I wasn't really sure what I was, but I think I'm more of an amateur. Because I've gotten paid to play (violin) before, and people are always hiring me to play at their gigs and stuff, but it's not the only thing I do. I also play on street corners and stuff And I also sing in a band (and sometimes play guitar/harmonica too). I've been playing violin for 9 years, guitar for 3 (but I've never had a lesson, I'm too poor :-D) and harmonica for maybe 6 months...
I'm a guitarist of 6 years, and I play when I can about 7 or 8 hours off and on. I'm only an amateur insofar as I'm not performing for a living. I teach for a living right now until I start at M.I.T., but I think to consider yourself a "Professional" you need to do it for a profession. I think a lot of people didn't understand that idea, as there are 17 'professionals' here. That can't be true, man. It's very, very hard to make it as a pro. You're not a pro. if you smoke pot all day working at Hardees, playing guitar, trying to book gigs. That's a semantics argument, though, I guess.
Alot of professionals in alot of fields would have starved long ago had they relied solely on their chosen "profession" to feed them their entire lives. I suppose it comes down to your definition of professional. But thinking that all professional musicans subsist completely on their music at all times is like saying all actors are in the SAG. Do I get a salaried position with my music? No, but when I perform I am paid well for it based on my abilities, references, and the whole lot that goes with being professional at what one does. Being pro isnt all about cashing checks. As I said,there are levels of being pro, its generally not something you attain overnite.
Im a singer and im learning how to play guitar..since my dad makes them www.stringedthings.com....check it out anyone who plays violin, guitar, mandolin...anything with strings
So, I guess since I play a gig and get paid for it once every 2 weeks or so, I'm a professional? I'm adamant about this basically because I know people who starve for thier music, and any Joe who plays as a side-note shouldn't be able to call himself a professional. If you don't do it to survive, you're simply an amateur who plays an occasional gig.
So basically you have to make enough money off your music to support yourself to be a professional? What about the genre's that can't sell enough? Or a band that's started their own label that just hasn't caught on yet?
I'll repeat myself:If you don't do it for a living you're not a professional. You're an amateur otherwise. That's fine, I don't see what's wrong with being considered an amateur. If you're a musician who has a day job, you're not a professional musician. There are no genres that simply aren't listened to, or aren't able to be sold, so that's a pretty void argument in itself. I don't mean you're only a professional if you're on Columbia records. You're a professional if you're doing it for your livelihood. In your definition, I'm a professional. In your definition, about 9,000,000,000 people are professionals. That's not fair to the people who've dedicated thier lives to thier music and do it for thier livelihood. No one on a forum board should be allowed to devalue the title of "professional musician" like that.
Well, I'll politely disagree with you. I know folk and bluegrass musicians that have produced their own albums, and are popular to those within that circle, but refuse to play at coffee houses because they want to make more money. I also know people on symphonies that can't support themselves through classical music alone, yet I'd consider them professional musicians too. Then there's the entire electronic music scene to consider as well, although I'm sure many people don't consider it "real" music, whatever that means...
Okay, so these bluegrass artists you know,... they're producing thier own albums? And they're not making money for thier music, and don't do it for a living? And...how, exactly, are they not amateurs with a hobby, at this point? I've never known anyone in a symphony who can't make enough money to pay the rent. What kind of symphony is this in which these people you know are playing? Sounds a bit fishy to me. If they're just playing some sort of "summer stock" symphony, then sure, they're amateurs with a great interest in it. If they teach it for a living at the same time, they then become professionals, in my judgement.
the bluegrass people make enough money to cover their expenses for producing their music, and to add a cushion for new equipment. It's supplemental income, after all, they don't have to spend all day long working on music, they can balance it out. And I know two people on the North Carolina Symphony, one's a bio-engineer, the other a district band teacher. We don't have a super prolific symphony here, but I'd still consider them professionals. Yes, they could probably live off what they get, but why, when they have plenty of time to work another job on the side? This is definitely a semantics thing, I understand where you're coming from, though; I just think there's a lot of gray area. In my opinion, if your writing your own material, distributing it, and able to reproduce it live, you're a professional, regardless of if you're discovered or working another job.
Just because you are not 'profesional' don't start having a go at people for not defyning 'proffesional' 'amateur' just the way you wish .... Gee whiz if we boiled it right down you may have a point somewere but so does fulmah...calm down and get off your high horse for a minute or two.
What're you talking about Mathew? I'm not on a "high horse", or at all angry, and therefore have no need to calm down. Life is going to be a lot tougher on you if you put your own connotation on things. I think Fulman's wrong, he thinks I'm wrong, and you... you have no argument, I guess you just decided to come...? Do what? Make something of nothing, I suppose.
I never said there was a problem with that, they're just simply amateurs who play music in a symphony on the side. Thier real income, as you've made clear, is bio-engineering. They're amateurs who love to play classical music as a hobby. There's no negative connotation to being an amateur, they just simply aren't doing it as a profession, and therefore shouldn't use the word "professional musician" to define themselves when there are others around who're actually striving for music as a profession, who make thier livelihood doing it. And the one who teaches band, he's a professional. As pertains to my definition of professional. He makes his livelihood with music. The people here who work at Home Depot, and play side-gigs don't deserve to put themselves on the same level as someone like that, it's not fair to him, that's just the way it is, in my opinion. They're not professionals. They're hobbyists.
The guy on the symphony could support himself on music alone, if he felt like living in a crappy run down apartment, but he doesn't, he has the free time, a college degree, so he does something else he loves. I would think he'd be a professional musician and a bio-engineer? I'm going to have to use an analogy, since I think this is a semantic thing. If Eddy Vedder continued working as a pizza delivery driver after Pearl Jam got big, just for the hell of it, is he a professional? If I own a record label with several bands on it, and make really good money from it, but start my own band which is highly successful, but I give all my proceeds to charity and live off the royalties of other peoples music, would I still be a professional? ...thanks for debating, by the way, I'm not riled up either, just love a good debate, and the definition of what defines a "professional musician" is entertaining
If Vedder was supporting himself with his music, ofcourse he was a professional musician. If you were a record producer supporting yourself, you were a professional record producer. But the dictionary I have here has 3 different meanings, one that supports what you're saying: Performed by persons recieving pay. And one supporting my definition: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood. I think the guy who works in the symphony but does bio-engineering because he wants to make more money is simply a hobbyist. I mean, I play at a professional level as well, but I don't do it as a source of livelihood, and therefore don't believe I should consider myself a professional musician. Anyway, I'll just agree to disagree, as I don't think there's much more to draw out of this, and we're totally hijacking this person's thread.
so, its all about the money then? I suppose you can feel free to think what you wish, I am not tryin to argue with anyone. The reason I am not a "professional" by your description is that I am unwilling to play every coverband dive just to exist when I can do other things to feed myself, and maintain dignity. Also, Concert band and symphonies are some of the most complex and cutthroat gigs musicians can get. The stress is immense, the hours long, travel terrible, and your boss is standing over you at all times. Plus the attitudes of dozens of bandmates and massive gear to lug. Not to mention that their creativity is severely limited onstage. I dont envy them, having worked with and around these groups at times.
