Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum What is a musician? How do you become a musician?

First the teacher, sometimes other teachers especially in festivals or contests. Sometimes the casual listener, and at worst an audience. You can tell just by listening.

deleted - cross-post

Reality may diverge from our philosophical outlook on musical talent. Of course, as a teacher, I will teach less musical students for financial reasons, or in order to develop their ability to appreciate music and follow instructions.

Your response is suggestive of a person trying to eschew the competitive aspects of being a musician. In fact competition might be the ONE thing that increases audiences, or stretches the numbers of people studying music.

In the school system, I'm noticing less emphasis on competition as well. The trouble is that in the "real world," competition governs just about everything.

In some cultures, students are selected for opportunities based on objective criteria, whereas in our culture we labor under the illusion that opportunities need to be accessible to all who want them.

There is a difference between the opportunity being *accessible* to all who want it, and an individual teacher somehow having the "obligation" to teach anyone who comes through their door.

For many reasons, I am a challenging student to teach. Some of those reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with my musical talent or lack thereof: for one, I have a physical disability. This can make it difficult, sometimes, for me to get to lessons in the first place, and it complicates specific physical actions. Pedal use is possible but very tiring, for example. I also have epilepsy, which has no influence whatsoever on my ability to play the piano, but it does make it logistically difficult for my teacher to "deal" with me when I've had a seizure during a lesson.

I had one piano teacher in the past who refused to teach me any further after two months of lessons, because he saw in me "a student with limited potential". I think that if he didn't believe he could teach me, it was his right, even his responsibility, to say so and send me on my way. But to suggest that cultures where music students are selected purely on the basis of how much "potential" they show are somehow better off? That, to me, is one step too far.

I've found a teacher now who sees my potential despite my limitations, and who enjoys teaching me. If you asked her whether I "have it", I believe she would say yes. If you asked her whether I can be a concert pianist one day, or teach piano myself, or make my living from piano in any other way, she'd tell you that's most likely not in the cards for me. But will I enjoy playing for the rest of my life, and will I play with other people, and will I write my own music, and will I appreciate all music more because of the little slice of it that I can play myself? You bet!

So is there anything wrong with extending the opportunity for learning to people like me, who clearly don't fit the mould of the "perfect" piano student? You may still say yes. If you did, what that would tell me is that you're not the right teacher for me. And if you're not, that's perfectly fine, so long as there are still other teachers out there who want (and have the opportunity) to take me on as a student.

Two weeks ago, I was very nearly excluded from my music school because of my seizures and the logistical problems they pose. My piano teacher went to bat for me, which is the only reason I am still taking lessons at this point. I realise not everyone would have done that. To those who wouldn't have, I say: teach whoever you want in your own studio, but please don't think that we would all somehow be better off if people who don't fit your idea of the perfect piano student simply weren't taught at all.

This all makes me think of a couple of friends of mine. The wife happenned upon emails between her husband and his mistress! Of course that in itself was a shock. But then the content, oh the content! "My Adonis", "my Apollo", "my wild beast!" I dream of you doing this, doing that! She couldn't believe that her husband was like that, she didn't know this side of him, it just wasn't there between them.

In my view, music is a relationship between human beings. A very intimate relationship at that. Everyone needs it, every human being "has it". But then it is not always so easy for this precious flower to blossom, for reasons which are often difficult to pinpoint justly because they are so deep inside.

Man, I totally agree. Very nice summation of why the things most important in life do not lend themselves easily to analysis.

What is a musician? How do you become a musician?

It reminds me of a time, when I was very young, when someone asked me to define "love", and I thought I could.

(Just the thought of my answer, long ago, is rather painful today.)

I believe everyone can learn to play. It's a question of environment, social setting and/or desire.

Everyone can learn, but not every teacher can teach everyone.

This is not to say they are a bad teacher, just not able to relay it in a way that a specific individual might be able to understand.

The relationship between Teacher and Student is a process of learning how to communicate and communication of knowledge. Sometimes, that learning how to communicate cannot happen.

I think that it is much more useful to consider what should be given to a student so that he or she can develop toward whatever musicality that student might reach. I've already outlined the idea of skills and knowledge and how that intermeshes with "feeling" - either induced in the audience, or sensed in the music by the student.

Your student with innate abilities still needs to be taught. And a host of things can go wrong in this area alone.


I assume that by "our" culture you mean North America. If so, that's a culture of lip service. Opportunities are accessible to those with money, living in good areas, good schools, and access to good teachers. And even here, $$$ may be a deterrent, since music isn't seen as a money-earner --- so let's keep the child out of that frivolous nonsense.

Anyway, how about sticking with those things that will give a student a chance to develop? This is a teacher forum. What is needed to bring this about?

My last line:

is not addressed to Candywoman, and would be better worded as a suggestion, as it was actually intended. Edit time expired.

Here's a video that will make you all smile :
http://youtu.be/qTKEBygQic0

You, BostonTeacher, have won the thread. I love this video

Saranoya
I wasn't speaking of accessibility to ordinary music lessons. I'm talking about special opportunities, for instance the opportunity to study with a composer like Nadia Boulanger, or to go to the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia, or to attend masterclasses of visiting musicians. These must be earned, which is assessed by very musical adjudicators who determine if somebody can make the best use of the opportunity. In formulating their opinion, the musicality of the student must enter into the discussion.

I'm perfectly happy with institutions or private citizens having their own level of requirements before providing an education. However, bringing it back in-line with the thread, I personally do not associate the level of education that one has, to them being entitled to be labeled a musician.

I'm not saying you indicated this Candywoman, I'm just stating that I think Musician is too broad of a term to consider it to be focused in to only a select few.

You can have a socially perceived good musician or bad musician,
You can have an academically taught musician, or a self-taught musician.

I'm fine with someone, who has extreme knowledge in the area of music and can apply that knowledge to an instrument(s) being called a Virtuoso. That creates a rank system inside Musicians, just like any other trade.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that you were talking about music lessons in general because you were *replying* to an ordinary piano student who said he doesn't get why we need an exclusive definition of the term musician. Also you talked about how, in your own daily practice as a piano teacher, you teach certain students for financial reasons whom perhaps you'd rather not teach if you had the option of ditching them. But if you're talking about masterclass-level opportunities, then *of course* a certain selection should happen. I don't think you're going to get an argument from anyone about that. Or at least, in my opinion, you shouldn't.

If we're talking that level, though, then I have to agree with some of the earlier commenters on this thread (you among them, if I'm not mistaken): musicality doesn't seem to be a high enough priority. It's missing in some people who are nonetheless widely considered accomplished musicians. It seems to be missing in many concours competitors. That's a shame.

Thank you BostonTeacher for that video! It's exactly what I needed today!

I think that there is often a stage in a student's development where they are focused on the mechanics of playing a difficult instrument. At that point they are really more of a pianist or trombonist or whatever than a musician.

It may even be a necessary step to master the craft.

But it is a step that most will get past.

So I don't think you should say a student is unmusical from a snapshot in time. They may be very musical but it is being suppressed by other factors, and will come out later.

When I first read laguna greg's statement, I started to ask whether he taught beginners or only advanced students, in order to orient myself to that statement. I thought it was about beginners since he wrote about "developing" it. But before I could post the question, he wrote that he was thinking of students in competitions and festivals. So these would not be beginners or how he sees beginners, and it seems to involve other people's students that you might observe.

I'm with you, TimR and would go further. A student needs to learn the nitty gritties of playing regardless of talent. If everything is dashed off all the time, then something goes missing and it will probably show up at a more advanced level.

And then, the original question was "What is a musician?" It was not "Does talent exist?" Musicianship involves things that are done to the music, and a lot of that rides on skill and knowledge. Maybe an innate ability will allow a student to do more with those things, but they have to be taught.

That can be true of a fine musician who is struggling with a new instrument.

How can anyone sound like a musician, playing, without the skills mastered to allow it to happen?

And if you can't SOUND like a musician, will anyone believe you are? I don't think so.

Physical limitations will be perceived as lack of "sensitivity" and so on.

That's correct.