There are lots of threads on the go at the minute with respect to exam results/playing from memory/looking effortless, etc, etc.

But what really makes a musician "good"? Is it being brilliant at a young age? Is it hitting all the right notes? Does it really matter if you don't hit all the right notes? What is a musician? (I'll give my opinion once I've heard a few others!)

IMO... someone who communicates.

Not necessarily being brilliant at a young age.
Not necessarily hitting all the right notes, but convincing your audience that you did might be a part of it.
For me, it is playing in a way which convinces the audience, which reaches out and moves the listener. This is something which a grade 1 player can do - it's not necessarily even about the level already achieved. Les Dawson was a good musician - hitting all the wrong notes in a way which still communicated something musical. (We knew from what he did that he could also have played it all correctly, somehow.)
I've heard technically brilliant performances which have failed to move me, and playing with the occasional fluff which still had that special spark - I can admire the technically flawless, but it is the performance which sweeps me up which gets my vote.

I WAS going to wait, but you've hit on the nail what I was going to say myself - someone who communicates. The maths thread, the sight-reading thread, and all the others - all almost missed the point that music is a means of communication. The performer portrays/projects/extends his interpretation to the listener. Music captivates and enthralls. If it fails to do that, then something is missing. When you listen to your audience, you ought to hear silence. Fidgeting means you're not communicating.

And , yes, I go with wrong notes. The odd one or two or three does not detract form a good performance.

I would totally agree with all of the above.

I would also add that the good musician is able to do this with most classical styles of music (or jazz styles if a jazz musician etc) and they are able to do this with out having to practise the piece to death. For the truly gifted musician, it's something innate, they're able to communicate and move listeners emotionally after what would be a short practise time (relative to the average person). To clarify this last point, I learn piece A, get to grips with it and then practise for another million hours and maybe I'll be able to move someone a tinsey winsey bit on a good day but a truly talented musician will get to grips with it and practise it another 2 hours and move someone completely.

It's all relative - good compared to a beginner, maybe, but good compared to a pro? How can you ever really say you're good, as no-one is good compared to how they wish to be.

That aside, if you can "speak" through your instrument, that's a big step towards it, also being able to play convincingly, like you mean it, in any style.

I think to be a "good musician" instead of a "good violinist" or whatever, you need certain social skills too, you can't be a good musician if you don't know how to co-operate with a conductor, or turn up on time to rehearsals. You also need to be dedicated really. There's more, I believe, than skill required to be good.

I agree with the essence of the comments: it's about communication and getting across feeling in the piece. However, I do disagree with how little regard technique is given. Yes technique in it's own right is nothing great; but neither is artistry. No one wants to listen to a performance littered with wrong notes and inaccuracy, sure a few slips here and there 'on the day' aren't going to detract greatly from the performance. To me at least though a good musician must be both an artist and a perfectionist: a great performance only remains great through a certain number of inaccuracies.

Being musical can happen at any stage when a performer is working from within themselves, right from grade 1. Which is why I feel it's such a shame that people rush through the grades feeling how hard the pieces are is the important thing: it's not, one's communication and accuracy are the most important. As one develops in this way the gradual difficulty increas will come naturally .

I still think that there is something special about playing something simple so well that you can hear people listening.

Me = awful therefore no comment lol

In my honest opinion, there is a world of difference between someone who can give a spot on technically brilliant performance of a piece and someone who can give a musical interpretation of the piece.

Of course, it's pretty important to have technical brilliance... but there's a lot more to music than your technical ability.

I think a good musician is one who can play a piece and the audience genuinely enjoys it.

To me, the two go hand in hand - the communication aspect isn't going to fall into place if the technique is atrocious I don't disregard technique - it's important. If someone only hits half the right notes, their interpretation of the piece isn't going to be up to much! Ideally, the technique should be so good as to become natural, invisible, so that the listener is not being awed by technique but is being wowed by musicality. Good technique is a tool of excellent artistry.

I do agree that the best musicians would have both - but if there is to be a shortcoming (maybe only slightly!) - I would favour the communicator over the pure technician...
I once saw two well-known oboists in concert together - one technically brilliant, but with less good tone and somehow less spontaneous in his playing - it was as if he'd got "on top of" the music to the extent that there was no possible deviation from his one interpretation - the other just a bit splashy at times, but with a fantastic warm sound, full of liveliness...when they played together, the technician warmed up a bit, and the technique of the splashy one lifted!
Conclusion? Both must be brilliant musicians. And the concert was all the better for having both of them playing together.

Sorry, I don't know what a good musician is, generally, but for me personally, the bottom line is - the music has to move me. Or, it has to carry me with it or as Mozart was reported to have said it has to "charm" my senses? Whatever. It just has to speak to me albeit in different ways at different times, or else, I will not go all the way or pay to hear this person again. It's identification/communication.

None of the preceding contributions is wrong, but added together they still leave an important gap which is neither technique, nor communication; it has elements of sociability and of understanding of the music, and is required of the majority of professional musicians who play in ensembles. What they need is the ability to make their own contribution appropriate to the needs of the performance. In a conducted group, a substantial fraction of the responsibility for interpretation and coordination devolves upon the conductor, but the individual player still needs to make many decisions him/herself: s/he must choose tone quality, attack, coordination and dynamic balance to the best of her/his ability so that the conductor needs only to adjust them, rather than trying to specify every detail. In chamber music, each player needs to take responsibility for the whole sound, and it should be possible to determine an interpretation by discussion, though a pair of ears outside the group can be very helpful. Of course, inexperienced players can learn from a chamber music coach at rehearsal, but the performance is the sole responsibility of the players.

I don't know quite how to put the finger on it, but I always know when I've heard something a bit special. The 1992 Prom performance of Boris Godinov, when even though I'd been standing for over 4 hours, the first time I was aware my legs ached was when I was on the Tube home. The 1994 Prom performance of Vaughan Williams Seranade to Music, the 1987 final concert at the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival, where I heard the best performance I ever have of Bartok's music for Piano Percussion and Celeste.

As for are you good. I only consider myself an adequate pianist as I compare myself with my teacher and the first study pianists when I was at college. I've had some nice things said by critics about my singing, but I'm no Renee Flemming.

Are you good is so relative. And if you say you are people only think you're being arrogant.

Yes,technique would make a great musician.I've made teachers' eyes pop out with the way i play,-they all say i'm very impressive,but i can't see what the fuss is all about when i was first taught by a concert pianist who taught at a university ( i was only 8 !).She always drummed into me about technique she would always say " right, watch very carefully how i play and do it !" and its stayed with me for 30 years !

If you mean the piece I think you mean, the strings are sufficiently important to be in the title. I'm amazed that it was in a Contemporary Music Festival in 1987. Bartok died in 1945 and the Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste was first performed in 1936.

Oh I most certainly do, exept it was 1988, and the piece I rmembered was The Miraculous Mandarin [she says checking back through the programme]. YES and that was composed in 1918!

The theme for the festival was East meets West. Oh and the opening concert ended with Debussy's La Mer composed in 1905!

I agree with you all , it's all about communication...

I also believe a good musician is the musician who has the ability to interpret his feelings and emotions to the listener.

In my mind, a good musician plays the music well whilst making it speak to you. This is true to me whether playing alone or as part of something bigger

You know, reading all this reminds me of a quote I read somewhere: "Play the music not the instrument."

It's really strange sometimes that you see people who claim to be extremely good musicians play, and they hit every note spot on, play in tempo and in tune, but the music that comes out is just... lifeless and emotionless.

Without trying to sound patronising, for someone of 15 that's very profound and very true. I've heard many a technically good player give boring performances. The great ones are the ones who give you something to remember for the right reasons!