Nomenclature

I know this one person who sings...she's no musician. I mean she can't even tell when the soloist is bringing their solo to a peak. I've seen her cut off a many a solo with her vocals, at a point where to me it's incomprehensible how she can NOT hear that the soloist has built up the solo and is peaking as she rudely cuts him off.
I take it for granted that I get these things. To me it's like blinking my eyes, automatic. It's hard for me to understand how a person can be oblivious to a soloist's solo like that, not seeing or hearing that the soloist is not done with the progression, or their solo. I mean just the body language alone should be a dead giveaway. But no, there's nothing that organized, she just resumes singing wherever lol.

There's another guy I knew who sings who wasn't aware of song form either. He gave me a solo in "Stand By Me" once. (yea I know, not exactly a song that should have a drum solo) But I was kind of put on the spot, so I did a really simple, not over the top, sort of blend in type solo...and I got cut off about halfway through the progression. Whatever!

I know a guy who tries to play guitar...I mean I've seen this guy at open mic jams for over 10 years. He's had time to improve himself. He owns over a hundred guitars, and gets worse everytime I hear him. He thinks he's a musician, but no one wants to be put up on stage with him at the open mic jams.

O. Bliv. E. Ous.

Apparently, what musicians do is not easy for most people. Out of a hundred people that I know who play musical instruments or sing, maybe 10% are people I consider actual musicians.
 
In my mind, I consider a singer a singer. If he/she plays something, then I consider him/her a musician.

Why do I make that distinction? Because, overall, I believe singing is easier. For example, it's easier to sing the melody to "Mary had a Little Lamb" than it is to learn to play it on guitar, piano, trumpet, etc.

If a singer messes up a song, the rest of the band can keep going. If a drummer messes up a song, everyone has to stop.

Singing still takes a lot of work to develop the skill, and great singers are very hard to come by. With that said, I think that playing a musical instrument is more difficult and is more advanced than just singing one note at a time.

Calling The Black-Eyed Peas a band is an insult to those of use that can actually play something.

All in all, there's no shame in being "just a singer." We need them desperately in order to make good music.

Once again, all of this is just my opinion. Your opinion(s) will indeed vary. I'm just calling'em as I see'em.
 
I'm firmly in the "their voice is their instrument" camp.
 
I know this one person who sings...she's no musician. I mean she can't even tell when the soloist is bringing their solo to a peak. I've seen her cut off a many a solo with her vocals, at a point where to me it's incomprehensible how she can NOT hear that the soloist has built up the solo and is peaking as she rudely cuts him off.
I take it for granted that I get these things. To me it's like blinking my eyes, automatic. It's hard for me to understand how a person can be oblivious to a soloist's solo like that, not seeing or hearing that the soloist is not done with the progression, or their solo. I mean just the body language alone should be a dead giveaway. But no, there's nothing that organized, she just resumes singing wherever lol.

There's another guy I knew who sings who wasn't aware of song form either. He gave me a solo in "Stand By Me" once. (yea I know, not exactly a song that should have a drum solo) But I was kind of put on the spot, so I did a really simple, not over the top, sort of blend in type solo...and I got cut off about halfway through the progression. Whatever!

I know a guy who tries to play guitar...I mean I've seen this guy at open mic jams for over 10 years. He's had time to improve himself. He owns over a hundred guitars, and gets worse everytime I hear him. He thinks he's a musician, but no one wants to be put up on stage with him at the open mic jams.

O. Bliv. E. Ous.

Apparently, what musicians do is not easy for most people. Out of a hundred people that I know who play musical instruments or sing, maybe 10% are people I consider actual musicians.

I'm in many ways agreed with Larry here. It's got nothing to do with instrument or no instrument, but the performer/artist's proficiency with the musical language and its conventions. And as he rightly points out, there's many an instrumentalist who can't see the basics of musical form, while there are singers who are more monstrously talented in musical theory than anyone else in the group - able to expertly craft harmonies, layer voices, hit pitches, and use dynamics to the song's best advantage. I'd readily agree that such a person is a musician. (Such folks who don't also play instruments are rare, but we can't say there are none.)

By my definition, a musician is someone who steps beyond the simple physical motions of making sound (with voice or instrument or tool) and harnesses it as an art form. Art, as I explain to my students (college, not drum lessons), is the intentional manipulation of one's environment to create an emotion or to provoke thought. These are forgiving definitions.
 
Yeah, there are singers who don't have any understanding of what they're doing, but you could say that about plenty of instrumentalists also. Meanwhile, I know singers who have substantial background in the training of their voice, including shaping their mouths, controlling air flow, controlling vibrato, exercising their range, etc. I also know singers who have substantial training in music theory, particularly jazz singers who improvise. And then, there are the classical vocalists, whose voices are unquestionably instruments.

At the same time, I know bass players who play only by pattern and don't know any theory or even sometimes what key they're playing in. I know many instrumentalists who can't read music, and some who can't even recognize a musical phrase.

And of course I know drummers who aren't aware of chord changes, dynamics, written notation, etc., in the music they play.

Since drummers are so often considered non-musicians because of not producing specific pitches, I think we drummers shouldn't be hesitant to credit the human voice as a musical instrument. It wasn't too long ago that I heard a band leader in a rehearsal saying, "OK, let me hear just the instruments and the drums." So, you know, glass houses and all that.
 
Some people think drummers aren't musicians... Just sayin!
 
In my mind, I consider a singer a singer. If he/she plays something, then I consider him/her a musician.

You and I appear to be alone in that perspective.

It's worth noting that musical compositions often list music and lyric credits separately, indicating that lyrics are not music. There's a distinction between the two, so wouldn't that apply to the performance of those entities as well?

Calling The Black-Eyed Peas a band is an insult to those of use that can actually play something.

Agreed, although I understand that the perception of vocalists as musicians, and a band is made up of musicians, would cause someone to call a vocal group a band. The first concept begets the second.

So I guess if someone calls Demi Movato a musician, but refuses to call Backstreet Boys a band, they're being a hypocrite. :)

Bermuda
 
A singer is a musician when he/she finally understands music. The person may have a good voice, but if all the person does is karaoke and doesn't understand phrasing and timing and song structure, then no, not a musician, just a parrot.
 
I know a guy who tries to play guitar...I mean I've seen this guy at open mic jams for over 10 years. He's had time to improve himself. He owns over a hundred guitars, and gets worse everytime I hear him. He thinks he's a musician, but no one wants to be put up on stage with him at the open mic jams.

We have a guy like that at our jam! He's been "working" on the same damn melody progression for the whole time he's been showing up and still doesn't play anything else or even come up with a song around the stupid riff he plays over and over. I've even tried yelling "play a different song" and he just doesn't.
 
One weird thing about me is that I don't hear vocal parts as words. I hear them as a part of the music landscape, like another instrument playing it's own complimentary melodies. I'm very sensitive to a singer hitting a wrong note, or a guitar for that matter.

I typically have to listen to a song maybe about 30 to 50 times before I start to "hear" what's being said in the lyrics as opposed to just absorbing the melody of the voice as a part of the music.

I've been in bands for years playing the songs and it's often not till someone explains what a song is about that I give it any thought or even know.

I guess as it relates to this thread, I consider a singer musical if they're really thinking about the music and complimenting. In the same way that a drummer can either play with musicality or not, I think singing can be similar.
 
Yeah, there are singers who don't have any understanding of what they're doing, but you could say that about plenty of instrumentalists also. Meanwhile, I know singers who have substantial background in the training of their voice, including shaping their mouths, controlling air flow, controlling vibrato, exercising their range, etc. I also know singers who have substantial training in music theory, particularly jazz singers who improvise. And then, there are the classical vocalists, whose voices are unquestionably instruments.

At the same time, I know bass players who play only by pattern and don't know any theory or even sometimes what key they're playing in. I know many instrumentalists who can't read music, and some who can't even recognize a musical phrase.

And of course I know drummers who aren't aware of chord changes, dynamics, written notation, etc., in the music they play.

Since drummers are so often considered non-musicians because of not producing specific pitches, I think we drummers shouldn't be hesitant to credit the human voice as a musical instrument. It wasn't too long ago that I heard a band leader in a rehearsal saying, "OK, let me hear just the instruments and the drums." So, you know, glass houses and all that.

There you go. All salient points.

I believe singers are musicians. I believe drummers are musicians. We all perform music.

The discussion about whether someone who plays, even though they suck, is completely different, though. I think they are still musicians, though I hate to besmirch the name. They just aren't competent. The guy who changes a light switch isn't an electrician, and the guy who just picks up someone else's guitar and learns a chord or two isn't a musician. But someone who plays regularly is, even if they stink, in my opinion. We just wish they would stop, lol.

Larry's story of the guy with over 100 guitars reminds me of a "bass player" who used to come to jams. He was trying to learn to read, but he'd crack under pressure and forget everything, and he had absolutely no ability to hear if he was playing a correct note. It was horrendous. I tried to get him to just listen so he could hear how his part fit, but he literally could not hear if he was playing the right parts. Not even the root of the most basic chords in the most basic rock song.

Nice guy, and tried hard, but he'll never be a good musician. Maybe he falls under the category of beginning musician? Talentless musician? lol Who knows.
 
Pavarotti couldn't read music very well, and I'm not aware that he could play an instrument, but I'd like to hear anybody argue convincingly that he wasn't a musician.
 
I believe what Bermuda's looking for here is not value judgements but useful words with universally understood meanings. A word is not very useful unless we all agree on what it means.

We're lacking a useful verbal distinction between someone who sings and someone who plays an instrument, and between groups that sing, and groups that play instruments. I think we all agree that singing isn't LESS important than playing an instrument, but it is different than playing an instrument.

The best way we have to denote the difference is to use "singer" and "musician" as words with different meanings. That doesn't mean singers are not musically skilled.

Purists can use "Instrumentalist" vs "Singer" but it's awkward.

As to the secondary distinction between "real musicians" and those who play, but not musically, we're stuck with adjectives, as in "She is a superb guitar player" or "He's a crummy bassist".
 
You and I appear to be alone in that perspective.

It's worth noting that musical compositions often list music and lyric credits separately, indicating that lyrics are not music. There's a distinction between the two, so wouldn't that apply to the performance of those entities as well?



Agreed, although I understand that the perception of vocalists as musicians, and a band is made up of musicians, would cause someone to call a vocal group a band. The first concept begets the second.

So I guess if someone calls Demi Movato a musician, but refuses to call Backstreet Boys a band, they're being a hypocrite. :)

Bermuda

IDK, music is so monetized today that I don't really care what they call themselves. Boy bands...I'm OK with that. I know it usually means just the singers. It's just a term. Frankly I'm surprised that a well seasoned musician such as yourself, doesn't consider the human voice an instrument.

And the separation between music and lyrics...I guess I consider the lyrics to be a deeply musical contribution. The lyrics, in many ways dictate the feel of the music. Like if there are dark lyrics, I wouldn't want them paired with a bouncy happy feeling tune. Like Imagine the tune "Walking on Sunshine" with the lyrics from "War Pigs" There would be a disconnect for me. So lyrics are an integral part of music to me, when they are there. I don't differentiate. Just another ingredient of music.

I'm not getting how the voice is not an instrument. It makes sound and the pitch can vary. The user of that voice has to manipulate their vocal chords, they have to understand and hear pitch, they have to control the air passing over the vocal chords, and they have to instill the lyric with human emotion, which you really can't quantify. Among many other things. I feel that more than qualifies as an instrument.

Music resists definition. I'm glad about that. It's mysterious and wonderful.

I think we all agree that singing isn't LESS important than playing an instrument, but it is different than playing an instrument.

I have to respectfully disagree with the ending words of this statement. What differences are there between "playing" a human voice and say a saxophone? They are both manipulating air, changing their mouth shape, producing pitches etc. To me that's like saying a beat box guy isn't a drummer because he is playing his body instead of a drum. I'm so not getting this.
 
The best way we have to denote the difference is to use "singer" and "musician" as words with different meanings. That doesn't mean singers are not musically skilled.

Purists can use "Instrumentalist" vs "Singer" but it's awkward.

As to the secondary distinction between "real musicians" and those who play, but not musically, we're stuck with adjectives, as in "She is a superb guitar player" or "He's a crummy bassist".

I understand what you mean, but to me the hierarchy is something like

I) Musician
-------A)Vocalist
----------i)Singer
----------ii)Beat Boxer
----------iii)Rapper
----------iv)Whatever

-------B)Instrumentalist
----------i)Violinist
----------ii)Guitarist
----------iii)Bassist
----------iv)Drummer
----------v)Whatever

That's not scientifically thought out and analyzed - I'm winging it at work, lol. My point is, we already have the terminology in place. It may seem awkward to use it precisely, but it's there. We just have to decide how precise we need to be in a given situation.

Sometimes I'm in agreement with the sentiment, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
 
Last edited:
The best way we have to denote the difference is to use "singer" and "musician" as words with different meanings. That doesn't mean singers are not musically skilled.

Nor was I suggesting that. I appreciate the musicality that goes into singing well. I just don't think that makes someone who doesn't play an instrument, a musician.

Purists can use "Instrumentalist" vs "Singer" but it's awkward.

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but I'd agree with that. Maybe "player" vs. "singer" is less cumbersome. Then again, only musicians tend to use the term player. My argument stems from hearing singers as musicians as mentioned on variety shows, the news, etc. If they used the word player, it would probably sound weird.

Bermuda
 
So, does rapping qualify as singing?

Or, what if it's just a beat with a rap to it?

Is it even music?

My formatting was changed when I posted, but I listed rap under vocalist, but separate from singer. lol
 
I consider a singer to be a musician. The voice is an instrument one needs to practice to be good at. A karaoke singer not so much.
 
So, does rapping qualify as singing?

Or, what if it's just a beat with a rap to it?

Is it even music?

Those are also much-discussed topics among musicians. Rapping is technically singing. Even if it's amelodic (I think I just invented a new word!) it's rhythmic, and certainly a vocal.

I would also argue that rap as a genre is music.

But it is interesting that rappers are referred to as rappers, not singers or musicians. It's a specific, correct designation IMO, for those who just rap.

Bermuda
 
Back
Top