A Musician is Defined by New Content

Musician" doesn't necessarily include instrumentalists When you said that architect analogy was a faulty one, you claimed that the definition of musician includes instrumentalist. However, the definition that you used says "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music." As it says "especially instrumental music," than this means that instrumental music is just a generalization. Music is a collection of sounds used in rhythm. However, it can be atonal and without noticeable rhythm, and still count as sounds following an (unknown) rhythm. Free form jazz is an example. That being said, instruments are not necessary to create music. Essentially, what I just said here is that a generalization can be added to any definition and still be true and false at the same time. The definition of "architect" could be changed to add in "generally do not work in construction" and it would still be true. That is the exact sort of generalization that the "especially instrumental music" is. It doesn't actually change its already existing definition, and therefore, the comparison of musicians to architects is adequate. However, if this explanation does not suit my opponent, I will add in an additional comparison. This would be that of an inventor and a user. The inventor must use his own ingenuity to create new processes or items. Otherwise, he is not to be considered an inventor. This is the same as musician. The user simply uses the products that the inventor created. The mere instrumentalist simply plays the music laid down by the musician. Musician is wrongly defined The word "Musician" is wrongly defined because its use is largely off from its definition. The definition, "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music," implies that once a person is considered a musician, they simply are. That is to say that no musician can be considered more or less of a musician than another musician once they have received that classification. However, musicians are widely compared. When my opponent compared an orchestral musician to a pub player in terms of musicianship, my opponent illustrated my point. The definition should be changed to more closely reflect the usage, where musicians can be compared to each other based on their work. If musicians are compared while playing a work that is already written, than unless they interpret the work differently, the performances would be considered identical, so it would be impossible to compare the two. That is why the definition needs to be changed. Orchestral argument What my opponent is essentially saying is that skill, popularity, and pay qualifies a musician. This is a completely off-center remark. I will use comparisons to illustrate this point. The first one to address is skill in respective instruments. Please consider Angus Young versus Yngwie Malmsteen. Angus Young is the lead guitar player for AC/DC. His solos and songs are considered some of the greatest in rock and roll. However, it is very rare for either his solos or the chord progressions in his songs to deviate from the notes outlined in a basic minor pentatonic. That is essentially saying that he has a very simplistic style of play as compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, a virtuoso of the guitar. Is Angus Young less of a musician than Yngwie Malmsteen? Absolutely not. The second comparison will deal with pay. In 2008, musicians Jack White and Alicia Keys collaborated on the song "Another Way to Die." The song was entirely written by Jack White. Alicia Keys was brought in to sing for the track. Jack White's net worth is 30 million, while Alicia Key's is 45 million. Does that mean Alicia Keys is more of a musician than Jack White? In regards to popularity, well, Lady Gaga receives much more press and radio play time than Bach does. More people around the world can claim that they have heard a Lady Gaga song or seen an article about her than can claim the same for Bach. Does that mean that Lady Gaga is more of a musician than Johann Sebastian Bach? Certainly not. So to conclude this counterargument, people playing in high-end professional orchestras getting paid huge amounts of money without any musical originality are not musicians. They are simply performing a homogeneous task they were trained to do, like solving a puzzle, reading a book, or brushing one's teeth. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.celebritynetworth.com... http://www.celebritynetworth.com...