Is a singer a musician?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 04:21 AM

From: Johnny J
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 05:34 AM

How does this apply to Rap artists? Not that I think there's much in the way of music there.....

That one's easy.
There's:
A-Singers
B-Instrumentalists
C-Rap

(The final hyphen may not have been necessary)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:16 AM

WEll your fault for mis describing him thus Steve Gardham ~ as you know there are (nowadays) many different audiences and a sophisticated awkward bunch they are too!!

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 03:50 PM

:D You're forgiven. Auchentoshan insists... ;-)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 03:12 PM

"I may never forgive you.."
A Lidl lapse Raedwulf
Can't afford Middleton and have to be in the mood for Jameson - I'm not keen on the rest
I'm a Scotch malt man Laphroig at heart, but Highland Park will do
Cheers
Jim

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 02:57 PM

The term 'vocal music' says it all for me

Indeed, Jim. You might have included 'instrumental music' in the statement mind. ;-) Different sorts of music with very different & definite defining characteristics (one might talk about 'classical', 'folk', 'heavy metal', etc...). But all music, when all is said & done. If it ain't to your taste, hard luck; enjoy the fact that someone else enjoys it... And run away from it as fast as possible! ;-)

P.S. Bourbon? When there's good Irish whiskey to be had?! I may never forgive you... :p

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 02:37 PM

In the 70s I booked that Fred Jordan for a festival concert. I billed him as a brilliant musician. The place was packed but they all asked for their money back at the end. Mind you, he did spend half an hour tuning his vocal cords.

I'll get me coat!

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

"My head hurts!"
Mine too - but that's more about the Bourbon I consumed last night
THis isn't really important, but what is important is that, if you want to be in any way a proficient singer you need to treat your voice as a musical instrument and master it in the same way
MacColl always made a bign thing of this when he worked with other singers; he evolved a series of exercises to keep the voice in good shape - still works for me nearly fifty years later
Below are excepts fom a long series of interviews we did with him in the early 1980s
Jim Caaarroll

Recording 4.
“Now you might say that working and training to develop your voice to sing Nine Maidens A-milking Did Go or Lord Randall is calculated to destroy your original joy in singing, at least that’s the argument that’s put to me from time to time, or has been put to me from time to time by singers who should know better.
The better you can do a thing the more you enjoy it. Anybody who’s ever tried to sing and got up in front of an audience and made a bloody mess of it knows that you’re not enjoying it when you’re making a balls of it, but you are enjoying it when it’s working, when all the things you want to happen are happening. And that can happen without training, sure it can, but it’s hit or miss. If you’re training it can happen more, that’s the difference. It can’t happen every time, not with anybody, although your training can stand you in good stead, it’s something to fall back on, a technique, you know. It’s something that will at least make sure that you’re not absolutely diabolical         
The objective, really for the singer is to create a situation where when he starts to sing he’s no longer worried about technique; he’s done all that, and he can give the whole of his or her attention to the song itself, she can give her or he can give his whole attention to the sheer act of enjoying the song”.
(Interview tape 3).

This is what he said in response to the often repeated claims that traditional singers did not concern themselves with technique but produced their songs “naturally” without thought or preparation; in other words unconsciously.

“I believe that this notion really begins in the Romantic Movement. It begins with that notion of the rude, unlettered hind with a heart of gold and all the rest of it. Basically, today, I see it as a very reactionary and very bourgeois point of view. I think it stems from a belief that the working class are incapable of doing anything which demands a high level of expertise and a high level of skill, particularly in the creative field.
How is it possible then, that this body of music that we call folk song and folk music, traditional song, traditional music, whatever you like to call it, how is it possible that this, which has been made by labourers, seamen and all the rest of it, should have, should demand this level of expertise, should demand this high level of craftsmanship on the part of its performers. “No”, they say, “the songs are simple”, and all the rest of it. And that is nonsense; that is utter nonsense.
To some extent it’s the same idea that the nineteenth century English folk song collectors had about the music itself; they talked about it being simple, “the simple music of unlettered people”. But unlettered there is used as a pejorative term, as though the ability to read and write is all important. The implication being that if you can read and write, then you are going to be a better singer than if you can’t read or write, and we know that’s nonsense.
It’s this snob thing and it’s the snob thing which makes them say “you don’t need to work at it; you don’t need a high level of craftsmanship to perform this.
The best of folk music in the world, wherever it comes from, whether it’s a Joe Heaney or whether it’s that young man singing those Azerbaijani songs, is full of the most extraordinary expertise, full of the most extraordinary physical ideas, vocal ideas I mean, I mean physical in the vocal sense”.
(Interview, tape three).

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 09:41 AM

I can see your point Jim 'diddling' or 'mouth music' is using the voice as a substitute musical instrument. But as you say it turns to the philosophical and semantics and subsets when you have an ordinary singer. As far as I'm concerned my late father was a singer not a musician, and he used musicians to back him up. As a whole band they were musicians. But within the subset my old man was a singer, not himself a musician    Whereas my brother who was originally my father's backing musician and harmoniser -is a musician who now sings to his own backing! This one just goes round! Everybody is right though! My head hurts!

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 03:49 AM

The term 'vocal music' says it all for me
It's a long tome since I read Bruno Netl's 'Primitive Music' and John Blacking's 'How Musical is Man' which were both influential in persuading me that the voice was man's first musical instrument - time I read them again, I think
'Click music' and mimicking animals for food gathering (like imitating bees for honey-gathering) - are very early examples of the voice being used as a musical instrument
More recently, the voice being used to produce music for dancing when there are no musical instruments available, or in Scotland for retaining the subtleties of tunes.
The voice is basically a tool used to communicate ideas - once you use it for something else it becomes what it is used for
This is basically a philosophical point, same as - if you are caught in flood and turn a table upside down to escape, does it become a boat?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 05 Apr 18 - 03:20 AM

My view is that the voice was in fact the first and original musical instrument that god gave us and probably all music was devised with the voice in mind! and used as a bench mark for scales and keys etc

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 04 Apr 18 - 06:20 PM

Rossey - No, the voice is not an instrument, but your claim that a musician must play an instrument is not supported by e.g. the OED! See my response to Ray, 05:57AM, 27/3. Also, a less serious response to Andy7 at 09:04 21/3.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 18 - 05:08 PM

Mmm. Ray this is more philosophical. The voice is not an instrument. By definition an instrument is an external object altered or utilised to play sounds. A voice is just internal, natural and only metaphorically an instrument. Ok you sing and perform music... but it is not learning a skill to play an external note producing object.. but anyway, everybody is right and wrong. depending on the angle you come at! Some singers are trained or train themselves to use their metaphorical vocal instrument. I would call this one debatable (but no winner either side!) A good pub argument, that might end up in someone banging their head off the table in frustration, or possibly banging someone else's head off the table!

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 04 Apr 18 - 02:39 AM

NO your father was a singer, he sang a tune however good or bad and also sang a set of words
The voice is a musical instrument ~ singers are musicians

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 03 Apr 18 - 07:17 PM

At the end of the day. a musician plays an external object which has been converted or facilitated to make sounds. Musicians may also sing. Singers who only use their voice, only play a metaphorical internal instrument. My father was a singer, he sure as hell wasn't a musician. My brother is a musician who also sings. But anybody who performs music could join the Musician's Union.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 18 - 05:23 PM

i met that woman i had to tell her to desist from murdering a dead goat 100 where is leadfingers?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Jim bainbridge
Date: 30 Mar 18 - 01:58 PM

I once picked up a Dutch hitch hiker in West Cork & after a short conversation she told me she was a musician
Next weekend, I encountered her at a local 'trad' session, where she played a very unrhythmic bodhran .
Now I sing and accompany myself- do I qualify as a musician even if my instrument is the melodeon?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 08:25 PM

"Definitions of music exist which might exclude singers, solo instrumentalists or percussionists, etc."

Yup, lots of them. Which adhere in vast and populous regions of the world. You might even have someone who lives next door who follows such a definition. And it's equally valid as distinguishing between singing and speaking... though both acts involve the use of voice to make sound that varies in pitch, timbre, and rhythm. Yet somehow one's vocal sounds magically become singing, and this "singing" becomes "music."

It seems to me more understandable (albeit no more "correct") that someone would distinguish between vocal expression in sound and an instrumental expression in sound, and to place the latter in a separate category ("music").

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 03:37 PM

Definitions of music exist which might exclude singers, solo instrumentalists or percussionists, etc. They fall down because there is no inherent exclusiveness in the art form, but rather an inability of the English language to express the whole by its constituent parts. Just because an aspect is left out doesn't mean that it isn't valid for inclusion.

DC

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 12:34 PM

A singer is certainly a musician, Ray. I think we all mostly agreed on that a while ago. And the OED's claim for 'harmony' do make things awkward, dunnit?! ;-)

The grey areas where spoken word or rhythm shades into music... I've no idea, mate. As Johnny wisely says (sort of), "It may not be to my tastes, but if you think you're a musician... You probably are!" ;-)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: RTim
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 12:25 PM

Or - many ways....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORSniDUdUFM

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: RTim
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 12:17 PM

You can sing and harmonize with yourself...as in Tuvan Throat Singing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8hrhBZJ98

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 11:32 AM

The melody and rhythm is the tune ~ one note alone can be the music

which needs to be voiced by one word (alone) if need be ~ the question

does not say anything about instrumental accompaniment ~ a singer is a

musician ~ simply by singing words and a tune ~ where does harmony come

into it? Difficult to harmonise with oneself

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 10:12 AM

On the subject of unaccompanied singers, I haven't heard any that sing without "melody and rhythm" - As for harmony loads of groups of unaccompanied singers are famous for their harmonies. Then of course no-one can truly call themselves a "singer" if they have to have accompaniment to sing.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Johnny J
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 07:04 AM

Years ago, the accepted consensus seemed to be that a piece of music needed to have melody, rhythm, and harmony....all three.

Of course, this would exclude unaccompanied singers, solo melody players and so on. Therefore, this definition doesn't sit easy with me. Of course, many songs and tunes have their own inherent rhythm which can also be accentuated by individual singers and players.

So, while the melody is the most mportant thing for me, songs or instrumental pieces which are entirely rhythmic could arguably also be described as musical. Therefore, I was probably being a bit harsh re "rap" albeit it's not something that's too my taste. However, I still think of it as a form of poetry which may or may not be performed to a musical backing.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 05:57 AM

I'm not sure that that has any relevance to my last comment, Ray, and in any case, I'd have to disagree. You can sing a song on a single note & it is still a song. Moreover, your "tune" disqualifies drummers, who don't play a tune, as musicians. Music requires rhythm as well, or it becomes a morass of noise. A poem, spoken properly, has rhythm, and therefore has musicality. Is it music? I don't know where I'd draw the line. Shakespeare, on the page, is verse and, again, spoken properly has rhythm & musicality, but I know I wouldn't call that music; it remains a play, a performance.

I do recall visiting a storytelling / music festival at St Donats some years back, somewhere around 2000 (erk!). There was an epic poet from a Central Asian former Soviet republic. He, apparently, could perform for hours from memory. He spoke no English, but chanted (i.e. sung on one note) whatever fragment from his people's epics he had chosen. I didn't understand a word, but it was interesting to watch & listen to as a performance. I've performed the same way myself. I've also seen both Stomp, and the Kodo drummers from Japan - no tunes involved, but the Kodo drummers certainly are musicians, so surely Stomp are not merely "performance artists"?

My OED defines music as "The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion." The inclusion of harmony seems odd, possibly outdated to me - a lot of modern music is deliberately decidedly unharmonious! Moreover, the definition apparently disqualifies singers and soloists on many instruments - you have to have two notes for harmony to come into play! And again this would appear to exclude drummers as musicians. I can't tell you precisely where I think something starts being music, all I can say is I can't accept a definition that excludes drummers!

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Johnny J
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 05:34 AM

How does this apply to Rap artists? Not that I think there's much in the way of music there.....

Although there may be some "music" as backing, the lyrics themselves usually don't have a melody.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 27 Mar 18 - 04:49 AM

Apples can exist without oranges ~ Songs sung cannot exist without music (they be come poems) tunes are used to create music and words sung are the song

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 26 Mar 18 - 05:46 PM

Bignige - if you're taking my Venn thing at face value (and why not? I think it is actually more or less the right way of analysing it), then no. Singer is a set / label; singer is another set / label. They are distinct, different items. It's possible to like both apples & oranges, and both are fruit, but an apple is not an orange.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 23 Mar 18 - 03:32 AM

Question was "is a singer a musician?" yes yes yes

An instrumentalist is ~~~~~

Singers sing and are musicians as they accompany themselves by singing their one accompaniment [the tune]

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,paperback
Date: 22 Mar 18 - 02:01 PM

Political correctness run amok

Don't Broadway musicals consist of singing?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Bignige
Date: 22 Mar 18 - 12:21 PM

So can someone who only plays an instrument call himself a singer?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 03:19 PM

*big grin* ;-)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Andy7
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 09:22 AM

Thanks for the corrections, Raedwulf; lucky I didn't publish that paper! ;-)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 09:04 AM

Nice try, Andy, but logic failure. :p A musician isn't a number, so can't be reduced to an equation. A musician is a label i.e. a class or set item. Not an equation, but a Venn diagram (for which there is actually notation; but it's notation not an equation).

Musician & non-musician are sets that do not overlap.

Singer is a set within musician, as is instrumentalist.

Singer & instrumentalist may or may not overlap, but both must lie (through their back teeth, if you've met some of the ones I have; they're as bad as fishermen!) wholly within musician.

Therefore, regardless of bathroom or opera house, they can never overlap non-musician.

So there! ;-)

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 07:32 AM

"being an instrumentalist signifies playing an external musical instrument,"
No dictionary definition excludes the voice as a musical instrument, therefore anybody who has one is one!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Andy7
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 06:12 AM

There's been a lot of discussion on here about who is, or is not, a musician; but in fact, a musician is not even a musician!

Here’s my proof.

Let us take an accomplished singer, A, who can play no musical instrument other than her voice.

By any reasonable definition, the human voice is a musical instrument. And a musician is someone who plays a musical instrument.

Therefore, A = musician.

Now let us take an accomplished harp player, B.

Is B also a musician? Yes, from the definition of ‘musician’.

And is B an instrumentalist? Yes again, as the word signifies playing an ‘external’ musical instrument.

Therefore, B = instrumentalist = musician.

But is A an instrumentalist? No; as already stated, being an instrumentalist signifies playing an external musical instrument, such as the harp; and A can play no instrument other than her voice.

Therefore, A = non-instrumentalist.

But instrumentalist = musician, therefore non-instrumentalist = non-musician.

A = musician, but also, A = non-instrumentalist = non-musician.

Therefore, musician = non-musician.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 05:03 AM

But is a bodhran owner a musician?

But, but, but it can be tuneable!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dny2iaosTpE

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 21 Mar 18 - 04:04 AM

Quality of singer ~ folk/bathroom to opera ~ Quality of musicianship ~ guitar/mouth organ ~ concert pianist

Ray

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 20 Mar 18 - 06:02 PM

Raedwulf--

I'm not seeking agreement. It's not my opinion; I am conveying how a certain people or culture conceptualize their world.

The mistake, in my opinion, would be to fail to acknowledge that with the culturally constructed concept of "music" (as opposed to the universal or scientific object, sound) one will find variation in these ideas about who is a "musician." In some cases, the concept of musician may not exist at all. And it would be a mistake to treat this as merely a pedant issue since, as I have demonstrated by example, a society's view of individuals in relation to "music" affects a host of other issues of value, status, and meaning.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Mar 18 - 05:15 PM

Gibb - Thank you, it's an interesting point of view. I'm not sure you'll get much agreement round here, but I enjoyed reading it. For my own part, I can wholly understand the "low status" of musicians - I'm a (somewhat lapsed) medieval re-enactor. Whilst musicians were a very desirable part of the world, the vast majority were also, most definitely, low status. I'm rather more perplexed by the notion that someone who sings is a singer, someone who plays the drums is a drummer, but someone that play the sitar is not a sitarist (or whatever), but simply a musician!

To me, they're all creating, or perhaps I should say "making", music. They may not be creating something original, but they're all musicians to me.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: r.padgett
Date: 20 Mar 18 - 06:15 AM

A singer must have a basic tune to sing to surely ~ the words are sung to music, that is a tune ~ this I understand as far as folk is concerned (the tune) in traditional unaccompanied terms will and does change with each performance (that is where sung unaccompanied!)

The singer is making music every time he/she sings ~ the tune is basic ~ yes add an instrument and the tune as a vehicle will certainly be more uniform but will still differ even only to a small degree ~ am instrument is not needed to make music!

The voice is an instrument conveying both tune and words or mouth sounds together!

Ray

So a singer is a musician!! sheesh

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 18 - 05:45 AM

A personal note
Ewan MacColl ran a weekly singers workshop for those who wished to improve their singing for nearly ten year - he didn't 'teach', but set up a situation where a singer sang in front of the group, their singing was discussed analytically in 'strengths/weaknesses' terms and the listeners would throw in suggestions as to how the singing could be improved - a couple of the suggestions were then chosen and worked on for around an hour
MacColl acted as chairman, but in preparation, he had devised basic voice and relaxation exercises to assist he singers in "exploring" their own voice in order to learn to control and extend it.
The argument was that the human voice was yur own personal musical instrument and in order to make a good job of a song you learned how to use it as you would a fiddle or a violin
THe work fell into two parts - technical voice work and song analysis in order to make the songs your own
For the first, MacColl had drawn on Laben's theory of movement and efforts, which he had been adapted for his Theatre Workshop days in order to teach actors to learn to move on stage
For the second part, he drew on Stanislavski's 'application of the idea of "If" and "emotion memory"
It all may sound complicated and 'high falutin' but it was remarkably easily understandable and incredibly effective - and very quick and easy to apply once you grasped the basics - it still works for my singing (especially for adding new songs or refreshing old ones for my repertoire) after nearly half-a-century
A group like MacColl's can work with as few as three or four people and cn be a one-off or a regular event
Beats being "taught" by singing from a handed-out song-sheet any day
"but might not be great art"
All art lied in the eye or ear of the beholder
Traditional singing can be as high or even higher than the best of classical singing - go listen to Bert Lloyd's ' Folk Music Virtuoso' for proof of this
I've yet to hear a classical singer break their voice into two parts as could the Mongolian 'Throat Singers' or a classical choir produce a sound as magic as the Genoese longshoremen's Tralalere groups
Traditional ballad singing and composition - the high-watermark of our singing traditions are examples of high art in both composition and performance and they require as much thought and attention as any Verdi opera
THey are "the art of the people" - something to be proud of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 18 - 03:14 AM

Quite a long dissertation on contrived ridiculousness....people who make music, are musicians, using an instrument or their voice....and BTW, in NO WAY does that also make them an 'artist'.....that would depend on if their music was 'art'.
Art for therapy my be great therapy, but might not be great art....think about it.

GfS

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 10:07 PM

I study this these sorts of questions in my work as an ethnomusicologist, particularly in the context of Punjabi culture. Speaking generally and customarily, in that cultural context you need (non-vocal) "melody"instruments to have "music." Therefore, singing without instruments is not music (it's singing). And drumming without melodic instruments is drumming. One who sings is not a musicians, s/he is a singer, and one who drums is a drummer, though often called a musician if part of a performance of "music." "Music" does not have a prestigious ring to it, so, contrary to some of the statements above, it is not to rob a skilled singer from some sort of prestige by not calling her/him a musician. Indeed, singers (non-musicians) escape the low status ascribed to musicians, who are by definition "professionals." Before jumping to say that the Punjabi way of thinking is backwards or strange, think of the way a sex worker is a "professional." One would think that she/he is good at sex and should get more respect for being a sex-technician, but that tends not to be the case in Western societies. So, in traditional Punjabi society, one sings or plays certain types of percussion without being labeled musician, and musicians are understood to be the best at what they do yet ascribed a low social status for doing it. One avoids playing instruments as this is what musicians -- people of low status -- do. This is not to say that in India/Pakistan it is impossible to play an instrument as an amateur, but rather that when one does one either does so under the penalty of a certain social judgement or (more frequently) those who do so are individuals whose social privileges allow them to, in a way, transcend the traditional values and exchange them for Western values or live oblivious to social norms... or else to engage another framework of understanding. One of these other frameworks is religion, in which the usual "rules" don't apply to someone if their act is one of religious devotion. As I would explain it, the person playing a musical instrument in the act of / for the purpose of religious devotion is not "creating music" but rather engaging in a devotion and so neither do they receive the stigma of playing music nor the title of musician. A more modern, Western framework is that of art -- where similarly the objective of making "art," especially in an abstract sense and for no monetary compensation, in effect purifies the act of playing music. This person could be called a musician, I think, but is more preferably called an artist.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 03:44 PM

GUEST,Morris-ey asks the following:

"Perhaps then Observer might explain how, if notation was a way in which the composers music could be "faithfully performed", why (in classical music particularly) the same symphony, performed by the same orchestra under different conductors, might vary in duration by many minutes, why certain parts are emphasised more or less, why a conductor is required at all?"

GUEST,Morris-ey what you are talking about is performance. What I was talking about was playing the piece. Now here is what I actually said:

"either can be given the sheet music of a piece that they have never, ever seen or heard performed before and play, or sing, that piece exactly as the composer intended it to be heard".

Kenny asks me how I can possibly know that? I know that for certain because that is why a system of notation for writing down music was invented and evolved - It was done so that a composers work could be faithfully performed without the musicians playing ever having heard it played before."

The Conductor interprets and directs the performance of the entire orchestra ( so something like 70-odd "professional musicians") who may never have heard the piece played before - the Conductor's job is to get them all playing it under his direction. Some Conductors are better than others, each want to make their mark. Some succeed others do not. None of that detracts from the fact that the ability to read music allows somebody to play something that they have never heard before exactly as the composer intended it to be played.

To GUEST,Andiliqueur, I agree with your posts, and thanks for the thread. I trust that you will continue to enjoy your singing and I am sure your audience will too.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 02:33 PM

i think it depends on whether you go for the baked beans, tomato or the extra egg option.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 01:38 PM

" The human voice is the only instrument on the planet that pronounces words, so for God's sake, pronounce the words, and do not hide behind 'style', or your accompanying instrument(s)".....Giorgio Tozzi

Giorgio was a close friend of mine, when I lived in Malibu... We saw each other, with his wife Monty, every school day for about two years. He was also the vocal coach for Neil Diamond, Robert Plant, Barbra Streisand, and Frank Sinatra....among others, including Michael Llona, who vocals on This piece, 'My Lady' .........and this one, 'What Would You Do?'....Notice the similarity with all the aforementioned vocalists....you can hear EVERY word, sung.....He coached Robert Plant later in Plant's career, after Led Zeppelin.

Giorgio, also was a PhD. and professor at Julliard....

....Hope that answers your question!

GfS

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Morris-ey
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 12:46 PM

Observer said:

"either can be given the sheet music of a piece that they have never, ever seen or heard performed before and play, or sing, that piece exactly as the composer intended it to be heard".

Kenny asks me how I can possibly know that? I know that for certain because that is why a system of notation for writing down music was invented and evolved - It was done so that a composers work could be faithfully performed without the musicians playing ever having heard it played before."

Perhaps then Observer might explain how, if notation was a way in which the composers music could be "faithfully performed", why (in classical music particularly) the same symphony, performed by the same orchestra under different conductors, might vary in duration by many minutes, why certain parts are emphasised more or less, why a conductor is required at all?

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: radriano
Date: 19 Mar 18 - 11:47 AM

Yes! A singer is a musician. The voice has been called the most complex instrument.

Subject: RE: Is a singer a musician?
From: GUEST,Andiliqueur
Date: 16 Mar 18 - 11:51 PM

Ok,ok we've exhausted the topic! I still found your comments interesting so thank you.