Minstrel vs. musician II

While it is interesting to explore the role of the professional minstrel (thanks to this commenter for reflections on some examples in Scotland) I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the historical performance context of this music was not always - perhaps not even most often - professional. Nobles would be expected to have at least some knowledge of music, ideally be able to perform something if requested, and might be highly accomplished instrumentalists.

One of my favourites is James I of Scotland, who in the early 15th century spent 18 years of his young life a captive of the English, but seems to have used the time well to acquire musical (amongst other) skills. He was described by Walter Bower in 1437 as not only distinguished in singing but:

"also in high standard of performance on the drum, for example, and the fiddle, on the psaltery and organ, the flute and harp, the trumpet and pipe, certainly not as an enthusiastic amateur, but attaining the highest degree of mastery...especially in handling the harp." 

An evening after his eventual return to Scotland is described thus:

"Both afore supper and long aftere ynto quarter of the nyght, in which the Erle of Athelles and Robert Stward were aboute the Kyng, where they were occupied at the playing of the chesse, at the tables; yn syngyng, and pypyng, yn harpyng and other honest solaces of grete plesaunce and disporte"

(Both quotes come from the book  Tree of Strings by K. Sanger & A. Kinnaird, p.81)

In performing myself it can be nice to have that image in mind - I am playing to the audience not as their paid employee (a minstrel) but as a noble demonstrating my skills to other nobles for their pleasure. Although I suppose it is easier for a king to be sure of a good reception.