Talk:Multi-instrumentalist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i wanna know what multiple percussion is & what we call the players

People who play multiple types of percussion instrument are percussionists. --Stevefarrell 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 When adding to the list 2 Another suggestion 3 Prince? 4 Addition to the List

[edit] When adding to the list

Barry Burns is a noted multi instrumentalist- he undebiably meets the criteria for the definition, and he is noted because Mogwai's albums are considered important, frequently making best-of critics lists. You don't have to sell as many albums as Radiohead to be noted- unless you plan on changing the definition to "commercially viable". - Pediamedia1

The list needs to be kept as short as possible. I created List of Multi-instrumentalists for new additions. This is meant to be an article on what a multi-instrumentalist is and does, not a list of names, no matter how 'big' or critically-acclaimed they are or aren't. If people go to the main list, they'll see Barry Burns' name and they might have a look at his article, just as they might for the other names that aren't in this article. The list in this article should really have about 15 names at the most, in my opinion. It's just examples of multi-instrumentalists, of people who one ordinarily associates with the term - household names a lot of them. It's not meant to be a list of every critically-acclaimed or even every famous multi-instrumentalist who's ever recorded an album. --Stevefarrell 13:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please please don't add any more artists just because you happen to be a fan of theirs. You may love Michael Jackson but to the majority of people he is not seen as a multi-instrumentalist; in fact he is not seen as an instrumentalist at all. That is all.--Stevefarrell 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional. The list of 'noted multi-instrumentalists' is supposed to comprise people who are proficient on several instruments and are known to the general public - as well as their fans. You can't just keep adding to the list. Not everyone who's a multi-instrumentalist is notable for being so, although they may be a notable singer, guitarist or pianist. Notability doesn't mean 'they're a multi-instrumentalist', it means 'they are very well known in this field'. You wouldn't say everyone who's got a masters degree in science at Cambridge is a "notable scientist", would you? Please stop adding random people indiscriminately to the list --Stevefarrell 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stevefarrell, I think you may be right to remove George Harrison from the list, as he's mainly known as a guitarist even though he also played sitar. But I think it makes sense for Dave Grohl to be on the list. In my opinion, part of his fame comes from having been hugely successful as both a drummer and a guitarist. --Allen 13:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; though, really, does two instruments count as 'multi'? I don't think it does. We need to reach a consensus on what is actually meant both by 'multi-instrumentalist' (i.e., does playing two instruments to high proficiency count?) and 'notable' (do we mean they're notable as musicians, or notable as multi-instrumentalists, in that the phrase 'multi instrumentalist' is one many people think of when talking about that person, as it is with, say, Mike Oldfield or Beck?). For example, Stevie Wonder is considerably talented on a number of instruments, but is most known as a keyboard player, so should he be on the list; even though he is undoubtedly one of the most notable musicians listed? --Stevefarrell 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about notability; they should be known as multi-instrumentalists to a lot of people. Especially because being able to play multiple instruments fairly well is probably the norm rather than the exception among great instrumentalists. As for whether two counts as multiple, I guess I don't really have an opinion; I can see both sides. --Allen 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't help wondering if the list should be there at all. People just keep coming along and adding whoever their favourite musician is (Michael Jackson was here at one point) and it renders the list silly when anyone who's touched both a piano and a guitar can be added. It may be better overall to rewrite the opening section to expand on what a multi-instrumentalist is, giving a few examples of musicians rather than a hundred - that's what "Category: Multi-Instrumentalists" is for (although that's got a few wrong people in). --Stevefarrell 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It didn't even occur to me that this was an article, not a list. --Allen 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion

Does anyone fancy starting a List of Multi-instrumentalists article before the list here gets unwieldy and people start forgetting that it's supposed to be an article about what constitutes a multi-instrumentalist, and what their role is in modern popular music? There's already over fifty people on the list, and it would be three times that if I didn't keep checking the list for accuracy and vanity additions. If nobody wants to start the article then I deeply suggest, once again, that the less famous artists listed (eg Eric Dolphy) are removed. --Stevefarrell 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Created the list; all the lesser artists have been moved there. Please add new entries to that list unless they are sufficiently notable for inclusion in the short list here; by which I mean they have a number of hit records as a multi-instrumentalist, and are a name the majority of people will recognise. --Stevefarrell 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the separate "List article", it seems the bar for inclusion here should be quite high. I've edited out most of the list and wouldn't mind seing it shortened a bit more, but feel free to argue with me on this. I've also inserted a few comments hoping to redirect some editors who might enter some inappropriate names. I think to be named here artists should both be very well known individually, and well known for proficiency on several (i.e. more than two) instruments. And that their musicianship should be clearly highlighted in the article about them (why send someone to an article on Beck that doesn't even describe his musicianship?). -MrFizyx 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was wanting to do myself. It looks so much better now without people adding everyone who's played both a piano and an electric piano. I do feel that Beck warrants inclusion in the main article, since he plays the majority of his music himself, but it doesn't matter too much. This is exactly how I wanted to see this article, just a few examples instead of a lengthy list. Much tidier. --Stevefarrell 20:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince?

why isn't prince on here ? are you racists?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.249.66 (talk • contribs).

He has not been forgotten. See List of Multi-instrumentalists. He would be a better candidate for an example in this main article if the article, Prince (artist), went into some more detail about his musicianship. This article is not intended to be an inclusive list, just a few examples are given where readers can learn more. If you read the short list you will find there is also some diversity of race and nationality. -MrFizyx 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I note people are still coming along and adding to the list meaninglessly. I'm not sure why someone felt they had to come along and stick in John Lennon and George Harrison. Prince I can understand; he probably should be there, since his multi-instrumentalism is quite well documented (although apparently not on wikipedia). I just don't understand why people are still blindly adding when there's a clear disclaimer that says 'please don't add any more names to the list'. Still, it's happening in the Keyboardist article as well. --Stevefarrell 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is almost a type of vandalism, or possibly they don't read the disclaimer. I think the pattern goes something like this... Someone writes or works on an article for their favorite musician and they don't want it to be labeled as an orphan so they begin making links in other articles that might relate. They may be well intentioned, but it causes disruption and the build up of lists in articles that should have sentences and explainations. I see the same thing in music genre articles all the time, its a constant struggle. Prince does belong here, but I'd like to see someone write more about his musicianship in the Prince article first. Best, MrFizyx 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to the List

Hi, I recently added Jay Easton the disputed list. The reasons are as follows:

1. He is not a musician of popular music. This, I believe, adds variety to the list and shows that multiinstrumentalism can also branch to other genres of music as well. The article hints mostly at popular music, but in a lot of other music-related fields such as education and "classical" composition, multi-instrumentalism is preferred or required.

2. The amount of instruments as well as the type of instruments he plays (all the saxophones; many strange and unusual woodwinds primarily the lower-pitched instruments) show incredible talent and in my opinion is a definitive example of a "true" multi instrumentalist. After all, he is not an "average" (I'm not trying to belittle anyone, honestly) guitarist/keyboardist/drummer/singer/etc which is common in the popular music scene; he significantly stands out as a multi-instrumentalist.

3. He is known principally for his ability to play those instruments (including saxes) and it is his specialty.

Hope this clarifies it. I also think we should make the article less pop-oriented too, but more later... --Horncomposer 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)