Hello!
The question of the definition of "playing" an instrument has recently come up and I wanted to know what you think.

Apologies if I've forgotten an important step.

The poll builds up, i.e. I assume that being able to play pieces in different octaves, the person will also be able to play pieces using dynamics etc.

Charlotte

I would have thoght that playing an instrument would mean just making some sounds but knowing what your doing, I suppose that could be defined as playing a tune though.

well i never realy thought of my self as a cellist until my teacher said i was grade 1 standard

Being able to play musically, and being technically competent.

How technically competent though? Grade 1? Grade 5? Diploma?

I think for instance it's more true to say of, for instance, guitar, one which I can play a few simple scales, some chords, and a few pieces, that I play it badly than that I don't play it! Demonstrably, I do play it - I am just not at all good!

I put the 4th option: I think to be able to play pieces musically (even if the pieces themselves are very simple) shows you have at least some technical graps of the instrument, as it's hard to play musically if you are not comfortable technically at whatever level you are playing at

Hnmmm^.^ , very hard question, I will agree with Helen but I think arround the level of grade3 perhaps. So I can *play two instruments.

Anyone who can play an instrument can "play" an instrument. The question then is what level they are at and whether they are good or bad at playing.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the question is irrelevant.

Gae

I think logically speaking Gae must be right. I suppose anyone can "play" the piano in the sense that they can get a sound out of it by depressing a key. So presumably July's question is getting at something else, but what that is needs clearer definition. eg. how good would you have to be before you would say in conversation to a stranger that you "play the piano". I think most people who are merely capable of producing sound would not claim to be able to play the piano. Others at a beginner level might say they play a little, but qualify that by explaining that they are a learner. I think if you can sit down and play, however simple, a piece that someone might conceivably enjoy listening to, then you can play in that sense. Which I suppose means that for a cute 4 year old to claim they can play an instrument might mean something different from a full grown adult making the same claim.

Yes, that is what I meant. For example, even though I am quite capable of pressing a key on a piano, I would note say that I can play the piano. Everyone can get a not out of the piano. But then again I know loads of people who cannot get a sound out of the flute . I'm sorry, this really is a difficult question, and probably one that should be considered for each instrument separately.

I'd say when you can read the music and relate the positions of notes on the stave to positions on the instrument, and produce the right sound.

Or if you don't read music, when you can produce the intended sound from the instrument, in a melody or otherwise.

in which case I can play tuba!

(merrily we roll along, badly... )

Hmm...and I guess practically anyone could play drums!

...sounds about right!

I'd say you have to play the simple pieces on the instrument with dynamics, phrasing, etc. But then that would mean I can play the recorder, but I practically rubbish on the recorder!! (Mainly because I'm self taught...)

Oh haha very funny. Try it for yourself before you say that. Learning all 42 rudiments isn't so easy...

Loads of people voted for the "play pieces with dynamics and phrasing". Well, I think that's more whether you're musical in general than whether you are capable on one instrument. You could make a horrible sound and get a load of notes wrong and not even have a good knowledge of the instrument and achieve this.
I could say I "play" the sax because I can bash out a few tunes and they sound reasonable, people can guess what I'm playing etc, but does that make me a saxophonist? Nope.
I think the opinion of other musicians who play that particular instrument in question is most important. But good question!!

I'd say there's a difference between getting a note out of and being able to play. If the criteria is I can get a note that sounds something like it is supposed to then I play about twice as many instruments, and don't own most of them!

Anyone who can play an instrument should be technically competent and able to play a wide range of music. I know a 15 year old (NOT A STUDENT OF MINE!!) who has passed grade 7 and can't play 'Jesus Loves Me' in D major. She 'thinks' she can play the piano but if all she can play is exam pieces and can't sight read - how relevant is a pass at grade 7?

This is a very interesting topic. Here are my thoughts, but basically I think it's different for different people.

I think you can probably say you "play" an instrument once you've committed to learning it for at least a couple of weeks. I myself claim to play all the instruments on my signature... however, I can get a sound out of most things I'm given. The instruments on my signature are all ones I play regularly.

I can play tunes on the flute, but I wouldn't say I "played" the flute. I haven't committed any time to it at all, I don't play it frequently, and I don't have my own. However, I can still play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

A beginner flautist, however, who is learning Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, would be able to claim that they played the flute, because they were committing time and energy to it.

If you stop having lessons but still continue to play, I think you can justify saying you "play". If you stop having lessons, sell your instrument and never touch one again, then you have "given up" and therefore you "don't play".

Likewise, self-taught people can claim that they "play".

So... at the end of my rambling, I think that you can claim to play an instrument if you devote regular time and energy to it!

I was about to say a similar thing to Cheeble, it's about if one actually regularly/frequently plays it and has made a commitment to learning it. Most musicians competent on some instruments can get a few tunes out of another, but they don't play them very often maybe once ever. Any beginner who has decided to make a commitment to an instrument and has actually started trying to play it, no matter how good or bad they are 'plays it' but someone who just dabbles around in an instrument because they can doesn't really 'play' that instrument, they just mess around occasionally, even though they may well be better at it than the beginner.

Also it depends slightly who's asking: if someone who looks like they're about to ask me to sightread some complex accompaniment were to ask if I play the piano, I'd probably say 'not really' same if concert pianist asks (well, perhaps not very well); however if someone else who does it for a hobby asks or someone I know does then I'd say yes. I still always feel obliged to make a disclaimer about my standard if anyone vaguely musical asks anyway....

Same here! I can *play* loads of instruments! I'm a virtuoso pianist (can get more than three notes out of it at the same time ) !



I agree that this is an important factor! Maybe I should do a revised poll...

one who's never touched the instrument before can 'play' it, just strum or blow it or whatever. but obviously there's a difference between playing it and playing it good.

i play the cello and when my violinists/violist freinds come over i can play simple things on violin and viola because there all pracricaly the sam (on the equivalent strings etc) i just have to adjust the hold of the instrument and forget 1,34 and move to 1,2,3 for fingerings

i personally think that if it sounds good, you can play an instrument

I don't think you can really say you 'play an instrument' when you've only been learning it a couple of weeks. You can say you're learning it, can't you!

I often get asked how many instruments I play, and the honest truth is I play the violin and can mess around on piano, guitar, accordion and recorder. But I'd feel dishonest to say I can 'play' the last four, even though I can knock out jazz chords on the guitar, Moonlight Sonata, Clair de Lune etc on the piano, some Edith Piaf stuff on the accordion and any simple tune on the recorder. But none of that means I can really play any of those instruments and it would be a bit insulting to the people who really can play them to pretend I do. I can fiddle around on them and make convincing noises but that's about it.

So I think if we say we can play an instrument we should always qualify it otherwise we're giving a misleading impression - don't you think?

Violinia

Welcome back! How are Cambridge and Christ's suiting you?

Re the subject of discussion: most people seem to have been brainwashed by the Platonic concept that objects and concepts can all be fitted into categories (sets defined by a property), despite many examples (of which this is one) where the property has a range of vaues and may even consist of many different components. Such categories always generate arguments like this thread, and are almost useless by themselves, but can make sense when joined with a clarifying clause e.g. "She plays the piano to Grade 8/professional/virtuoso standard".

Cheeble's last criterion sounds reasonable for many musicians, but if I were judged by it I would be assessed as not playing anything, because I no longer have any lessons and don't practise any one instrument regularly,* even though I do quite a lot of practice overall. I just performed the Brahms "Haydn" Variations and Beethoven 8 on bass with a local amateur orchestra and spent the previous three weeks practising them. Now that the concert is over, I must get back to the horn, to prepare for the Poulenc Sextet in November, and after that I shall return to the piano, with the intention of accompanying a flautist in the Berkeley Sonatina or the Roussel "Andante et Scherzo". The bass will only leave its case before April 2006 if the fixer for another orchestra 'phones me (probably at the last minute, because their usual extras are unavailable) to boost their section for a concert.

* unless twice a year counts as "regular".

-cheeble

Hmm, it's not as simple as that. At one point I was barely touching the violin because I was somewhat obsessed with teaching myself the accordion at the time. However, it was still the violin I played and the accordion I was messing around on!

Once you reach a comfortable level on an instrument after several years of focussed study I think you can safely say you can play that instrument for life. After all, even if you didn't play it for years, you'd be able to get your old technique back after a couple of weeks.

Violinia

Yes, I'm with Violinia on this one... it's more accurate to say you play and then qualify it (ie, I play the flute pretty well and the guitar really badly) than to say simply whether you play or not - if I said "I play flute and guitar" you wouldn't know if I was a virtuoso on both or a beginner on both! If I say "I play flute to about grade 6 standard but only play a few chords on the guitar" then you actually know where I'm at... and also that if you ask me to play a flute part in something then I'll be fine, and if you ask my to play guitar I'll probably manage as long as it's either very simple or in tab! (and that you'd probably be better off asking someone else though you could get me to do it if you were really stuck!) If I just said I didn't play it then it wouldn't really be true.

As Ken and Violinia have pointed out, "devote regular effort to" doesn't help much either... though I can see where you're going with that. I play my violin and viola very infrequently (though more often now that I have jazz to have fun with! ) but if you ask Violinia or Jane if I play them (or the people I've done internet ensembles with then (I think!! ) they'd agree that I can certainly play them

I'll second that!

Violinia

<aside> thanks V, I'll pay you off later... </aside>

Hehe, just kidding! But yep, just goes to show that this whole business of "can you play..." is not that simple.

Maybe the polls and threads devoted to this need to be more specific: ie, how many instruments can you play to grade X, or how many instruments do you play regularly, etc etc.

Yes and there's also what some of us see as this weird phenomenon, where you can reach Grade 8 having only effectively played 24 pieces (if you've ploughed through each and every grade), but unable to play even the simplest thing by ear.

Does that mean you can really 'play' your instrument? Compared to, say, a self-taught pianist who may not be able to sight-read but can knock out any tune by ear with great skill and aplomb....

Hmm.

Violinia

hmm... food for thought, thanks guys!!!! i thought i'd answered the question for myself but as it turns out your arguments are better, so i'll go and think about this one for a while!!!!!!!

Cambridge is great, thanks for asking!!! and Christ's rocks!!! i love it here!

Well now Violinia, do you have any regrets about learning the accordion?

This is a difficult one to answer. I've read all the replies and it seems that the general feeling is that being able to say you can play is pitched at around grade 5.

I passed grade 8 and can play quite "fluently" quite a varied repertoire, and IMO I sight read reasonably well. When I play at home for friends and family they say I play the piano very well. However at times I think that I don't play so well and there are some really easy pieces that I still have difficulty with, one in particular being Robert Schuman's Kinder Zehnen (? spelling)[featured in the film "Sophies Choice"]

In my local department store on the floor where they sell Roland Pianos (digital) is a young salesman named Rhys. He has never studied music, and cannot sight read. However he has learned to play the piano by mimmicking a very slowed down version of a piano score. When he plays (and his repertoire includes Rachmaninov, Chopin, Beethoven et al) his playing is accurate, dynamic,technically acceptable and has a lot of expression. He did not learn to play the piano formally (i.e. grades 1-8 etc), he can't sight read, and has absolutely no theoretical music knowledge, but to the onlookers he is a "star". He can "play the piano".

My son's piano teacher is a good teacher and is competent when demonstrating her keyboard skills to her pupils. She did a public performance last year in our village hall and was "hopeless". You could say she wasn't a very good player, I overheard some people saying she couldn't play. Yet she has ARCM qualifications.

I don't think you can define easily at what stage you suddenly say "I can play the piano"

- Szenen

- Yes, it's just terribly subjective and depends on soo many different factors and what one chooses to take into account...

Je ne regrette rien, but my family regret it when I start getting it out of its case.

Violinia

I have the same problem with my sax. Even the cat goes out when he sees me taking the sax out of the case!

Give a decent performance, in public...

How are you defining decent? And what kind of public? (school concert, learners' concert, professional concert...?)

I think it's like trying to define when we reach middle age.
We usually have got there some time before we admit it, a few think they are there before they are, and it's usually easier for others to tell whether we've got there or not...

no help to the young 'uns on here, but I dare say a few of us know what I mean.

I would say that being able to give a performance that someone wants to listen to is a good answer. Being able to produce a sound is silly, anyone can do that.

I think (IMO anyway) that's the best answer so far!

mrx: to a certain extent, yes, but even then... performance of what? And which audience are we trying to impress? A 5 year old might give a performance of Twinkle Twinkle that her mum wants to hear time and time again - that's a performance which the audience wants to listen to... does that make her more or less able to play that instrument than the would-be concert pianist who can't impress critics and audiences in the concert hall? And all the nuances in between - performing what, and to which prospective audience.

Not trying to pick holes in your argument, but you see how simplistic answers aren't necessarily terribly helpful.......

I did a bad thing once - at a New Year's party.

There was a woman in the kitchen with a saxophone. I hadn't seen one before and she was kind enough to let me have a go. She showed me where a few of the notes were and I managed to play Auld Lang Syne albeit very badly.

Anyhoo... she's been having lessons and her party piece was going to be be to play Auld Lang Syne... not very much better than I'd played it. The difference being that I'd had over thirty years of playing wind instruments and she was a complete beginner.

So I guess it also depends on the standard you expect of the player.

I've been playing the oboe for a couple of weeks and am on grade two pieces - yet I think it sounds so awful I'm almost ready to give up. Teacher has promised to bring the more advanced stuff next week. (why?).

That's why I call myself the 'wannabe Organist' I feel that if I claim to say "I'm an organist" people will ask me to play for services and recitals, but I can only play a very small repertoire, and learn things quite slowly. I couldn't learn a service in a few days!!
But i do say 'I play the organ', just don't claim to be an organist.

Dunno which is right.
Keet
x

I am playing grade 5/6 pieces on flute at the moment, but I won't say that I play the flute or am a flautist because I am not all that good

Erm... Any kinda public!

And decent enough that you appear confident, don't stop half-way through and get applause at the end!

to be able to play a tune?

who knows, i guess we can play any instrument if we want?

Suppose you appear very nervous but play beautifully?

(Yes, I'm just being devil's advocate here! )