TubeNet

spelling

Amateur - someone who plays music as a hobby
Semi-Professional - someone who occasionally gets paid for playing music, usually strives to be a professional
Professional - someone who is (successfully) dependant on playing (or the teaching of performance) for their livelihood

contra_pyro wrote:what about if the person doesnt get paid, but say the group does, for example, large touring groups getting paid travel expences, and paying directors and such for the performances, but the individual performer not getting paid? would it be considered a professional group, and therefore, would the individuals be considered professionals?

It's called drum corps.

Go here:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&o ... ofessional

... there's no absolute definition though, it's a subjective term in many ways - based of the perception of the word.

contra_pyro wrote:what about if the person doesnt get paid, but say the group does, for example, large touring groups getting paid travel expences, and paying directors and such for the performances, but the individual performer not getting paid? would it be considered a professional group, and therefore, would the individuals be considered professionals?

Why play in a group when everybody but you get paid?

contra_pyro wrote:what about if the person doesnt get paid, but say the group does, for example, large touring groups getting paid travel expences, and paying directors and such for the performances, but the individual performer not getting paid? would it be considered a professional group, and therefore, would the individuals be considered professionals?

I've highlighted the pertinent factor. The paid directors are professionals; the musicians in these groups are clients, especially if they pay a fee in order to participate.

Please note that this has no bearing one way or the other on the musical or artistic merit of the performances. It is quite possible (though certainly unusual) for an amateur group to be better than a professional group. I don't mean to denigrate an organization that exists to give amateurs a high-level playing experience, but words mean things, and professionals get paid.

Compare the group you have in mind to a college football team. People pay big money to come see the group. It travels around the country to perform. The coaches get paid. The players are decidedly not professionals.
___________________________
Joe Baker, who is all amateur....

I think the term "professional musician" has been pretty much settled. You get paid, and that payment contributes to your income. (Many people have multiple jobs, so that will be good enough)
So what´s a semi-pro ? An amateur ? A hobbyist ?

How about the attitude one has towards what they are doing?
What if a hobbyist played their instrument for the fun of it, but with no particular interest in the quality of their playing ?
(No judgment as to that quality, btw, it´s just not that important to the person)
An amateur could be someone who seeks personal fulfillment in playing AND IMPROVING on their instrument, out of a LOVE for it that is, after all, the latin root of the word "amateur".

Along that line, a semi-professional musician could be an amateur who WILL play non-paid gigs most of the time, but is as serious about his musical "product" as if he WERE paid. That is, practising that darned phrase UNTIL IT WORKS, so a messed-up performance won´t be THEIR fault.

According to these definitions, I´d be an amateur, then, because at some point after thorough practise I think "So what ? They could pay somebody if they wanted something perfect! No need to do night shifts for that."

To me it's a simple definition.
Professional: you pay your bills by getting paid for music.
Semi-Pro: you pay most of your bills by getting paid doing something else but add to your main income by playing for $$
Amateur: you don't get paid/have to pay to play.

Actual quality of playing comes after that, but I'm assuming that "they" are not willing to invest money in a really bad product and the law of supply and demand will regulate things. (Although I sometimes wonder about that when I'm zapping past some of the music channels)

Are there people actually PAYING to play in an ensemble ?
Geez!!
I´ll gladly pay for equipment and lessons, and I may be persuaded not to charge gas money, but other than that, time and effort is all an ensemble is likely to receive from me. If the ensemble can´t raise the money for guest conductors and literature by gigs and sponsors / donations, SOMETHING is terribly wrong.

tubeast wrote:Are there people actually PAYING to play in an ensemble ?
Geez!!

Here in Belgium it's unheard of too. I play in a local amateur wind band which actually pays everyone although that's a unique situation too.
But, back in Holland where I was raised, every amateur orchestra I ever played in, from the big Mahler and Stravinsky playing student symphonies with enormous waiting list to the crappiest undermanned (peopled?) local bands, asked a (mostly modest) contribution fee from their members.

Well, in that case Austria is bandpeople´s paradise.
I mean, I don´t want to brag, but...

Every village has their community band here, and the community board members as well as the public are more than supportive. They´re proud of their bands and view them as a substancial part of community life and representation.

About 98% of our instruments are the band´s own. I was issued a "Tracht" (traditional alpine dress), handmade by a taylor to REALLY fit. One of those will cost about 800€.

If a newbie can´t be taught by bandmembers and has to attend a music school nearby, 1/2 of private lesson expenses are covered by the community, the band shells out another quarter of the fees.

Most important: on any gig we play, two rounds of drink are covered by whoever booked us.

We do fundraising beerfests and play on behalf of the community every other weekend, on the other hand, but without the village´s support we couldn´t go anywhere.

Okay, I see the line of reasoning.
Does getting paid MORE make one MORE of a professional then?
I know that music is so different, but I'm thinking about how those of us in public interest law make much less (sometimes nothing at all) than those guys in the corner offices with their names on the building. I just wonder though, because we all pass the same Bar exam and have to take the same oath, are they more professional since they make more money, and is there such a phenomenon in music?
Is this what is meant then by "semi-professional"?
This is finally starting to make some sense...

I agree with the folks who say "a professional musician derives all or the majority of their income by performing music."

By this definition, the band director at the school where I teach a few private lessons is a TEACHER by profession...and even though he may play some gigs for pay, he is not a "professional musician."

Let's compare ourselves to other professions for a moment...have you ever heard of a "professional lawyer"? or a "professional doctor"? I don't think I would want to consult an amateur doctor, or even a semi-professional doctor. So, if you derive your income from performing, when someone asks you what you do for a living, why not answer, "I'm a musician." Why do we have to qualify it? If you do something else for a living, then by profession, you are not a musician. Even though, in your soul, you may be a musician.

bloke wrote:

tubalawlisa wrote:Okay, one more question of semantics:

Let's say a great player retires from Top Orchestra X, and no longer plays for money. Does s/he no longer remain worthy of professional status, or does s/he merely become a "retired professional"?

' question sure sounds "legalistic"...

And this surprises you?

bloke wrote:...semi-professional...??...semi-sweet...??...semi-monastic...??...semi-porcelain...??

... semi-pregnant ??

tubalawlisa wrote:Okay, I see the line of reasoning.
Does getting paid MORE make one MORE of a professional then?
I know that music is so different, but I'm thinking about how those of us in public interest law make much less (sometimes nothing at all) than those guys in the corner offices with their names on the building. I just wonder though, because we all pass the same Bar exam and have to take the same oath, are they more professional since they make more money, and is there such a phenomenon in music?
Is this what is meant then by "semi-professional"?
This is finally starting to make some sense...

OK, since I've been coming out of left field:

Standard of Performance and Percent of Time Spent

While it IS true that you can still get paid, even if you suck, I submit not for long. Lisa, you have a standard of performance defined by passing the bar. bloke, you have a standard of performance which is not defined by any number of degrees. Being professional about something to me says that you have a high minimum standard of performing that thing. Joe, this is why an amateur group to be better than a paid group. The level of preparation and standard of performance.

While it is true, if your standard of performance is second to none you are probably paid for this perfomance, it is not, by any means, a definition unto itself. It just means you got paid. And to many of us, the pursuit of music is not simply a monetary thing. (as, I assume, it is not for pro bono lawyers)

Joe Baker wrote:...It is quite possible (though certainly unusual) for an amateur group to be better than a professional group...

Compare the group you have in mind to a college football team...

Aren't you a Longhorn? The current UT team could beat a lot of the current NFL teams, as could USC. This is going to be a really good Rose Bowl.

IowegianStar wrote:I really don't know of any town in the last 50 years creating a "new" municipal band - most of the active city-supported bands have been operating for a long time.

I am very pleased to say that my town (Cookeville, TN) did recently start a town band, and does support it. We get paid for rehearsals and performances, have a music budget, and play to regularly large audeinces. Crossville and Harriman also have newish (less than 50 years) bands and I believe Athens still has one. While I realize this is not common, it is cool.

On a side note: there were several years that I made more playing than I did teaching public school. When that changed I guess I stopped being a Professional Musician and just became a Teacher.

Mark wrote: Aren't you a Longhorn? The current UT team could beat a lot of the current NFL teams, as could USC. This is going to be a really good Rose Bowl.

Yes indeed, I am! University of Texas, class of '83. Most likely why a college football team would come to mind for me right now !



And yes, the most dangerous place in America come January 4th will be between me and my television. This game could go either way, but I predict that it will long be remembered as one of the great college football matchups of all time. Maybe THE GREATEST. Both teams are just that good, all the way up and down the rosters. I'll cautiously predict a Texas win, because USC's offense plays right into Texas' defensive strengths. I believe Texas can largely control Reggie Bush (for Bush, that means holding him to only 100 yards or so ). Leinert is still a threat at QB, though, and -- I'll say it again -- this game could CERTAINLY go either way.

One thing: anyone who says that the BCS didn't pit the two best teams in the country against each other THIS year is nuts!
_______________________________________
Joe Baker, who is wearing his Vince Young white "HEART" baller-band as he is typing this.

Joe Baker wrote: One thing: anyone who says that the BCS didn't pit the two best teams in the country against each other THIS year is nuts!

Can't argue with that statement, but . . .

Anyone who says that a 16 team playoff, giving a shot at an upset to teams like Penn St., Oregon, Notre Dame, TCU, etc., wouldn't be MORE interesting, is nuts!

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Okay, I see the line of reasoning.
Does getting paid MORE make one MORE of a professional then?
I know that music is so different, but I'm thinking about how those of us in public interest law make much less (sometimes nothing at all) than those guys in the corner offices with their names on the building. I just wonder though, because we all pass the same Bar exam and have to take the same oath, are they more professional since they make more money, and is there such a phenomenon in music?
Is this what is meant then by "semi-professional"?
This is finally starting to make some sense...


I agree with the folks who say "a professional musician derives all or the majority of their income by performing music."

By this definition, the band director at the school where I teach a few private lessons is a TEACHER by profession...and even though he may play some gigs for pay, he is not a "professional musician."

Let's compare ourselves to other professions for a moment...have you ever heard of a "professional lawyer"? or a "professional doctor"? I don't think I would want to consult an amateur doctor, or even a semi-professional doctor. So, if you derive your income from performing, when someone asks you what you do for a living, why not answer, "I'm a musician." Why do we have to qualify it? If you do something else for a living, then by profession, you are not a musician. Even though, in your soul, you may be a musician.



What about that band director that makes the $1x,xxx per year playing?

I could find it insulting that one would find that I could not be professional musician just because I choose to teach as my primary source of income. This mentality boarders on the concept of:

If you can, play.
If you can't coach.
If you can't coach, referee.

There are a few of us out there that have played the tour groups, military and regional groups, and other professional venues before. There is a time, however when other priorities, such as families and the need for a steadier job dictates that we make a choice. Despite your theory, I am a professional musician, as well as a teacher, and other things that I do.

I can remember some NBA players that coached and played. Although these afe few and far between, they were known as player/coaches. They didn't loose one titile because they did the other.

Tom Mason[/quote]

Paul M wrote:It's someone that gets paid, simple as that.

No, I don't think it's quite that simple.

Looking at the word, and considering how most licensed professions are regulated, it's more an issue of whether you "profess" to the world that you offer particular services for hire.

Someone can be an unsuccessful professional, and never receive a check. But if they hung out the shingle that said "Tuba Player for Hire", they are a professional.

An amateur is one who does it for the love of doing it. Thus, the two are not antonyms, or at least they shouldn't be antonyms.

This comes up all the time in my other hobby, photography. I have done considerable commercial photography work in my day, just as I have been paid on many occasions to play the tuba. But I am not a professional photographer or tuba player. I am an amateur at both. Having received those checks, does that make me a professional? Only in a limited sense, and only for those gigs that I wouldn't have done without being paid.

So, my definition of "professional" is one who offers his services for hire. A "successful professional" is one who attracts a sufficiently large market for his services, at a price high enough to provide wealth (using "wealth" in the general sense, which means not "riches"). An unsuccessful professional is a pro who didn't attract a sufficient market. An amateur is one who does it for the love of it. A hobbyist is one who does something outside of the work environment. A commercial tuba player is one who is paid to play the tuba, wether or not they have considered themselves a professional.

In the engineering world, I have to have a professional license if I offer my services to the public as a professional. I still have to have the license even if I don't sell my services successfully. But I am able to call myself a professional if I have the license.

I don't have much in the way of hope that my strict use of these terms will be catching, heh, heh. But they do repair the common confusion between baing paid and the quality of the performance, and they do help avoid the notion that someone actually must be successful to be a professional. Success is usually measured as being just under what those who consider themselves successful have achieved. That's not a very useful measure.

Rick "a sometimes commercial tuba player who is not a professional" Denney