Your take: Do singers=musicians?

Mendelssohn Choir of PittsburghAs a classical music critic, I don't write much that seeks to get readership from controversy, but I am going to in this case because I think this is a worthy issue. In my review of the last Pittsburgh Symphony concert of the season, an article in which for the record I praised the Mendelssohn Choir, I wrote the following line:

This is one of the most fascinating symphonies to watch as much as to hear, with musicians constantly moving on and offstage. It ends with more than 110 musicians and 150 singers taking every bit of the stage.

My good friend and occasional Post-Gazette constributor Eric Haines, who is a tenor and a former Mendelssohn Choir member, appreciated my comments, but shot me this e-mail:

Hi, Andy -

I enjoyed reading your Mahler review, as I enjoy reading all your stuff. Except for one tiny (MAJOR) little thing: you said "110 musicians and 150 singers." Singing is music. So, singers make music. Therefore, singers ARE musicians. When you say 'musicians AND singers,' you exile us from the realm of art.

I love Eric's passion and I completely see where he is coming from having been a singer myself (and even briefly and on an amateur level a choral conductor). Actually, this is something I am well aware of, and used to be my thinking. There are plenty of times I have admonished someone over it. But lately, I have had a different take, which I expressed in my reply:

Thanks, but I cannot agree with you, good friend! I view that singers need to take back the name/term and show that it is synonymous with musician, not still needing the word! I could have said orchestra musicians I suppose to make you happy, but singers need to get over this one and be more confident with what they do. I think singers should have pride in being singers and not let others denigrate them to the point that they also need to be given that word "musician" to be included as one. Singers have been trying to get that PC connection for years and it has failed. The better tactic is to say: singer=musician. To add "musician" is redundant.

To further my point, you don't have to clarify musician when you say oboist or pianist. And, while the issue is clearly that singers have not been considered musically talented while oboists and pianists have faced nothing like that, is the path to get that recognition to give in to the prejudice or to assert that you don't need to clarify with the word singer, either?

Eric saw my point, but still stands by his, but we both decided it would be great to through this out to the public to see your thoughts on this. Please reply -- though you first have to register  (it is painless and costs nothing!) by clicking on the left, under "Author."

Posted Jun 24 2009, 02:46 PM by Andrew Druckenbrod
Filed under: ,

Comments

meestro wrote re: Your take: Do Singers=musicians?
on Tue, Jun 16 2009 8:58 PM

As a member of the Mendelssohn Choir, I'd be happy to offer my input.  

At the time when I read your review I had no issue with the wording, but your friend does make a good point.  And after thinking it over, I find myself convinced that it would have been better to say "110 instrumentalists and 150 singers", or simply "260 musicians", as opposed to what was actually written.

I think the reason for this is due to the nature of the human voice as an instrument.  You aren't born a violin prodigy.  It takes years and years of work.  But you CAN be born with a good voice.  And in this age of American Idol and YouTube, I have seen many people who can sing despite the fact that they probably know nothing about music. I would not hesitate to call these people singers, but I'd be very hesitant to call them musicians.  "Musician" for me has always implied study and practice.  Those prerequisites don't exist in order to be considered a "singer".  To be considered a singer, you just have to have a good voice, and you have to use it.  Those are the only prerequisites in my mind.  

All 148 choir members on that stage are musicians.  Betsy Burleigh wouldn't accept them into the choir if they weren't.  I would have no issue with your wording had you called everyone musicians, or had you called nobody musicians.  But by only calling the instrumentalists musicians, the simple nature of the word "singer" allows the reader to question whether or not all of these singers really are musicians.

Simply put, in my eyes, not all singers are musicians.

Andrew Druckenbrod wrote re: Your take: Do singers=musicians?
on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:07 PM

Meestro,

Yours is an angle I had not thought of. At the core, you are reserving the word musician -- applying it to singers based on your or someone's evaluation. It they are a certain level, they are musicians.

But this opens up a huge can of worms because who makes that evaluation and what is the criteria? I think it's problematic within our culture and also between cultures. And then also, doesn't what you suggest just go back to the original issue that Eric and others have? I mean, what if a snooty critic :-) or conductor or even a virtuoso violinist simply felt that singers never work hard enough or master rhythm and intonation to the level they have on, and therefore they don't consider the singers musicians based on that criteria? Doesn't that put you back to the original prejudice? I still support my "we are singers and that implies musicianship" take on this. But I love this dialogue. Round up more of your Mendelssohn colleagues and let's get some more feedback on this.

yue wrote re: Your take: Do singers=musicians?
on Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:10 AM

However, to say that a vocalist of less than perfect musicality (that is being kind) is anything less than a musician is like saying a poor pianist is something less than a musician.  You would NEVER say that any lesser pianist, even(especially?) a child just learning, is not a musician, so you should not say that any vocalist/singer (however old) who has not had much instruction is less than a musician.

Vocalists and instrumentalists are both types of musicians.  It just so happens that instrumentalists often study harder and longer to master their machines of music (their instruments), while vocalists often are able to produce a pleasing sound with little formal instruction (or even no formal instruction).

The most accurate rewrite of the prickly sentence is probably more like: "110 instrumentalists and 150 vocalists."

When we use those terms we all understand that the people in question are musicians, but 110 of them play an instrument and 150 of them use their larynx.

Alison Fujito wrote re: Your take: Do singers=musicians?
on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:07 PM

In college, my room-mate's boyfriend had a T-shirt that read,

"If I don't make it in music, I can always try singing."

Nasty, nasty.

On a personal note, I don't think there's any question: of course singers qualify as musicians!  Their voice is their instrument.

And what do they sing?  MUSIC.

Andrew Druckenbrod wrote re: Your take: Do singers=musicians?
on Thu, Jun 18 2009 10:57 AM

Amen to that, Alison.

The other question is, who are these people who denigrate singers? How many really exist any more? Is this more a case of "should police" in the mind of insecure singers than reality (not to call Eric insecure, but you know what I mean)?

And if a singer does run into some crabby or uppity horn player or violinist who thinks singers are not musicians, or thinks singers are not at the same level as an instrumentalists, why can't singers just call them jerks (and insecure themselves) and move on?

Alison Fujito wrote re: Your take: Do singers=musicians?
on Thu, Jun 18 2009 6:22 PM

It's not always easy to move on when a colleague (or even many colleagues) are crabby or uppity, although it's probably the best thing to do.

In defense of Meestro, I do think it might have been more accurate to divide the musicians into singers and instrumentalists, rather than singers and musicians.

But I also agree with Andy  that we can't reserve the term "musician" to apply only to those of a certain level.

One of the best musicians I ever knew never played an instrument.

His name was Edward Solomon, and he was my next-door-neighbor when I was growing up.  He played the radio, and I swear, he knew EVERY classical piece that was ever played on the radio.

He was an avid gardener, and he was always out in the yard, pruning shrubs, weeding, and blasting WFMT.

He also liked to listen to me practice, which was a good thing, as we didn't have air conditioning, and I practiced 4 hours a day in high school.

I did not come from a musical family, and my mother pretty much left me alone to practice, except she had a few ground rules. One of those rules was that I had to start with scales, then exercises, then etudes, and only THEN the fun stuff (whatever concerto and concert piece I was working on).

I was pretty good,--except when she was out of the house.

I remember one time in particular, when I was about 15 or 16.  She left to go grocery shopping, and as soon as she backed out the driveway, I put my copy of the Sibelius violin concerto (which was NOT part of my lesson, being way  too difficult for me, but I had managed to find a copy of the music in a a large book by Alberto Bachman) on the stand, and got to work.

As soon as her car rolled back into the driveway, I went back (as usual) to scales and arpeggios, like a good girl.

Outside, while my mom unloaded the groceries, Mr. Solomon leaned on his spade, and remarked in his slow, thoughtful way, "so, Alison's learning Sibelius--isn't that nice?"

I was busted.