talkmagic.co.uk

Maybe an odd question for General Magic, but I believe it has some relevance here.

So, does somebody need to be able to play lots of different instruments, learning some they don't wish to use?

Is there one type of instrument, or section, i.e, string, brass etc, that is classed as the definitive for being able to be called a musician?

Do they have to be able to create music, or just play other people's music?

Those are just a few ideas, but I would like to hear from those that are musicians and those that aren't, to discover their own views.

Maybe asking about music, rather than magic, means we get a better mix of answers, than asking the same, (as has been done many times before) about magic. I believe this way, with the mix of musicians and non musicians, we may begin to think about the PUBLIC perception of what makes somebody a magician. Maybe it isn't as strict as magicians feel it is?

You are a musician when you can play a range of tunes on an instrument. You are a professional musician when someone pays you.
It won't be me; I dislike music.

I'm not a musician, but i play the guitar and bass guitar. I'm actually quite good at playing the bass guitar and have a couple of different ones (Fretless, acoustic, six string bass)

The reason I say "I just play a bit of bass" is because my knowledge of theory is tiny and I mostly just play pieces of music I like (cover others songs)

A musician in my opinion is in a band (or performs solo) and writes their own stuff

IMHO: A musician performs music. A magician performs magic. The commonality is that they need to perform and not just practice. I don't think that competence has any bearing on the label. One can, after all, be a rubbish musician/magician etc...

TonyB wrote:You are a musician when you can play a range of tunes on an instrument. You are a professional musician when someone pays you.
It won't be me; I dislike music.

I am always deeply concerned when I hear people say that they do not enjoy music.

TonyB wrote:You are a musician when you can play a range of tunes on an instrument.

Technically not. You would be a pianist, guitarist etc.

I would say a musician is a professional. You wouldn't say to someone you were a musician unless you were professional. Plus if someone played the guitar really well at a party, I wouldn't say the person was an excellent musician, I would say they were "good on the guitar".

But its different with magic, because being able to do magic is 'rarer' than playing an instrument. If someone saw you perform they would class you as a magician. But I suppose that depends on the level of performance, if you whack out a few card tricks then you are 'the guy who does card tricks' and not a magician.

So in conclusion, who knows

Kev

It seems that technically a musician is a generic term for someone who is involved in the creation of music, composing or performing it. If you perform music on your own I guess that counts, which contradicts what I wrote above.

Wikipedia wrote:A musician is a person who writes, performs, or makes music. Musicians can be classified by their roles in creating or performing music.

An instrumentalist plays a musical instrument.

A multi-instrumentalist plays a diverse range of instruments such as different forms of percussion, plucked strings, vocals etc.

A singer is a vocalist.

Composers, songwriters and arrangers create musical compositions, songs and arrangements. These may be transcribed in music notation, performed or recorded.

A conductor leads a musical ensemble. A conductor can simultaneously act as an instrumentalist in the ensemble.

A recording artist creates recorded music, such as CDs and MP3 files.

There are many forms of musicians. From classical artist to rock artist. The spectrum is so diverse that there is no limitation to a musician's qualifications.

Now, if we want to turn this thread into a controversy, we could use 'magician' as the generic term and create sub-categories like bizarrist, mentalist, children's entertainer etc. But that way thread-locking lies...

Ted wrote:Now, if we want to turn this thread into a controversy, we could use 'magician' as the generic term and create sub-categories like bizarrist, mentalist, children's entertainer etc. But that way thread-locking lies...

Not at all.

In fact, the idea is to gain some insight into peoples thoughts, but for them to think about musicians, rather than magicians, as A, they have to think about answers, rather than write the normal answers when "magician" is used. B, most people would be giving their thoughts as members of the public, listening to and watching musicians.

That way, your views of musicians may better reflect the views of non magicians, towards magicians.

Thank you to all who have contributed so far. I feel we need to distance ourselves from magicians, to be able to see where we can improve, in the publics eye, rather than in views of other magicians.

Duplicity wrote:

TonyB wrote:You are a musician when you can play a range of tunes on an instrument. You are a professional musician when someone pays you.
It won't be me; I dislike music.

I am always deeply concerned when I hear people say that they do not enjoy music.

True. It seems quite unhuman.


This is a meaningless question. Words are words. What does it matter how people choose to use them? There is no government or god bestowed correct and universal language.

Additionally, categories are unreal. No two 'musicians' will ever be the same in their tastes, abilities or diversity.

Talking of diversity though, there is an old Russian proverb: 'if you chase two hares you'll catch neither'. I live to defy it; but 'if you chase two hares you become an accomplished chaser- determination will accomplish all things- and the existance of two seperate hares is analogously erroneous' does not have much ring to it.

Having said that, I think it is absolutley correct that you say we need to become detatched from magic in order to become any good at it. To look at magic through those same fragmenting eyes dims the relevant background in which magic is a contigent part of a more integrated atmosphere, an understanding of which brings greater insight into magic in general. Such is true for all spheres of human understanding and in fact of all of human understanding itself.

SamGurney wrote:True. It seems quite unhuman.

Really? (Double "really?" in fact.)

My father doesn't much care for music, as he is tone deaf (his "singing" has to be heard to be believed). It's just how he is.

Torturing animals for fun = worrying sign.

Not enjoying music = just one of those things.

SamGurney wrote:This is a meaningless question. Words are words. What does it matter how people choose to use them? There is no government or god bestowed correct and universal language.

Having said that, I think it is absolutley correct that you say we need to become detatched from magic in order to become any good at it. To look at magic through those same fragmenting eyes dims the relevant background in which magic is a contigent part of a more integrated atmosphere, an understanding of which brings greater insight into magic in general. Such is true for all spheres of human understanding and in fact of all of human understanding itself.

The question isn't meaningless then!

Maybe it is that people aren't THINKING about their views, as members of the public. Music has diversity, which is also true of magic. The question seems to have been answered by some, in exactly the same way that they would if I had said "magician". The idea was to make people think about their perceptions of magic and magicians, in a different way. Maybe their views, which may have been held and believed for years, may benefit from this. Views held for years and frim belief in those may be correct. Or they may now have become a habit. This thread is meant to challange people, to take an honest, hard look, from a slightly different angle. It may not change those views, which may be 100% correct. I would have hoped it would have provoked more thought, and more thought out answers, than there has been.
I don't think it is the question at fault. Just people maybe not understanding the whole range of questions and ideas the question can bring up.

I didn't actually reply on the main point, but I think it underlines the reason for many of the pointless arguments I've seen on magic forums. Words are slippery and sometimes it's hard to nail down exactly what some things mean, because there is no one right answer.

Part-Timer wrote:I didn't actually reply on the main point, but I think it underlines the reason for many of the pointless arguments I've seen on magic forums. Words are slippery and sometimes it's hard to nail down exactly what some things mean, because there is no one right answer.

The right answer is YOUR point of view. We all have different views, but who is to say which is right? I am just asking people to THINK about their own views.

Strange, but elsewhere this isn't thought of as a pointless question and has given more thoughts for discussion and thought.

Maybe I should just ask the normal "which card trick is best" question?

I fail to see what the fuss is about not liking music. I find it about as relevant and as entertaining as listening to traffic. I have also managed to get to forty five without seeing a football game of any sort, either live or on television. We are all different; we don't all like music, and we don't all like movies.
My dream is of a world with nothing but talk radio - and none of the stations cover sport. A shame it is only a dream.

TonyB wrote:I fail to see what the fuss is about not liking music. I find it about as relevant and as entertaining as listening to traffic.

Which, the fuss or music?

I wasn't fussing, I was simply saying that I find it quite unhuman to be neutral to music. Music is something quite unique to humans, as language is and quite fundamental as the passions are, and as Nietzche said- music is food for the passions. I find being unaffected by music of any kind, The Beatles, Bob Marley, Led Zeppelin... quite unhuman. I also find sexual neutrality quite unhuman. But I mean no more by it than that, I would not abandon a friend if they said they didn't like music or sex and I wouldn't make a fuss, but I would still consider that aspect of them unhuman. Some people consider the fact that I don't care about football to be quite unhuman, and they are entitled to. They are most probably correct and being called unhuman is perhaps the most flattering compliment I could be given. E.t.c. E.t.c. Anyway, if it didn't before, this 'fuss' now certainly is less interesting than listening to a trafic jam.


Part-time is right, words are slippery and to that property of them, hours of uninteresting, nonsensical debate can be attributed.

Miles more magic- I have no problem with you provoking people to thought. In fact I wish you luck, as from my understanding of most people, you will certainly need it. Don't take it personally when I don't really understand what exactley you're trying to achieve through this question or if I say that asking what the technical meaning of a word is, is meaningless (I always say that- no dictionary has a monopoly on philosophical truth). My own advice would be for you to make a suggestion and then debate it. Please don't read any malice into my contentiousness, it is just how I tend to be.