-
I've read the whole thread and I don't think anyone is lacking that comprehension. Of course doing something for a living gives one a different perspective on doing it for fun, however serious that fun. Those, like yourself, who do this to survive will indeed have finely-honed skills that you've had to develop in order to survive, skills that us weekend warriors haven't been able to develop to the same degree. And that whole argument may be worth a thread of its own. But, the question here was not about the professional's general perspective, rather whether the ability to read music is a pre-requisite to being labelled a musician rather than a performer.
Originally Posted by jads57
Are you saying only a professional musician (or maybe performer) has the necessary knowledge and experience to answer, or even debate, that question?
Again, I've seen no arrogance from others in this thread, and again this seems to me to be a totally different argument to that which this thread is addressing. As you clearly feel so strongly about it, why not start a thread (or even ask for a separate section) for professionals only to discuss and debate things? I absolutely understand from what you say that those of you playing music for a living have had to develop a different mindset than the rest of us, indeed a mindset that the rest of can't even comprehend! So why not separate yourself from us? I fear, though, that many views posted in such a forum area might turn out not to support your perspective, either. After all, there have been several contributors to this thread who have (like you) played music professionally in the past and you appear to have ignored their arguments as (it seems to me) they don't support your view. Or perhaps it's because they no longer play professionally (although without rereading the whole thread again which would be too soul-destroying) I have a feeling that you don't either? So that would then raise the question, of how long would one have had to play professionally for, and how recently, to be admitted into the "Professional" forum? I guess, one could add how much did one earn into that equation, too? Originally Posted by jads57
Anyway, it's the weekend so I have to go and practice some ii-V-Is.
Derek
-
06-13-2020 04:58 AM
-
Well . . . firstly, this is a thread for EVERYONE. However, it is helpful for all of us that it is "no holds barred" if we really want to know how people think and feel. I want to make a general statement and then address some of the previous ideas/comments.
I think many who have come to Jazz from a Rock background are generally "untrained ear musicians." My generation: 50's/60's was THE guitar generation. Whether it was the Beatles, Elvis, James Brown, or the Rolling Stones, it helped to sell more guitars than any other instrument at the time. And, because it was easy to play poorly, there were uncountable "bands" that formed hoping to emulate their idols as they played 9,000 songs with three chords. This is how I started although I had formal lessons for a short time until I felt I knew more than the teacher which was both untrue and absurd although I could read elementary music and knew the keys. However, like many on this Forum, I had very good ears and I moved quickly getting my first paid job at 12 and I think, for me, that was a problem. It was not until a couple years later when I started the study of saxophone/flute/clarinet that my direction changed and the importance of reading music became clear.
So, that's the background for me, at least, that is relevant to the conversation. Now to the meat and potatoes:
1. a painter who is not formally trained CAN be an artist if he masters all the necessary technique and knowledge
that a classically trained painter possesses. This is also true for a musician which includes reading music.
2. Until I knew that Ray/Stevie could read, I would not categorize them as musicians but rather performing artists.
That's hardly a pejorative term.
3. Most Non-Western are performers, not musicians. Unless ,of course, you're speaking about Indian Music, Japanese Kabuki Music, etc. where they ARE musicians since they undergo a lifetime of high-specialized formal training in
sound, technique, repertoire, and style. However, we cannot compare it to Western Music which is highly codified
in comparison to an art like Kabuki/Indian where a devotee studies a lifetime with a master mastering a series of
techniques before moving to the next level. This, of course, is the cultural difference between Western/Eastern
Music and most indigenous music in general. And, for the sake of conversation,would you consider the skills
needed to play Didgeridoo Music on par with the piano playing of Wilhelm Kempff?
4. Am I Eurocentric? Not at all if you mean that in a pejorative sense. However, I am of European Heritage and I do
recognize some highly evolved music from other countries as I mentioned above. However, I did not grow up in
India or Japan. Does that prohibit me from having opinions about any form of music irrespective of Western Music?
5. Lastly, why do we feel that we have to jump on Jads since he has a different perspective than many on this Forum?
I happen to agree with the general tenure of his argument but because someone disagrees with you, should he be
castigated and be relegated to only talk with those who agree with him? How does one grow if their ideas are not
challenged. That's a decidedly close-minded view of life. It's what's called Intellectual Provincialism in philosophy.
If you're defensive because your formal musical skills are limited: ie: not able to read music-- you must accept that
you may be a great performer, even Artist, however, you are not a complete musician. And, as has been mentioned
throughout this discussion, there are countless careers of brilliant performers/artists who have graced the world with
their beautiful music. However, they are the exception, not the norm among working musicians today who need to
have the skills to make money in many different genres and venues. You can't play Broadway musicals, Vegas
pit bands, formal studio gigs, join a group with a "book," play jingles, sit in/play with a Jazz big band/orchestra,
teach in a legitimate music school, or form a group with "musicians" when you can't read music. And, if you are
starting a band with other untrained performers, how long does it take to have 3 sets of music under your belt?
And, what if someone asks for something not in your sets on a gig? I don't see why this is unclear to some.
If your skills are limited, you limit your ability to make a living in music--a seemingly impossible thing today unless you're very talented or lucky.
So, I think this discussion has hit a raw nerve with some on this Forum and that's not a bad thing if it caused us all to think about what we do with this madness we call Music. Good playing . . . Marinero
-
Hi Marinero, I don't think anyone is jumping on Jads. He's the one that's suggesting our viewpoints are irrelevant because we don't play professionally. I'm more than happy to engage in debate, but when my viewpoint is described as arrogant, and dismissed, because I don't have a professional background then either I'm in the wrong forum or he is. For now, I will assume it's me and that this place wasn't ever designed for amateurs without the insight, perception, and experience needed to be able to post with any authority, and I will leave it there. Originally Posted by Marinero
Take it easy.
Derek
-
Both these two so called "professionals" also have a very narrowly defined view of what makes one a "professional". It is their viewpoint that is arrogant and therefor dismissive. Of course from time to time they come back and either apologize for being so harsh etc..., but that is hollow since they continue to do that over and over again. Originally Posted by digger
But hey, I'm just an amateur jazz guitar player that loves playing jazz music,,, even if I'll never be a professional. But wait,,,, I do know how to read music,,,,, does that make me a pro????
Oh, I'm so confused!
-
What I find ironic no one will address the issue of amateur vs. Professional when it comes to being a musician as an occupation. It seems as though if they address this issue they are no longer valid.
And yet as Ive stated repeatedly over adnauseam. That if I dared try acting as though I was in any way opionated in their field of endevour, I doubt they would accept that.
It's not that I admonish other people's opinions. It's when it's based on non factual experience. And yet we are suppose to equate this on the the same level as people who have done this not only their whole lives. But was their sole occupation as well.
-
If I described going to hear someone and despite dressing very nicely they were playing songs strictly from memory, not reading charts or sheet music of any kind, and unable or unwilling to play audience called tunes even if the sheet music were provided, what would you call them, a musician or a performer?
You have defined and are labeling people into two exclusive groups: musicians or performers.
I go to the theater to hear a performance by a concert pianist; is he a musician or performer?
To clarify if he is a musician you have defined a connection to reading music.
There is no reading of music during the concert performance, the concert pianist having memorized his performance pieces.
You ask, what if someone requests songs not in the sets on a gig (not on the program of the concert pianist's performance)?
The concert pianist won't perform audience requests (even if someone handed up the sheet music), but may perform an additional piece that he has already worked up to performance level (so performed without reading sheet music).
-
I'm a IT professional; In this world the debate around is-one-a-professional (or what-makes-one-a-professional), occurs each and every day between those in the industry and these debates are very similar to what is occurring here related to is-one-a-professional musician and what are the so called 'criteria' of being one. Originally Posted by jads57
What I find ironic no one will address the issue of amateur vs. Professional when it comes to being a musician as an occupation. It seems as though if they address this issue they are no longer valid.
And yet as Ive stated repeatedly over adnauseam. That if I dared try acting as though I was in any way opionated in their field of endevour, I doubt they would accept that.
It's not that I admonish other people's opinions. It's when it's based on non factual experience. And yet we are suppose to equate this on the the same level as people who have done this not only their whole lives. But was their sole occupation as well.
AND, just like what I see you doing, I find what many of my colleagues in the IT industry do and say around 'this' is FOLLY. E.g. I don't have a college degree and especially one in the IT field. I learned from my dad and was a very solid programmer by time I was 15. The software I wrote got a US patent (that is like a having a platinum record for a musician). BUT when younger folks would come up in the profession they all had degrees (one can't even get an interview today without one), they know all sorts of new technology, programming and scripting languages. But often they focus so much on the technology the end-result of their work (e.g. a software system), doesn't 'work' for the business. I.e. a professional needs to know and be able to apply more than just the technology. Does that make them more "professional" then me? (they clearly think so, ha ha).
Relating this to jazz music; yea, technically they have skills that I don't have, but they don't swing as well and there is a lot less 'soul' in their music and playing. The point here: it is folly to debate who-is-better or more-professional,,,, instead just leave it at we-are-different and typically each-brings-something-to-the-table. (I do say 'typically' because sometimes one is just a hack, a phony,,,regardless of the profession).Last edited by jameslovestal; 06-13-2020 at 02:38 PM.
-
So, I'm less of a musician than jads because I've played fewer gigs, but I'm more of a musician than, say, Paul McCartney, because I can read?
Makes sense.
Set up an idiosyncratic definition of a commonly used term and then argue about it.
-
Seems to me that what some want is a clearly defined title like the trades have: Journeyman, Ticketed etc. Thing is, even in the trades there's a very wide mix of experience and abilities under these titles. My dad was a carpenter. He built houses, furniture and boats along the way. Very few card-carrying carpenters that I meet on site these days could do all that, but the things they do get paid for they can do very very well.
It's hard won, but I think we're getting somewhere. This:
Has turned into this:O.K. One of my pet peeves--how does one consider themselves a musician if they can't read music?....
Jads: your frustration with the current state of affairs in music-land is understandable to me. Can I just point out that you're kinda muddying the waters a bit on this thread, and some are commenting at cross purposes. Seems you're mostly talking about Amateur VS Professional. Marinaro started as "Musician or Performer?" Would you would agree that either of the latter might be professionals, and that there's a lot of pros who don't read?...not able to read music-- you must accept that... you are not a complete musician...
My honest opinion is that words like Amateur, Professional, Musician and Performer have very little to do with actually playing good music.
All I ever wanted was to play music I liked and get paid like a carpenter. Sadly that's a lot harder than it sounds. Especially if you like jazz.
-
I hear your point, but there is an important distinction. If as an amateur I try to offer an opinion on, say, writing software in C+++ or something, I'm out of my league. This is not a domain that is a human universal. Nobody can be a C+++ coder just because they instinctively like doing it. You gotta learn code. Originally Posted by jads57
What I find ironic no one will address the issue of amateur vs. Professional when it comes to being a musician as an occupation. It seems as though if they address this issue they are no longer valid.
And yet as Ive stated repeatedly over adnauseam. That if I dared try acting as though I was in any way opionated in their field of endevour, I doubt they would accept that.
It's not that I admonish other people's opinions. It's when it's based on non factual experience. And yet we are suppose to equate this on the the same level as people who have done this not only their whole lives. But was their sole occupation as well.
But music is a universal human endeavor. The fact that some people make a living doing music does make their views matter in a different way, but we also know that commercial success in music is not always about people being great musicians.
I get this from another angle. I'm an ordained clergyman, as well as holding a PhD from a major university in ancient Near Eastern languages and literatures specifically related to the Old Testament of the Bible. I have studied, taught, and written for over 30 years in this field. And yet, because religion is a universal human experience, and the Bible is the common possession of all Christians, and "my" part of the Bible is the common possession of Christians as well as Jews and Muslims, I often get a lot of "amateur" opining from people without much knowledge of this subject, and they really have no idea under heaven just how much knowledge there is under my bald head. But I don't discount their opinions. I see them not as my opponents but as my clients. My job is to use my knowledge to elevate and enrich their lives and faiths. I do not find that job hastened or advanced by my adopting a superior attitude. There are dimensions of religion and the Bible that escape the scrutiny of scholars but are evident to others with a different kind of engagement, and I always listen appreciatively, though at times, with a bit of frustration.
Which is simply to say.. yes, you're a pro. You have a pro's authority. But amateurs and devotees have another kind of authority, and with a few rare exceptions, "pro's" who don't pay attention to them find themselves increasingly needing other kinds of income supplementation. That is, a pro who disdains amateur perspectives might find he isn't a pro anymore.
-
Lawson, I'm an avid amateur of ancient history and their religions. But I'm in no way qualified to know the intricacies of the vast variations within each civilization and their many religions.
I also don't understand the workings and politics of that as well. My point is, if you are doing that as your occupation. Then you have way more understanding past the actual subject itself when it comes to actually being a working professional.
Music as much is it universal to everyone becomes way different when it's turned into an occupation. I didn't learn all of the various styles or nuances because I wanted to for fun. It payed the bills and allowed me to further my musical vocabulary as well.
There is also the whole political thing from hanging out to solicit gigs, etc. I
basically have grown to hate bars and nightclub owners over the 40 years.
But just as in your job I had to adapt, to keep on working. Sure I could quit, but this is true of any job. And playing music is who I am and have always been since a young kid of 11 years old.
I don't think any of you here would appreciate my opinions on your fields with out some first hand knowledge and experience. So when amateur hobbyists start spouting off like they are experts it's incredibly annoying as well as arrogant in my opinion.
I'm also not saying people here don't have a right to converse. But please be truthful as to your qualifications and don't pretend to be someone with great knowledge. But I can see how this happens all the time in many different forums.
Lawson P.S. I'm still an Atheist, even after studying many religions and playing many churches,lol!
-
Actually I would listen quite happily to your opinions on ancient history and religion. I'd appreciate your interest, admire your commitment to read and think about the issues involved, and I'd find your opinions helpful on a lot of levels. As a professional, I would not deprecate or despise your views simply because I have more formal training and exposure. You are the guy I would hope would find my work interesting and worth even putting out a little money to buy. I would try my best not to "pull rank" on you because I don't want to lose a fan of ancient history and religion to my being obnoxious and condescending or whatever. Originally Posted by jads57
Lawson, I'm an avid amateur of ancient history and their religions. But I'm in no way qualified to know the intricacies of the vast variations within each civilization and their many religions.
I also don't understand the workings and politics of that as well. My point is, if you are doing that as your occupation. Then you have way more understanding past the actual subject itself when it comes to actually being a working professional.
Music as much is it universal to everyone becomes way different when it's turned into an occupation. I didn't learn all of the various styles or nuances because I wanted to for fun. It payed the bills and allowed me to further my musical vocabulary as well.
There is also the whole political thing from hanging out to solicit gigs, etc. I
basically have grown to hate bars and nightclub owners over the 40 years.
But just as in your job I had to adapt, to keep on working. Sure I could quit, but this is true of any job. And playing music is who I am and have always been since a young kid of 11 years old.
I don't think any of you here would appreciate my opinions on your fields with out some first hand knowledge and experience. So when amateur hobbyists start spouting off like they are experts it's incredibly annoying as well as arrogant in my opinion.
I'm also not saying people here don't have a right to converse. But please be truthful as to your qualifications and don't pretend to be someone with great knowledge. But I can see how this happens all the time in many different forums.
Lawson P.S. I'm still an Atheist, even after studying many religions and playing many churches,lol!
As for your being an atheist that does not matter to me, nor to God, who has much, much more to do all day than merely "exist."
-
I don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert on anything. (Though Lawson is likely more knowledgeable in his field than I.)
Nor am I sure what a "complete musician" is.
Jad, few are discussing your view on amateur vs professional musician because it is not the topic of this thread. And, we are trying not derail the course of this thread.
I still think my question about percussionists is apt.
-
By this logic, Olympic competitors are not athletes. Originally Posted by jads57
When the police make a report on an auto accident, they will refer to "the driver". This doesn't mean that the person behind the wheel has made money driving, in NASCAR or F1 circuits, or even as a cabbie or Uber driver.
You were a professional musician. That's great, glad you could make some dough doing that. It doesn't follow that those who didn't, can't, or would rather have a more stable occupation for whatever reason, aren't musicians. This is just you trying to claim musical expertise when your expertise is in navigating the business of music. You may well be a great musician; you may not be one -- I don't know.
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Musician | Definition of Musician by Merriam-Webster
Nothing said about earning money there. And they're professionals when it comes to language; you're the amateur there. By your own logic, you must accede to this definition.
Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 06-13-2020 at 05:52 PM.
-
Well I guess you experts have put me in my place! Glad to know what a fool I was spending all that time learning music and repertoire. Not to mention sweating bullets playing with great musicians like Doc Severensen , Bonnie Raitt, Roy Buchanon, Alexander O'Neil, Cynthia Johnson (Funkytown), Jack McDuff, The Shirreles, Coasters, Sister Sledge, Gloria Gaynor, Martha Reeves, Al,Wilson, Otis Day, etc......
Wow , what in the world was I thinking ? I could have have just winged it, and said no worries here fellas,LOL! Isnt that would all of you musicians would do?
Why bother with the preparation of all of those bothersome 6 night a week gigs at those lousey bars? Man thank so much for setting me straight.
PS. Lawson, I'm a huge a admirer of the late Christopher Hitchens, and Roger Dawkins as well!
Now before I operate on my freind the Doctor's patient, any advice?
-
Are we sure that they all know how to read music? Originally Posted by jads57
What in the world are you talking about? Just because you can't read sheet music doesn't mean you don't prepare for a gig. Originally Posted by jads57
-
Again, at this point, what is the argument?
-
If I'm following correctly, God hates people who can't read sheet music. Originally Posted by DMgolf66
Lawson can you confirm this?
-
The Devil made me do it!
-
Exactly unless of course they sing their solos while they play. Originally Posted by Littlemark
If I'm following correctly, God hates people who can't read sheet music.
Lawson can you confirm this?
-
The wonderful lives of performers, just for you; Originally Posted by jads57
Well I guess you experts have put me in my place! Glad to know what a fool I was spending all that time learning music and repertoire. Not to mention sweating bullets playing with great musicians like Doc Severensen , Bonnie Raitt, Roy Buchanon, Alexander O'Neil, Cynthia Johnson (Funkytown), Jack McDuff, The Shirreles, Coasters, Sister Sledge, Gloria Gaynor, Martha Reeves, Al,Wilson, Otis Day, etc......
Wow , what in the world was I thinking ? I could have have just winged it, and said no worries here fellas,LOL! Isnt that would all of you musicians would do?
Why bother with the preparation of all of those bothersome 6 night a week gigs at those lousey bars? Man thank so much for setting me straight.
PS. Lawson, I'm a huge a admirer of the late Christopher Hitchens, and Roger Dawkins as well!
Now before I operate on my freind the Doctor's patient, any advice?
-
I just realized, I have no idea the music I listen to daily, is it played by people who can read music? Or not? I paid money for it on iTunes or something, and I want my money back if they can't read. There need to be a regulation sticker, like the one about explicit lyrics, if the music involves musicians who can't read. I mean, performers. I mean, whatever, if all this time I was listening to amateurs, I was duped!
I'm following this thread closely, and am returning any CD or mp3 of those who can't read. No more Wes, no more The Beatles, garbage! I save money and buy music only from the good reading musicians. Send me your recordings of you reading something. I want to enjoy only the real ones now.
-
I have now thrown away all my blues records and CDs as I assume that none of them could read music either.
-
Some choice cuts of JGO idiocy on this thread...
-
Well . . . what a difference a day makes! I want to respond to some comments that, I believe, need clarity.
1. Musician/performer dichotomy. In life, we need labels. It helps us define differences between hot/cold, sweet/bitter,
old/young. And, in Music this dichotomy of musician/performer is one that should have clarity among those who
make sounds. I will not rehash my copious, previous remarks but rather state that in life, words do make a difference.
It helps one categorize, in this case, a persons complete skill set. As in the case of the working electrician who
cannot read an engineering schematic, you cannot hire him for the job if no one is there to interpret the scribbles
on the paper. It is also the case for a musician/performer who is called to fill in as a sub in a Las Vegas show band.
He might be able to play brilliantly, but he can't read the book. In this case, as all others, specific words are needed to
for definition. He/she is not a complete musician. However, most likely a performer.
2. So, if you disagree with my first statement and others support your views, does it mean that your point is logical from
a descriptive perspective or that, rather, you are guilty of the "Bandwagon Fallacy" where despite its incorrect premise/
conclusion, others agree with you. You are either a complete musician or a performer. Simple.
3. Musician/performer. So what? This terminology has obviously struck a raw nerve with some when my intent was NOT
critical but rather descriptive. As I have said previously, there have been many brilliant artist/performers throughout
history that have graced us with their musical talents. The fact that they didn't read music had no bearing on their
artistry, but rather on their total skill set. Why did Louis Armstrong, a performer, go back to school later in life to
learn to read music? Because he could enhance his performance opportunities and play in a variety of settings
previously closed to him. It increased his monetary bottom line and made him a total "musician."
4. Musician/Performer vs Bedroom/Youtube player. There is no way that the latter can compare with a musician/performer
who plays live music with other musicians. The experience, knowledge, and subtleties accumulated in a life of live
performing with other players/musicians is immense. It is, of course, a prerequisite for growth that cannot be
achieved playing in front of a camera in your home.
5. Musicians who read cannot swing? Did someone really say that????
6. Olympic athlete./professional athlete comment is what philosophers call a false dichotomy. The Olympic athlete has the
same skill set as the professional , has been tested in the field, but does not get paid. The corollary would be that,
say, a classically trained musician that hasn't been paid for his first gig is not a musician. I have never used money as
a determining factor between my definitions of musician/performer. Only the skill set. He is, indeed, a athlete/
musician.
7. Hating bar owners. Only a gigging musician would know this fact. Before becoming a union musician, I wish I had a
dime for every gig where we were cheated by a bar owner. You play three sets, pack up and go to the owner to
get paid and he says he didn't take enough in at the door and he can't pay you the agreed price. You take it or leave.
In some cases, it got nasty. This can even happen at a union gig but the venue would be black-balled to all union
musicians. However, there's always a desperate band that wants to play and the cheater's show goes on. Today,
working solo, I have all prospective venues sign a contract, pay half up-front and the balance when I show up BEFORE
my performance. If they don't agree, I don't play. And, you can bet they're one of the cheaters.
Good playing . . . Marinero
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos