The University of Huddersfield is home to a variety of musicians, and is the ideal place for classical, pop and music technology students to collaborate and learn from each other. It can be so inspiring to listen to a musician with a totally different perspective to your own, but instead of exploring their ideas some of us are too busy insisting that our own music is somehow superior. I’ve repeatedly seen classical versus pop, music tech versus music theory and almost everyone versus musicologists! So what’s the big deal and who are the ‘real’ musicians here?
The Oxford Dictionary defines a musician as “A person who plays a musical instrument, especially as a profession, or is musically talented” and plenty of people would agree with this definition. After all, the time and dedication it takes to learn a musical instrument is remarkable, and the experience you pick up along the way can help you understand music in a far greater depth than the general listener would. The term ‘musically talented’ could be used to encompass musical professions that don’t necessarily involve playing an instrument, and may also include enthusiasts who simply appreciate the nuances of the music they listen to. But, who we call musically talented and whether a musician should play an instrument are debates that exacerbate the ‘us versus them’ mentality that I continue to find.
Firstly, how experienced does someone have to be before they ‘play’ their instrument? Anyone can strum a guitar or play a chord on the piano, but where do we draw the line between those people and more proficient musicians? Maybe, to properly play an instrument, you have to practise routinely or at least commit to improving over time; but this would exclude any experienced performers who decide to plateau at the ability they are content with. Maybe you should understand a variety of techniques to truly play your instrument, but who can decide which techniques you should and shouldn’t know?
Secondly, does playing an instrument automatically make you a musician? I’ve come across countless people who play an instrument but don’t listen to music, go to concerts or even perform with an ounce of passion. It seems like they’ve never left the school music lesson mentality, but because they can play Clair de Lune, or know some chords on the guitar we happily define them as a musician.
With that in mind, do you have to play an instrument to be a musician? I compose my fair share of electronic music, but never need to reach for an instrument while doing so. You may say that this is irrelevant, because I can play an instrument and just choose not to use it. But, I do know of people who compose incredibly musical and detailed electronic music, and don’t happen to play an instrument on the side. Does this make their creation less valuable than mine? I don’t think so.
Undoubtedly, this minefield of questions makes it impossible to establish what a musician really is, and the Oxford Dictionary tries to account for this by including the phrase ‘or is musically talented’ in their definition. But even this can fuel the debate, as everyone has their own idea of what musical talent is. For example, a pianist may believe that playing their instrument requires more musical talent than playing the recorder does, but all you recorder players out there might think that you have the hardest job! Perhaps more controversially, someone who can compile a good playlist may see themselves as musically talented, and with the broad nature of the term ‘musical talent’ – who is to tell them that they’re not?
In the end, there is no one solid way to define a musician. We’re all talented in our own way, and to disregard someone’s credibility as a musician based on genre, instrument or background is highly counterproductive. You may not agree with everyone’s perspective on music, and that’s absolutely fine. But, next time you meet someone from a different musical world to your own, listen to them with an open mind, because you never know what you might learn.
Oh no, does this make me a musicologist?!