[atari 2600]

I've got a Friday night to get on with, so go ahead and burn me in effigy or whatever it is that gets your impish rocks off.

Toodle-loo, fuckheads.

[avantgarde1]

good point.

[avantgarde1]

awe, did we hurt yr feelings? come back, i'm sorry! i love you!

[jakeonguitar]

This started out as a cool thread.

Hmmm.

Anyways. What defines a musician? His ability to play music on a musical instrument. Chords, sight-reading, whatever, if he can play music on a musical instrument, why the fuck can't he be a musician?

I also believe there is some hidden internal skill that you feel you have reached when you start calling yourself a musician. Not skill like, "I can fret the F# phrygian mode hammering three out of every four notes." But like, "That was good music. I can do that consistently." skill.

No sane person would dare calling himself a musician if he could hit guitar strings with his hands without actually playing anything. So once he's able to reach the point where he switches from a D3rd to a G7th easily and pleasantly, or gets awesome feed back and drone pulses, he may have the balls to call himself a musician. And damn, if people will dig it, why the fuck is he not a musician?

Whatever. Don't listen to me.

[atari 2600]

Well, in most societies, one thing and one thing only tends to classify one as a true professional musician. If one has been paid for the musical work they do, then it is then generally accepted that they are a musician. That is the primary criterion.

Okay, I really got to get going now.

[avantgarde1]

i am most definately not a musician, i just like making weird sounds come out of my guitar.

[jakeonguitar]

Sure.

Not to disagree with you, I just feel that if a guy is in a completely different profession... say... burger flipping at a local joint, but has played piano for the past 18 years and has written many pieces, he's a musician if he wants to call himself that.

But yes, you are correct.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by avantgarde1

lol, oh i'm totally an idiot, but that doesn't make atari right. i just like really simplistic shit... i love the sound of guitar feedback. it's a hobby i do from time to time for fun. and i do know chords, there's even a few songs i can actually play all the way thru! gasp! i just prefer to to play "textural sound" (love that phrase by the way) stuff more.
i feel all important that peopel are talking about me in a thread when i wasn't even in it! what's really funny is i clicke don this thread thinking it was gonna have atari in here spewing some type of trash talk... and whaddya know... i was totally right!

Nah dude - you might articulate yourself differently, but I would suggest from your response here (cf. what Drone posted) that you're interested in some things that are not 'conventional' modes of playing the guitar.

If anyone would forgive me the diversion of the thread - I'm currently quite fascinated with the idea that a great many kiddies at the moment (apologies if that seem patronising) seem to have grown up with music like SY and your Wolf Eyes or Throbbing Gristle and such that allude to your Rowes, Baileys, Takayanagis who, in turn, support themselves with your Scelsis, Xenakises and particularly Cages or Takemitsus. The point being that there's people who have little appreciation of tonal music who are interested in the 'pure texture' [non-sequiter] as technique or practice of whose precursors/ narratives they are unaware.

Now, the question is how to constitute, formally, qualias for such a 'pure texture' music if it is absolved of its tonal roots (which Xenakis et al met by extension of Schoenberg, not by 'pure' intuition).

I can elaborate, if I can be fucked, tomorrow. Having said that, it's much more likely none of you fuckers care.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Well, in most societies, one thing and one thing only tends to classify one as a true professional musician. If one has been paid for the musical work they do, then it is then generally accepted that they are a musician. That is the primary criterion.

Okay, I really got to get going now.

By your criteria I'm a professional musician. So is, by my reckoning, Everyneurotic, Atsonicpark, Sherrif Rhys Chatham and Savage Clone... doubtless countless others. Doesn't stop my audiences walking out in less than 10 minutes, and doesn't make me a better musician than my mate Andy who's a fucking genius who's never been paid to play live (and, more importantly, doesn't care). Perhaps most importantly of all, it doesn't make me a worthwhile or valid artist just because I can twat a bit of wood and have the temerity to ask for money for it.

[avantgarde1]

i agree kind sir, thank you.

[koolthing]

Originally Posted by Glice

Nah dude - you might articulate yourself differently, but I would suggest from your response here (cf. what Drone posted) that you're interested in some things that are not 'conventional' modes of playing the guitar.

If anyone would forgive me the diversion of the thread - I'm currently quite fascinated with the idea that a great many kiddies at the moment (apologies if that seem patronising) seem to have grown up with music like SY and your Wolf Eyes or Throbbing Gristle and such that allude to your Rowes, Baileys, Takayanagis who, in turn, support themselves with your Scelsis, Xenakises and particularly Cages or Takemitsus. The point being that there's people who have little appreciation of tonal music who are interested in the 'pure texture' [non-sequiter] as technique or practice of whose precursors/ narratives they are unaware.

Now, the question is how to constitute, formally, qualias for such a 'pure texture' music if it is absolved of its tonal roots (which Xenakis et al met by extension of Schoenberg, not by 'pure' intuition).

I can elaborate, if I can be fucked, tomorrow. Having said that, it's much more likely none of you fuckers care.

Now this is a bit of a fascinating question, and probably the crux of this, and other, threads.

I'll start this off with a graph, and while it may not be a true or accurate example of the history of how atonal or experimental music turned from traditional serious music to "noise" for me it's a decent start (and I don't mean to insult any band or style in this post):

Schoenberg->Cage->Velvet Underground->Sonic Youth-Wolf Eyes->?

Schoenberg was a classically trained musician who opened up the scale with the 12 tone method, whereas (I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong) Wolf Eyes is just seeing what can be done when you hold an instrument a certain way, classical sensiblities be damned.

I'm probably just as guilty as avantgarde1, I guess. I'm not all that interested in making a guitar sound like a guitar. Like the a/c unit outside, yes; like a guitar, no.

I like the theories of John Cage more than the music, and perhaps Glice that is where this modern "noise" movement started: "Hey I like Cage's use of sound and silence, but instead of notating it I can create a sound, wait, wait some more, and then hit the back of my guitar again."

Another theory on that: A few years back (early '00s perhaps) Spin magazine had a feature of the "Post SY" bands (Hair Police, Wolf Eyes, etc), and if I remember correctly it pointed out that it was a generation that didn't see further back than SY, in terms of soundscapists (or music in general, for that matter), but noise still did something for them.

Just a few theories.

[atari 2600]

You know, you're all behaving like a bunch of jackals.

All I wrote was that society in general deems someone a musician when they have been paid for their work. The same applies to art and the artist.

If you'll please take care to note, what I wrote is the primary definition of the word.

mu·si·cian [myoo-zish-uhn]
–noun
1. a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.
2. any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.

Like yourselves, in many respects I tend to agree personally with the secondary meaning of the word.

So again, all I ever wrote before is that from the point of view of society, the first meaning applies the most as the primary definition.

Originally Posted by me

Well, in most societies, one thing and one thing only tends to classify one as a true professional musician. If one has been paid (this really should be "gets paid") for the musical work they do, then it is then generally accepted that they are a musician. That is the primary criterion.

And much as I figured, you vultures couldn't leave it alone.

I hardly see how I can be corrected outright for stating something that is merely common sense.

And I can't really envision why I would willingly continue to expose myself to such nonsense and ridicule anymore.

[avantgarde1]

i still love you atari! will you marry me?

[PAULYBEE2656]

wow! you musicians/non musicians are a touchy bunch!!!!!

i play guitar badly, i play bass a little better but i wouldnt call myself a musician as i am niot technical proficient enough to actually hold a melody for a while but i have rhythm!!!

as for the stupid stupid egocentric thread..... why is everyone on ataris case, the fucker is 100% correct!!!!!

as for people not being called a musician if they cant sight read or if they cant read tablature... that is total and utter pompus self centred bullcrap! thats the main reason why there are 2 types of stores i hate, hardware stores and music (instrument) stores. you can get reasily ridiculed by jerks who thin k they are higher than thou just because you dont own a bottle of wd-40 or dont know the exact tab to the opening of kashmir......

im glad i am not a musician, im glad im just a music fan who can get up on stage and play music from an instrument ,with others, to people and enjoy it and still have the dignity not to look down on the folk with the non chin stroking teeshirts and crap fringes....

bollocks to popular culture, ballocks to starway to heaven, take yr dimished 5ths and stick em up yr capo where the hammer-ons doont tremelo!

[atsonicpark]

I can't "properly" play guitar; i.e. I can't read musical notation, I don't know any real chords, etc. But I'm probably actually at least as good as the dudes from Polvo or something. Uh... I can usually play songs by ear pretty well.. and of course I can read tabs.. and I'm very rhythmic and ambidextrious. I dunno. You can listen to scissor shock and tell me if I'm any good. I think I'm okay, but I dunno if I can really answer, yes, I play a musical instrument.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Real chords are for lamers. I make up my chords, and refer to them by what song they are in or what they sound like.

I know some music theory though. If I can play something easy on guitar, I can play it on piano too. I can usually tell you what interval I'm playing, et cetera.

[SYRFox]

I play piano.

[Prisstina]

i've fucked myself over musically...i've been playing other people's music for so long that it's impossible to compose anything.

reading music is one thing i am good at. i'm at the point where i can play pretty much anything, its just a matter of proficiency.

[gmku]

I play acoustic guitar. Have since 1971 or so. I can play a lot of stuff. I'm familar enough with the instrument that it's mostly intuitive by now, although I'm certainly not a "solo" guitar/lead guitar type. Mostly rhythm, riffs, a few familiar lead guitar patterns. I can play in various tunings, too.

[Torn Curtain]

Guitar: 16 years
Plus bass a bit (I'm planning on buying one - when I finally have the money).