Taking note of your username 'gdiminished' I'm assuming you know music theory well enough to have these kind of opinions regarding the technicalities of calling a rapper a 'musician' (or maybe not) but I hope you and others in this thread that have said this realise that the word 'musician' doesn't restrict itself to mean one who can play a musical instrument.

The word musician actually is quite general, meaning 'someone who plays an instrument, write/creates music, performs music, produces music etc'

Just looking at your definition of musician: someone who plays a musical instrument, I think the word you're looking for is 'instrumentalist' which totally makes this thread invalid, for you do not have to be able to play an instrument to be a great artist/musician or for that matter a rapper.

That's like saying a dyslexic person cannot write incredible poetry simply because they can't physically write it down.

Jalpha11 - Yes, I know theory well enough. Music was my second degree from my university, but my first degree was in Comp. Sci. Music and music theory isn't something magical, there are

millions of musicians all over the planet, ie, musicians, not rappers. Mainstream society has been so disconnected from actual and authentic music(real music), they fall into a trap of rap/hip hop as having

credibility amongst musicians, or a positive form of art. The merits of Hip Hop and rap are up for an entirely different debate. I give them credit as poets, lyricists, performers, but they aren't your baseline musician pure and simple. Without a beat or an accompaniment, then they would be nothing more than poets, rhyming poets, but poets nonetheless. Remember, voice is certainly an instrument, so singers are certainly musicians

because they can: harmonize (sing in most or any key), vocalize (enunciate all melodies/phrases within a song), and emote(convey emotion). Vocal talent takes discipline to achieve as you are physically altering yourself (voice in this case) to match various pitches and/or harmonies. Rappers can't achieve any of those qualities that I have mentioned.

Interesting topic, but I'm not buying this take on it.... The only way this argument would possibly stand up is if you rigidly equate 'musician' with 'instrumentalist'. But you don't have to be an instrumentalist to be a musician. In fact, if only instrumentalists qualify as being musicians, then it's not just rappers who get disqualified. An orchestral arranger, a virtuoso scat vocalist, a person who programmes complex polyrhythmic drum machine patterns using a sequencer, to take but three, would also be disqualified from calling themselves 'musicians', by this definition, because none of them need necessarily be skilled at a particular instrument to do what they do. But common sense says that can't be right; so we have to look at the definition we're using.

Now, it's true that one sense in which people commonly use the word 'musician' is to signify an instrumentalist, but it's not the whole story. In the broader sense, it means something roughly in line with the definition TD3 posted: "one who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music." By that token, our orchestral arranger, scat vocalist, drum programmer all qualify as musicians, and so do the rappers in question here (even if we don't happen to rate the music they produce), because they're all active contributors to the composition, arrangement or performance of a musical piece.

That's the bottom line, but you can also say that rapping is a kind of rhythmic performance. I think the key point about it is not so much that it's poetry (although at it's best, it's certainly poetic), because it can be utter goobledygook and still be rapping (e.g "I said a hip, hop, the hippie, the hippie to the hip hip hop", etc). The really key point is that it's a form of rhythmic or percussive talking -- rappers talk in rhythm over beats and other music, using their voices percussively. So, not unlike percussionists that play drums, etc, they're musicians that they perform (and usually compose) a series of rhythmic phrases sympathetic to the musical context they occur in, as part of a musical performance. It's just that where a percussionist uses sticks and something to hit, they use their voices. Both are musicians, though.

deebee - All things are not equal. A scat vocalist has the same control as a singer, a vocalist. That is a derivative of Jazz music, and is a very valid form of musicianship.

Your average orchestral leader amounts to a having at least a MS or PHD in classical music studies in terms of theory, instrumentation, and arrangement. Meaning they more than likely

they can play multiple instruments in any key, at any time, write/compose ACTUAL music (be it Jazz, gospel, blues, R+B, etc), and play any style of music you put in front of them.

The programmer/sequencer are not musicians since they are cutting and pasting other instruments into their selection and hocking it off as an authentic song (ie sampling). Percussionists? I don't think so at

all, that is based on vibrations (like a xylophone or drums).

if I understand you correctly, then a rapper is not a musican (as opposed to a singer), because his performance is not melody based, but only on rhythm, right?

alrighty, then a drummer is also not a musician cause he doesn't perfrom melody/chords either, but"just" rhythm

uhhmmm.......

I feel a thread coming up...

BSquad - Now you are being ridiculous, drumming takes an extraordinary amount of skill and practice to achieve. It is control of your instrument and understanding the concepts behind it that separate the musical from the non-musical. Playing a few notes or chords, does not a musician make. The drum is a cornerstone in many musical forms across the planet, and you show a lack of musical knowledge by not knowing drums have notation and sheet music for drummers to follow. The rapper is just a poet...

Make no mistake, I loathe Hip Hop's inflated sense of self-worth and thoughtless promotion of buffoonery, coonery, and samboness since it became commercialized. Most rappers can barely read, let alone read sheet music. Or even have the discipline to learn what keys are, well unless they are the other kind So until they can come up with some complex harmonies worthy of Mr. Miles Davis, or create melodies that would make Stevie Wonder jealous, then they will just be "performance acts" and not true musicians.

Rappers aren't musicians, they are charlatans, and any other field would have drowned them out by now, but that is life.

Wow.... Excellent post, Gdiminished! Well said.

emilio319 said:

You make a good argument... Probably the best one I've read on here...

However I still disagree because...

By that definition pretty much everyone qualifies as a musician...

If a person bangs on a desk along with the rhythm of the music, or taps their foot in time to the music, thus creating a rhythmic sound over the music, then according to your definition that makes them a musician. I mean they ARE producing a rhythmic sound over the music or in time with the music, "much like a percussionist" as you say.....

So yeah, if you REALLY want to overanalyze the word, then EVERYONE is a musician due to the example I just laid out.

IF you wanna keep it real, if you are a "musician," that means you can play....on an INSTRUMENT.

Regarding the "orchestra arranger"....

First of all you are not going to find an orchestral arranger who does not play an instrument.

That doesn't make any sense... In order to be able to arrange for an orchestra you would have to be able to read music and thoroughly understand music theory and the way people learn that is through the study of an instrument. (Unless you mean someone who "arranges" stuff on their computer by copying and pasting samples of instruments... That's totally different. That's just using a computer program and picking out things that sound good and pasting them together).

Regarding the scat vocalist... This is one category (singers) that I will say can definitely be called musicians because they are using their voices as an instrument that produces musical tones.

Yeah I realize that if you stretch that definition it could include rappers because they are producing tones as well but by that definiton than anyone that talks is also a musician. See what I mean???

It may well be that, in actual life, most arrangers do play an instrument, but they don't necessarily have to play an instrument to be an arranger. All that they need is a developed skill to arrange parts of the music their creating. If they have, say, perfect pitch, and can hear it in their heads, before writing it down on paper, or even telling other musicians (in the case of a small group) what to play, they'll still be an arranger.

So, what I think adds to our collective attempt to arrive at a satisfying definition of 'musician' (which I take to be the most charitable way to engage with this thread!), is that perhaps what's really important is that a 'musician' is someone who has developed a particular kind of skill or ability that can be put to use within the field of musical composition or performance. That definition would also allow us to differentiate the hapless desk-banger you mention from, say, a percussionist, who's a particular kind of 'thing-banger' (!) that has developed, or is developing, his or her musical skill. (Incidentally, I reckon you're giving my polyrhythm programmer a hard time, as he too would need some considerable skill and understanding of the rhythmic totality to fit all of those complex, interlocking strands together, whether he's using samples and loops or a live percussion group to perform it.)

I still think that correctly lets a rapper count as being a musician, as a rapper is someone who's developed a particular skill (for rhythmic, percussive speech) that's employed within a certain kind of musical performance; and who will either have composed their part of the musical piece beforehand, or will improvise it freestyle.

I wonder what a member of the Paris Academy of Art in the 1800's would say about considering Andy Warhol as an "artist"?

gdiminished said:

deebee said:

Interesting topic, but I'm not buying this take on it.... The only way this argument would possibly stand up is if you rigidly equate 'musician' with 'instrumentalist'. But you don't have to be an instrumentalist to be a musician. In fact, if only instrumentalists qualify as being musicians, then it's not just rappers who get disqualified. An orchestral arranger, a virtuoso scat vocalist, a person who programmes complex polyrhythmic drum machine patterns using a sequencer, to take but three, would also be disqualified from calling themselves 'musicians', by this definition, because none of them need necessarily be skilled at a particular instrument to do what they do. But common sense says that can't be right; so we have to look at the definition we're using.

Now, it's true that one sense in which people commonly use the word 'musician' is to signify an instrumentalist, but it's not the whole story. In the broader sense, it means something roughly in line with the definition TD3 posted: "one who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music." By that token, our orchestral arranger, scat vocalist, drum programmer all qualify as musicians, and so do the rappers in question here (even if we don't happen to rate the music they produce), because they're all active contributors to the composition, arrangement or performance of a musical piece.

That's the bottom line, but you can also say that rapping is a kind of rhythmic performance. I think the key point about it is not so much that it's poetry (although at it's best, it's certainly poetic), because it can be utter goobledygook and still be rapping (e.g "I said a hip, hop, the hippie, the hippie to the hip hip hop", etc). The really key point is that it's a form of rhythmic orpercussive talking -- rappers talk in rhythm over beats and other music, using their voices percussively. So, not unlike percussionists that play drums, etc, they're musicians that they perform (and usually compose) a series of rhythmic phrases sympathetic to the musical context they occur in, as part of a musical performance. It's just that where a percussionist uses sticks and something to hit, they use their voices. Both are musicians, though.

deebee - All things are not equal. A scat vocalist has the same control as a singer, a vocalist. That is a derivative of Jazz music, and is a very valid form of musicianship.

Your average orchestral leader amounts to a having at least a MS or PHD in classical music studies in terms of theory, instrumentation, and arrangement. Meaning they more than likely

they can play multiple instruments in any key, at any time, write/compose ACTUAL music (be it Jazz, gospel, blues, R+B, etc), and play any style of music you put in front of them.

The programmer/sequencer are not musicians since they are cutting and pasting other instruments into their selection and hocking it off as an authentic song (ie sampling). Percussionists? I don't think so at

all, that is based on vibrations (like a xylophone or drums).

Apart from your particular value judgments (e.g. what you happen to count as "very valid" musicianship, or "actual music"), what I can see here are some interesting points about how a musician has to have developed a particular skill to be labeled as such (e.g. the vocalist's "control" or the arranger's qualifications). That seems roughly sympathetic with the point I made to emilio319, above, about how we commonly expect people referred to as musicians to have developed a certain skill as a composer, performer, etc, so that not everyone tapping their fingers on the dashboard in time to the radio can call themselves a musician.

That wouldn't have to be reflected in a formal qualification (like the conductor's PhD), though, as, if you think about it, it's only a very tiny minority of the many musicians of the world throughout history who've been awarded qualifications. We'd soon find that half of the greats of the jazz age, the most skilled drummers in Africa, and most of the people playing music in the world's bars and clubs on a Friday night no longer qualify as musicians, if that's the benchmark!

Like I say, then, making it a matter of having developed a particular skill that can be employed in some kind of musical composition or performance would still allows rappers to be included. Whether you or I happen to value the particular musical form they've developed an ability to perform/compose in is a different matter, of course. (I can think of all kinds of musical performance that I think suck!) What's undeniable, though, is that rappers are people who've developed a skill to compose/perform a certain kind of rhythmic speech that people recognise as being part of a musical idiom, which, to me, allows them to be correctly classed as musicians.

MJJstudent said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Beatles, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones, B.B. King, James Brown, and many other popular acts and producers don't know theory or how to read or write musical notation. They play & write by ear. John Lennon has said several times that he doesn't know what people are talking about when they discuss music terms about The Beatles music. Knowing theory has nothing to do with being a musician.

i was actually going to respond to the above statement by SPECIFICALLY mentioning that michael could not read a lick of music notation, but i knew someone else would do it. his ability to play instruments was also limited- he played a little bit of drums, piano and guitar, but he was proficient in none of them. however, i find him to be extremely adept at arranging. his process is phenomenal.

marvin gaye was another person who could not read music, as far as i know (tim is the expert on mr. gaye; i know more about michael and STEVIE than i do about most other artists, admittedly).

but the whole concept of who or what an artist is is relative. so much of music is based on an oral tradition; to say that a musician must be skilled in theory leaves out many elder (non-western) traditions. so much of music was used to convey codes- for instance, a lot of gospel music was code for following the underground railroad. early blues and jazz music for many was the equivalent of how people see rap music today- it was filthy and done for, and produced by the dregs of society.

when nat hentoff began writing about it, for example, then it resonated with those not 'in the know', since it was now being written about in terms of notation. a lot of artists like john coltrane i believe actually rejected a lot of the concepts hentoff presented; because many of the artists played simply to reach a higher consciousness.

we won't be allowed to grow if we continue to keep art in a box. i have my preferrences as well; but again, music and art are relative. everyone experiences them differently.

Yeah Marvin couldn't read music. He didn't write it either, that's why he always hired arrangers because they could do what he admittedly couldn't.

By the way rap can be considered music if it was thought out well as it was in the '80s and '90s. So saying it's not real music is generalizing, really. There's a lot of folks in the mainstream posing as rappers and are not doing a good job of it so I wouldn't dare associate them with hip-hop (Lil Wayne and 'em).

PurpleJedi said:

I wonder what a member of the Paris Academy of Art in the 1800's would say about considering Andy Warhol as an "artist"?

I was thinking, too, that that's the debate this is reminiscent of -- the whole "Is it art?" question. And, as far as I've seen, all attempts to limit what counts as 'art' to some specific idiom ultimately run aground, and the only way to be consistent is to say: if it gets 'positioned' as art (e.g. hung in an art gallery, exhibited as an artwork, etc), and people recognise it as art, it's art!

I also wonder what the Men of Fine Taste who decided what counted as 'real music' in, say, 1920, initially made of the jazz musicians that came along soon after; ironically, the very same ones who are now being fêted as the benchmark that performers of all other idioms must measure up to!

deebee said:

PurpleJedi said:

I wonder what a member of the Paris Academy of Art in the 1800's would say about considering Andy Warhol as an "artist"?

I was thinking, too, that that's the debate this is reminiscent of -- the whole "Is it art?" question. And, as far as I've seen, all attempts to limit what counts as 'art' to some specific idiom ultimately run aground, and the only way to be consistent is to say: if it gets 'positioned' as art (e.g. hung in an art gallery, exhibited as an artwork, etc), and people recognise it as art, it's art!

I also wonder what the Men of Fine Taste who decided what counted as 'real music' in, say, 1920, initially made of the jazz musicians that came along soon after; ironically, the very same ones who are now being fêted as the benchmark that performers of all other idioms must measure up to!

YANNO!?!

Hell, I don't even consider 90% of them as people, let alone musicians. Convicts that aren't housed in a prison is more like it.

vainandy said:

Hell, I don't even consider 90% of them as people, let alone musicians. Convicts that aren't housed in a prison is more like it.

Oh damn, you did not just go there!?!

edit..nevermind.

[Edited 3/1/11 14:14pm]

PurpleJedi said:

vainandy said:

Hell, I don't even consider 90% of them as people, let alone musicians. Convicts that aren't housed in a prison is more like it.

Oh damn, you did not just go there!?!

Honey, I go into men's pants all the time so it's not uncommon for me to go where most men won't go.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/1/11 14:15pm]

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

i was actually going to respond to the above statement by SPECIFICALLY mentioning that michael could not read a lick of music notation, but i knew someone else would do it. his ability to play instruments was also limited- he played a little bit of drums, piano and guitar, but he was proficient in none of them. however, i find him to be extremely adept at arranging. his process is phenomenal.

marvin gaye was another person who could not read music, as far as i know (tim is the expert on mr. gaye; i know more about michael and STEVIE than i do about most other artists, admittedly).

but the whole concept of who or what an artist is is relative. so much of music is based on an oral tradition; to say that a musician must be skilled in theory leaves out many elder (non-western) traditions. so much of music was used to convey codes- for instance, a lot of gospel music was code for following the underground railroad. early blues and jazz music for many was the equivalent of how people see rap music today- it was filthy and done for, and produced by the dregs of society.

when nat hentoff began writing about it, for example, then it resonated with those not 'in the know', since it was now being written about in terms of notation. a lot of artists like john coltrane i believe actually rejected a lot of the concepts hentoff presented; because many of the artists played simply to reach a higher consciousness.

we won't be allowed to grow if we continue to keep art in a box. i have my preferrences as well; but again, music and art are relative. everyone experiences them differently.

Yeah Marvin couldn't read music. He didn't write it either, that's why he always hired arrangers because they could do what he admittedly couldn't.

i knew you'd respond to that one, mr. expert. thanks!

Timmy84 said:

By the way rap can be considered music if it was thought out well as it was in the '80s and '90s. So saying it's not real music is generalizing, really. There's a lot of folks in the mainstream posing as rappers and are not doing a good job of it so I wouldn't dare associate them with hip-hop (Lil Wayne and 'em).

It's worse than generalizing, it's idiotic.

If you ask a old time musician, they would tell you that rap is nothing new. Modern rap just took the old skool rap to another level.

Keith LeBlanc (Wood, Brass & Steel / Tackhead / etc...) :

"...When we toured with Sugar hill, I got to play with all the great R&B bands like Faze–O, Rick James, Skyy, Cameo – all the bands in that period we played on stage with, so I was influenced by that as well. In D.C. they had EU (Experience Unlimited) and Trouble Funk, and those boys kicked ass! I remember Trouble Funk's drummer had like a million drums and he was hittin’ all of em!! That sound was indigenous to D.C., and everybody who played D.C. got thrashed.

When we went back I said : "...What do we have that sounds remotely Go Go !!..." The only group who escaped unscathed was Parliament. Even Cameo got their asses kicked, and they were the top group at the time. But we used to wear the crowd out, having such a big hit, and it was rap with crowd participation. There was a lot of envy from other groups, and they would turn the house lights down on us and sabotage our set. The Sugar Hill Gang didn’t have that many songs, so we would play for like 40 minutes before the Gang came out. We were playin' bits of Wood, Brass & Steel stuff.

The only group the respected us back then was P-Funk. They invited us to open up for them on the Knee Deep tour. But the first time that we saw Flash & The Furious 5 at a high school in New York, we knew that bands were about to be over. Flash was playin’ the beat box and spinnin’ records and I remember askin’ Doug (Wimbish) did he miss the band and he said : "No." ... I didn’t either…"

GIVE THE DRUMMER SOME

gdiminished said: So until they can come up with some complex harmonies worthy of Mr. Miles Davis,

or create melodies that would make Stevie Wonder jealous, then they will just be "performance acts" and not true musicians.

So being able to create those specific accomplishments are the only accepted requirements to get labeled as a musician ?...

Then i think a lot of instrumentalists can be scrapped off the list of "true musicians" lol.

Musicians come in a wide variety of sorts, and it's a far + unrealistic stretch imo to think that every instrumentalist is able

compose those kind of complex harmonies or melodies. Miles & Stevie haven't been aknowledged for nothing to be that prolific.

SonOfSoul said:

Timmy84 said:

By the way rap can be considered music if it was thought out well as it was in the '80s and '90s. So saying it's not real music is generalizing, really. There's a lot of folks in the mainstream posing as rappers and are not doing a good job of it so I wouldn't dare associate them with hip-hop (Lil Wayne and 'em).

It's worse than generalizing, it's idiotic.

True.

So if I post this video, I dare some smart ass to think hip-hop's not really music (oh and THIS IS HIP-HOP so let's not even change the subject folks ):

Rap is old as dirt anyways.

"Aren't musicians" my ass.

Timmy84 said:

SonOfSoul said:

It's worse than generalizing, it's idiotic.

True.

So if I post this video, I dare some smart ass to think hip-hop's not really music (oh and THIS IS HIP-HOP so let's not even change the subject folks ):

Rap is old as dirt anyways.

"Aren't musicians" my ass.

don't forget james brown and gil scott-heron. and 'who got the number' by pigmeat markum is so amazing!!!

i beg to differ though... the first ever rap song is the classic 'dirty dozens'.

[Edited 3/3/11 1:46am]

[Edited 3/3/11 1:55am]

Timmy84 said:

SonOfSoul said:

It's worse than generalizing, it's idiotic.

True.

So if I post this video, I dare some smart ass to think hip-hop's not really music (oh and THIS IS HIP-HOP so let's not even change the subject folks ):

Rap is old as dirt anyways.

"Aren't musicians" my ass.

That ain't no hip-hop.

and this is what influenced (and was influenced by) hip hop too!

novabrkr said:

Timmy84 said:

True.

So if I post this video, I dare some smart ass to think hip-hop's not really music (oh and THIS IS HIP-HOP so let's not even change the subject folks ):

Rap is old as dirt anyways.

"Aren't musicians" my ass.

That ain't no hip-hop.

It is to me. If not technically hip-hop, they're DEFINITELY examples of the origins of it. Which is really what I was trying to explain here. And I think it's hip-hop to me. Hip-hop gets the stereotypical excuse again and again. Just because you say "yo yo yo" and wear hooded jackets and baggy jeans don't mean that's all what hip-hop means.

There are plenty of "singers" that can't sing and cant play instruments etc. and have been making music for a years now, that people call "musicians". Why go after rappers and not them?

Am I missing something here?

Lord, y'all listing folks like Teena Marie and stuff like "Here Comes The Judge" as retaliation. Hell, don't forget about Stacy Lattisaw.

Y'all are taking this too seriously. Ain't nobody taking stabs at folks like that. I'm sure the stabs were probably at this thug trash of the last 20 years and hell, any way possible to shit on them, I'm all for.

mrjun18 said:

There are plenty of "singers" that can't sing and cant play instruments etc. and have been making music for a years now, that people call "musicians". Why go after rappers and not them?

Am I missing something here?

Pop tarts and other "R+B" artists don't promote ignorance and coonery in their songs the way rappers do. Even your cheesy pop artists were at least musicians before they made it big, so either their learned in their family, church, school, etc.

Everytime some dude on the street tried to sell me his rap "CD", he would say he is a "musician". Just because I share the same skin as him doesn't mean I will buy it....

Doesn't matter...

Rapping is fucking HARD!

They get respect.