I think if you are having lessons in that instrument you should say you are playing it. I dont tend to say that I play the trumpet when people ask me, that may be because I'm at a much higher level on flute and clarinet that the others just seem insignificant even though I think I can play my trumpet better than some people I have met who have been playing for years and never practice. I've never had a lesson, just for fun but I'd probably be about grade 4 I guess.

In my opinion, you play an instrument if you use correct posture, hand positions, breathing techniques etc.
There are people in my GCSE class who would lift my 'cello when i've set it down and start plucking anywhere and try and figure out some tune they have in their head, but they sit slouched and use 1 finger to play the whole thing and they say they can play my 'cello and that it's easy.... it irritates me quite a bit

Define correct!

About Grade 5 Standard I voted. On lateral terms, everyone can 'play' an instrument if they have the physical capabilities, but of course, using this definition would rarely bear the desired response. I think about Grade 5, because it's a fairly reasonable standard of playing; I don't think it would be right to only say you can 'play' an instrument unless you're a virtuoso concerto player, otherwise a large majority of us wouldn't be able to 'play' an instrument!

~Wobby~

I think that saying that at Grade 5/6 you are unable to play the instrument is surely slightly harsh. I voted grade one - you can 'play' the instrument, just not at a higher level. At Grade 5 piano I certainly count myself as able to play the instrument. There are different levels of playing, are there not, and Grade one is just a more basic level.

The dictionary definition of 'play' as in on a musical instrument is 'to perform on (a musical instrument).' or 'to perform (music) on an instrument'. It does not state about level.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, pianoboe, though I'd not even put it at G1 necessarily: for example I'm a terrible guitarist but I can play some chords, pick out a scale or tune... I think (and others, feel free to disagree ) it would be more accurate to say I play it really really REALLY badly than that I don't play at all: the former is sadly correct, in that I cam dreadful despite being able to pick out a tune, the latter is obviously not true as I do play it, just a very little bit.

I don't know... As I said earlier, we could all take the lateral/philosophical approach and say that, truly, if you 'can play an instrument', you simply have the physical ability to activate it. But, based on developed social connotations of the phrase 'to play an instrument', it would be rather dubious to take this definition, as when somebody asks you if you can play an instrument, what they mean is whether you are able to play an instrument well (in their opinion, anyway). If someone were to ask me, whether I can play, say, the violin or something, based on the lateral/philosophical definition, I could say, 'Yes,' because I have the physical ability to 'activate' the violin, as well as possibly having 'the potential' to play it to their standard of well.

But undoubtedly, the questioner would probably then go, 'Well go on then, play something on it then!', in which case, I would have little response left available, apart from sawing vehemently at the strings with the bow; arguably 'playing the violin', but hardly the sort of response expected, and needless to say, the questioner would not be too impressed. The same goes with many other types of activities: if someone were to ask you 'can you rock climb?', they mean 'do you have experience in rock climbing and can you execute the activity correctly?' (No debates please on the substantial true definition on the word 'correctly'!) Think about it: someone could easily ask you whether you could rock climb, and you may say 'yes', because you have the potential to do so, but then when they take you up to the top of a mountain or something, you clearly would be in no position to take yourself down the rock face - well, safely, anyway!

So, in conclusion, if you were to take the definition of 'to be able to play an instrument' to be 'to have the potential or physical capability to play an instrument', then you would not be wrong. However, in face with the social connotation of the word, it probably suggests that one has experience in playing an instrument to a sociably considerably acceptable standard for the performer's age (which is, again, probably open to quite a lot of interpretation). Thus, this is why I voted that Grade 5 standard would probably be sufficient to appease the wide majority, regardless of the performer's age, and Grade 2/3 standard enough to appease a fair amount of people for the 'younger' musicians. Of course, like pianoboe and Sarah said, it would be fine if you said you could play an instrument based on the lateral/philosophical definition providing that you state the level that you can play the instrument at.

Again, like I said before, I doubt that the wide majority of people will be expecting some sort of virtuoso FRSM standard performance from you if you say that you can play an instrument, because they probably wouldn't expect that many people could have reached that standard so soon anyway - to ask 'can you play an instrument' is normally the way that somebody that may not be particularly musical, tends to asks someone they deem to be a potential musician, whether they are physically and currently able to play a variety of music that the person asking thinks to be a suitable standard to tick off the metaphorical box in their head of you having filled out the requisites they believe to be necessary to be able 'to play an instrument'.

If any of that makes sense, anyway!

~Wobby~

I think you could also add age into your definition. A five-year-old who plays a simple tune (such as Au Clair de la Lune) with one hand on the piano is playing to a "sociably acceptable standard" and is likely to be commented on favourably by listeners. An adult doing the same thing will not have the same reponse from the audience.

Yeah, I guess age is one of the factors that probably comes into it as well - I guess it could be like the age against IQ factor, where you may be impressed if a 1 year old child gets a B after taking a GCSE Maths Exam or something, but not so impressed necessarily if an adult takes that same test and gets the same... So I guess I could go back and edit the definition slightly.

~Wobby~

At the age of 13, to my class mates and I, Grade 1 means you are able to play an instrument. But yes, in adulthood I am sure that Grade 1 does not make you able to play the piano at a socially acceptable standard.

This is an interesting point ... does it depends on who is asking?

I play for the Sunday services at my local church. I was asked to play because I am taking piano lessons, and no one else is available. I usually play the piano, because I find that easier, but occasionally I play the organ when I think that it will sound better for that hymn. When I play the organ I use one manual, and no pedals.

The minister and congregation are constantly thanking me for sharing my talents with them, and are very grateful. They think that I can play the organ and the piano. I don't concur, but that is their opinion and I am pleased to help out. I don't plan on playing in any other public setting until I am much more proficient ... until I consider that I can play the piano. (As an aside, my teacher is delighted with my need to play hymns each Sunday. She says that it is doing wonders for my sight reading. It is, in effect, a series of weekly short studies.)

My conclusion is that whether or not you can play an instrument depends on the expectation of the questioner. The congregation expects that I keep going, and be better than singing a cappella - I can do that much.



... unless they happen to be an adult learner.

Hmmmm that's a really tough question....one that I've always wondered.

I'm guessing that to say you can play an instrument depends of which instrument you are talking about. For example, everyone can get a note out of the piano, but not everyone can play a note on, say, the clarinet.

I would say you'd have to be able to play a few songs on the instrument, know where it's notes are (eg; where a C is, etc) and I suppose a bit about how the instrument works and how to vary how you play it (eg; dynamics, phrasing, etc).

As I said, it's a really tough question, and I suppose it can be debated on when you can say you 'play an instrument' right up until your at grade 8!


I don't know....I'm confused now!!!! Haha!

Laura

who is playing at an adult learners' concert

My experience of other people (ie non adult-learners) is that because you are an adult they expect you to be good.

I think that you just have to enjoy it to play it! Well, within limits, I'd say you have to practice a decent amount before you qualify for 'playing' and instrument!

It's a really interesting question. I mentioned piano lessons today at work and someone said "Oh, do you play the piano" and I said, "well, not really, I am learning though" and I'm at Grade 6 (ish).

However, before I started learning, I used to consider Grade 5 to be the pinnacle of musical achievement, once I got it though, I didn't really feel like I could play yet so I've no idea when I'll get to the stage when I feel I can legitimately say "I play the piano"

I think it depends on the instrument and on whether you mean, 'play competently', 'play properly' or just 'play around with'.

By the time I took grade 2 flute, I could play pretty much anything I found in a hymnbook or worship book and could sight-transpose it if necessary. I could sight-read that sort of thing up to speed and had reasonable tone quality (at least in the note range concerned!) and good intonation. Which all adds up to being able to play it well enough to make myself useful (i.e. play in church). I'd say that counts as being able to play the flute reasonably competently.

I've got grade 5 piano (by the skin of my teeth) and grade 3 organ (waiting for result for grade 4) and I can't play much that's in the hymnbook or worship book and I certainly can't sight-read it reliably at speed. I can learn a hymn well enough to play it for a service, given adequate notice, a suitable (i.e. easy) hymn, a choir that will keep going no matter what I do and a congregation that will cope with my chosen speed (let's describe it as 'leisurely'). This is NOT the same as being able to turn up on a Sunday morning and sight-read my way through an entire service. I don't play keyboards well enough to be useful, even though I've passed higher grades than I had on flute by the time I could lead worship with it. I play keyboards, but I'm still quite a way from being competent.

Guitar, I've never got past halfway through Tune a Day Book 2 and never taken an exam in it, but I'd say I can play it. I've been playing it (competently) in church and youth fellowship and the like since I few weeks after I first got one. (Classical guitar, however, I just dabble with.)

So, I don't think you can generalise a say "grade x" counts as being able to play, regardless of instrument. The benchmark I tend to use myself (as a church musician) for whether I can play a particular instrument competently, is whether I can play it to a high enough standard to lead worship. Some instruments clearly require a higher grade level than others for this.

In a more casual sense, I take 'play' to mean 'can play a few recognisable tunes on'. But instruments which meet that standard but fall short of basic competence, I'll say I dabble with or that I play them badly.

T.

How interesting?!!

Maybe being able to play something musically and beautifully, whether you are playing one note, a scale or a piece, on an instrument is being able to play it?

I don't know!
x

Wow, this is the thread that started in Oct 2005.

Perhaps we should award threads 'birthdays'.

Anyone know what's the oldest 'resurrected' thread?

I like the most popular option:

"Being able to play pieces using dynamics & musical phrasing 30.5%"

Seems to me that this depends on what we mean by 'Play pieces'. I can pick up something I've never played before and play a piece using dynamics and phrasing. It will still sound like a cat fight!

I vote for another option: Being able to play a piece that most people will recognise and enjoy.

Steve

PS Apparently, I've already voted, but I can't remember which one!

A hard one... i put other, because none of the options quite said what i wanted, although the dynamics and musical phrasing was probably closest.

I think there are two important things that must happen for me to say i play an instrument
1: it makes a nice noise (ie can play it with good technique)

2: you actually put time into practicing it.

Its also a matter of opinion, as to whether you think you can play it. For example, i have a friend, who passed her G7 piano, but insists she would consider herself as nothing other than a flautist.

Also, when I had just started out with piano when i was 9ish, i would proudly tell anyone that i played the piano, although i was still only pre-grade1.

I could play the guitar when I was 7, because I knew 3 chords and a song I could sing accompanying myself with them. At the same age I could play my grade 2 piano pieces from memory and fast, so I did: I played in front of audiences and got much applause. I could "play" because what I was doing was within my competence. As I've got older the standard of my playing (on guitar and piano in particular) has improved so that the range of what I can do within my level of competence has increased. A month ago I could play a movement of a Beethoven Sonata, a Bach Sinfonieta and a Debussy prelude. I've hardly played them for a month, having moved on to other pieces, so now I feel like I can hardly play at all!

I think that's what people mean when they say they can play: They can produce a sound that is pleasant within their competence. As for how good that level is, well: Unless you are a concert pianist (and possibly even then) there will be limits to your competence. If you can't play what you're trying to play you're incompetent.

Everything is impossible to play to start with. With suitable practice, eventually the impossible becomes not only possible but easy.

I think that pretty well sums it up. As a listener, if I heard a Grade 1 pianist play a piece really well that I enjoyed listening to, then I'd say he could play. If I heard a grade 8 pianist play a piece without musicality I'd say he couldn't. I wouldn't care what he'd got in his exam. A distinction at Grade 1 (in my opinion) is worth more than scraping a pass at Grade 8. (Well, except that examiners might be over-generous at Grade 1, which I don't agree with.) And it should also be taken into account what the marks were for the 'supporting tests'. As in, good marks there don't compensate for a bad performance of the music. Personally I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the marks for the pieces are the most important. If you can play real music to a standard that people will get pleasure from hearing, then you can play, whatever the level of difficulty. Being able to sing something from a page with correct pitch doesn't mean you can play. In short, being able to play has nothing to do with exams.

well said

I'll go with my first reaction on reading the thread title, that to be able to say you can 'play' an instrument, as in be proficient to a reasonable standard and to have a reasonable grasp of all that instruments techniques etc and make a sound that is fairly pleasant to the ear and be able to hold your own with other players of average standard then my opinion would be that to be able to play at around grade 5 would be a fair guideline.


Trouble is I'm foiled by my own criteria as I'm not there yet on violin.

Maybe it's when you can focus on playing the music and no longer need to think about about making the instrument work?

N

I keep coming back here because I think there's been a new post, as it keeps moving up the list again when somebody votes - but this one still makes me laugh!

Well, I've been trying to play bluegrass banjo for a while. I got this cd and the first lesson was showing me a chord. I was supposed to copy the chord and did so. After that, the guy on the screen proclaimed (in a rather patronising way).."Congratulations! You are now a musician!"

Er, maybe so, but not when it comes to the banjo

I tend to think that someone who "plays" an instrument wouldn't tell other people so unless they were prepared to prove it, hence why I tell people I play piano, and flute. It will be a long time before I tell anyone I can play the banjo...unless they want to hear my spectacular chord

I think you have to be pretty versatile on an instrument to be able to say you really play it, so I'd say at least Grade 5 merit standard, which is really the beginnings of being able to make the instrument do what you want it to do - up to a point!

I can play some quite nice things on piano, guitar and accordion but don't feel I really have the right to say I can actually 'play' any of those instruments, even though I can play Moonlight Sonata, Clair de Lune and a couple of Bach preludes - none of that really means I can play the piano! So if people ask me, I just say I 'mess around' on those instruments - to say any more would be unfair on people who can really play piano to at the very least a consistent intermediate standard, which is what I think being able to say you can play an instrument really means.

Thus speaks a man who has never made a serious effort to play Balakirev's Islamei

Hang on a mo, Tom - I thought it was you who said it!!

Did you progress beyond the first lesson? The girls have tried a couple of these DVD/Video tutors and they are really hideous. Perhaps you need ot tell that guy no one will ever be a musician learning that way

You should check out everything I say with Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and a friendly Genie or two.

The DVD is now kicking around under my bed! I got a book and tried to learn tab, but mostly I'm just messing around by ear now. Banjo teachers are few and far between! It might be easier if I was playing irish tenor rather than bluegreass.

I can now play the first part of duelling banjos - badly

I \take it then that you found the videos equally unhelpful.

It was made worse by the fact that the man sang along when he played...

I don't think these sorts of things are that useful. Play bluegrass in 10 easy lessons is a bit like those adverts I see on the web - "The fastest way to read music" etc... that imply no effort is required.

Even on Ebay I was looking at an auction for a disney piano music book. The pieces were about intermediate standard and the seller had put a note on the bottom saying "Don't worry if you can't read music...it only took me a few weeks to figure it out"

Lucky him eh?!

Very clever of him I'd say!

I went for 'being able to play simple tunes' . And I'll tell you why.

I think there's different levels of 'being able to play'. And if you're just starting out, and have performed a really straightforward tune, to my mind, that's a big achievement. You've played your first pieces of music. And from personal experience, that feels good.

i chose 'playing with musical phrasing and dynamics' because it's all very well and good to be able to play a tune but playing with musicality gives personality to the music, that you can actually 'play' it.

I'd agree with that Usually the people listening to you know how long you've been playing and can recognise that however easy it might be to them, it's a challenge for you, and they appreciate it.

I'd enjoy a beginner's perfect performance of "Twinkle Twinkle" more than a fragmented, unrehearsed rendition of a grade 7 piece

If you can play a note, you are playing it. Up until that moment, you are merely struggling with a lump of metal Tunes are a bonus.

Sorry but from the point of view of someone who really can play a particular instrument it's a bit daft to say you can 'play an instrument' when you've just mastered a few notes or even couple of tunes. I can play a couple of tunes on the accordion (both hands!) but I'd never go around saying I can play the accordion because that would be somewhat insulting to the people who've really put the time and effort in and actually know their way round the instrument - we're in totally different ball-parks and it's misleading not to make this clear when describing to others what we can and can't do on an instrument.

So in my view, a sort of Grade 4 distinction/Grade 5 at least merit-level is the point at which you can really begin saying with confidence that you can play that instrument. Otherwise just say you're learning it - what's the problem with that?

Saying you can play an instrument as soon as you've mastered a couple of tunes is something nice to tell yourself, but to save embarrassment best to keep to yourself!

Agreed! People will be likely want you to prove your statement by asking for a performance....

Quite. Imagine you can bash out one or two tunes on the accordion, and you've told a number of people. People start thinking of you as 'someone who can play the accordion'. Then you're at a party; there's an accordion lying around. One of your friends goes: 'hey, you can play the accordion! play us a tune!' You pick it up slightly nervously and play one of your two tunes, not badly. 'Yay!' go the friends. 'How about another one?' So you play your other one. Then someone finds some accordion music lying around and goes; 'oh wow my favourite tune! please play it!' Your heart sinks because you don't know the tune and you're rubbish at sightreading on accordion, so you go: 'actually I don't know this one so I can't play it.' So they go: 'OK something else then!' and you go: 'fraid that's your lot!' 'What? Why?' 'Well, um, I can only play those two tunes.' 'But you said you could play the accordion!' 'Um yes'.

Save yourself untold embarrassment! Don't go round telling people you can play an instrument unless you really can! Just say 'well I can pick out a couple of tunes but that's about it.'

In other words, be honest!

I'm surprised at the number of people who think that you cant say you play an instrument until you are at grade 5 standard!

Unless of course they are referring to a second instrument or something when it is second to one which you are very good at. I still find it hard to call myself a bassoonist even though I can play grade 6 repertoire and scales easily enough, but its just that I'm not as good as I am on say, the flute or clarinet. I would think it odd if my pupils didnt say they played their instrument. I think, saying you play it makes it seem like something you take seriously and practice every day.

For me being able to "play" any musical instrument is to feel the music, understand what the composer wrote and giving the music on the score your own interpration by feeling the emotions in it especially by tempo and a vast range of dynamics.

Anyone agrees ?

Surely unless you swiftly move straight to distinction level at the early grades (ie you're a natural total whizz), all you should really say is: 'I'm learning the piano/violin/bassoon/whatever'? What's wrong with that?

I think it's different for adults and children. An adult will understand that a distinction at grade 1 does not make you a professional-standard musician.
However, for a lot of children, it's different. You can play some tunes, you played them to an examiner who liked them, therefore you play. And grandma likes to hear you play every time she visits. Auntie Maizie comes round and asks 'Do you still play the piano?' rather than 'Are you still learning the piano?'. Seriously, if I asked my seven-year-old neice if she was still 'learning' to do something, she'd put me in my place quite firmly about how she's not learning, she's doing
Maybe it's the teaching I had - it certainly wasn't made clear to me that I was 'only' learning and wouldn't actually be playing 'real' repertoire until I was G6-ish. That's something I found out as an adult.

So while I would likely refer to myself as a learner now, if you'd asked me when I was the same standard about 18 years ago, I'd've said I played.

I agree!! You might say I play (instrument) if people ask what you play in Band or Orchestra but that owuld be different from I can play.




I suspect that will have something to od with the childs parenting/backgound and whether they hear lots of music live or cd's. Being in ensembles etc will also have an effect on where you consider yourself to play. as will your teacher. For instance my youngests Oboe Teacher is often practising when we arrive for a lesson even though she's Grade 5 and plays first in her Concert Band she knows that there is still a lot to learn.

I think some adults wouldn't take a childs playing seriously and would assume they are better.

My seven-year-old says she "plays the piano" but also says she's a "pianoist". The first time she said this I corrected her and said you say "pianist" but she then corrected me saying; "Oh I'm not one of those yet; pianists are people who can play really well, like my teacher, I'm still a pianoist."

I'd say the length of time you have being playing , and being able to play several peices fluently

x

For me, if you can produce a note you can play that instrument. The other options go towards how well you play that instrument.