be taught. You can turn most anyone into a pianist, and you can make musicians out of a lot of those people as well. But to make them an artist out of them, to give them an imagination if they don't have one, well, I wish I knew how one did that.

It can't be taught but it can be helped and developed and it is very important that we as piano teachers keep it alive in our students. Playing piano is very difficult and it takes a lot of practice and effort only to be able to play the notes. However I think we would be failing as piano teachers if we forgot what is the ultimate goal, which is to make music. Making music isn't only skillful, spotless performance. It is human communication, artistic expression, musicality. It's the art of interpretation.
Once you point to your students they usually love it because it's the most fun part as well !

You'll get no argument from me about that at all. It's just that there's only so much one can do with certain people. You can't make them fall in love with what they are playing if they are not already. You can't give them an imagination, or even a sense of good taste, if they don't already have the makings of either one within them.

I think a true musician has to be able to project feelings through sound. There's obviously an abstract, cognitive connection between the two entities, one which is missing in most piano students. And this link can't necessarily be taught. It's missing even in some of the leading pianists of our time.

From a technical standpoint of a pianist, there are only so many things a pianist can do to control sound at any given moment:

1) when the sound is made (timing, rhythm)
2) how loud (dynamics)
3) how much overlapping of harmonies (pedaling)
4) how loud in relation to other notes (voicing)
5) how long/short to hold the note (articulations)

It is the cumulative effect of individual sounds that separates the musicians from the students.

I don't understand your question. I was not talking about "goals". I was trying to describe what I hear, and what I do not hear.

How and why other people hear things, or do not hear things, remains a mystery to me.

I'll take a stab at objectives from a teaching-learning view (i.e. student & teacher, rather than an accomplished performer). Supposing the student "feels things" of some sort in music, but has never studied anything with anyone. Chances are that what will come out is something crude and raw. Atm I'm picturing the lower end pop singer that gets piped in at the grocery store, who thinks that straining her vocal chords at top volume conveys "passion". That is - if this person can get any control over the instrument, otherwise nothing much will come out. I've just isolated three elements here: feeling, understanding, technique. I've also taken it from what I know rather than going abstract-theoretical, since as student I've been told the feeling part was there in the untaught state.

Technique means knowing how to use your body on an instrument optimally, so that you can produce any effect you want. It also means understanding the instrument. Pianos are percussive, there are pedals and dampers and are pretuned. Wind instruments involve breath and what causes vibrations to create sound via air through hollows. You must learn to control these things, and use them for the effect you're after.

Technique is used to play musically. Unfortunately it gets worshipped for its own sake. A person is admired for the perfection of his playing when that playing is otherwise empty.

Understanding is the part where if you have technique, you also know how to direct it. It is useless to know how to crescendo if you are clueless as to where to crescendo, how much, and why. Knowledge involves such things as understanding time signatures, beats, and ultimately knowing when to stretch a note for effect - understanding genres so that you can stay true to them, so they stay "real", even while manipulating things.

This too can become an empty thing for its own sake: able to pass exams, draw an arc over a phrase, identify the cadence, use big and learned words .... without ever applying it to performed music.

The "feeling it" part. Untrained and unlearned, you may have an impulse or a vague feeling, so you pull off something but you don't know why. When the understanding is there, the player can do things deliberately. I also think that one might start by doing things mechanically, as instructed, and that the insights and feeling might grow or wake up during the process.

When performing, it's good for a response to be evoked in the audience. This doesn't require the performer to feel anything. In any case, your beating heart and hands trembling with tension from emotion will not produce any sound and so does not convey anything to the listener. It has to be produced; right notes at the right time, and then something extra - the slight pause here, the bit of rubato, or lighter note, or muddy blend with pedal or crisp separation, all designed for effect. And that again is the blend of technique, understanding, and feeling (and conveying feeling).

Students will need the first two: technique and understanding --- and then maybe have what they feel and can thus produce in music, to be drawn out of them, as well as being told how to produce things (once they have the skills), and how.

Hi Gary,

"Instead of defining what an "artist" is, wouldn't it better to define some common sense objectives?"

Oh! Well, I thought you meant something else, so I was just saying, in answer to the exam question, that aural skills are only one of the components that makes a up musician's skill set in the same way other artists have. And that out training and professional objectives need to be that inclusive.

Gary, I think it can be a limitation to train someone's ear always in reference to an instrument. The student ends up with exactly the problems you describe.

As a student and amateur, I don't see the value of exclusive definitions of "musician." I say this in my own interest, of course. But I also think it's valuable for the whole endeavor (and for the teaching profession) if students and non-professionals are encouraged to see themselves as part of a large continuum of music-making. It's not only true, but also helps build loyal audiences and inspire future students.

jdw,

"I don't see the value of exclusive definitions of "musician."

Why not?

Can one develop innate musicality? Am I misunderstanding where the verb goes?

No, I don't think one can. Either one is musical, in which case it can be developed, or one is not.

I don't think this position will get you anywhere. I mean who decides who "has it" and who doesn't?