Define and Conquer
Someone posted a question about sight reading on the Guitar Noise Forums fairly recently. And got some very good answers which led to more questions which, as often happens in this sort of case, led to a discussion of reading music in general which, again as often happens in this sort of case, led to a discussion between whether or not it’s better to read music notation or tablature, or neither.
It’s incredibly interesting when this sort of thing happens because people will invariably line up on either side of an issue and it turns into an “either / or” scenario. Even when someone agrees that you can do both, he or she will add “but you’re still better do it the way my side does.”
This particular discussion then took the additional turn of turning into a definition of “musician” – again with one side saying that the full definition of being a musician includes reading music and with the other side saying that one can be a musician without reading music.
And, as it always is in the case of something like this, it all turns on what one’s definition of “musician” happens to be. Or what one personally wants it to be.
If you go to dictionary.com, for instance, they try to cover both sides of the coin:
1. a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.
2. any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.
Merriam Webster’s Deluxe (which happens to be sitting at my desk so I’m using it solely for convenience) goes more for he vague approach, saying only:
a composer, conductor, or performer of music; [i]especially[/i]: INSRUMENTALIST
This (kind of conveniently) takes reading and even writing music out of the equation, leaving (again kind of conveniently)
all sorts of room to make a case for either side. There are certainly composers who don’t write or read. Or you could take from this that they have to. It’s actually more interesting that they seem to take a swipe at vocalists, who most certainly should be considered musicians.
Or maybe I should say “some of whom should be considered musicians” because more often than not these sorts of arguments are about defining things according to our own experiences and education, not to mention to our own liking or to the point we want to make in a discussion. If someone is making a living playing music (playing in a band or on his or her own) and doesn’t read music, does that make him or her [i]not[/i] a musician? Or how about someone who plays in a band, does read music but never uses that skill in his or her work with the band (which is entirely possible)? Or how about someone who can read music but who does not play (and I have three siblings that prove this is possible, too! 
)
Whether we like it or not, definitions are important, but usually because they define us, who we are and what we believe. Because of this, definitions are also both highly flexible and, depending on the word being defined, subjectivity also has to be taken into account.
Of course, you’re more than welcome to disagree with my definition of definitions!
Regardless of who considers whom a musician (and whether or not reading music is part of one’s definition of being a musician), the ability to read music can be helpful. Extremely helpful and useful. And anyone who wants to grow as a musician has to make the call as to whether or not he or she will use this tool which is certainly available to him or her.
But even more important is just how inclusive or exclusive you want your definition of musician to be. I guess that ultimately decides how you’re going to define something.
Peace
