So, what makes a proffessional musician, a proffessional?

[Dan Satterwhite]

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.

The title "Professional Musician" is the problem here. Just because a person teaches as a primary source of income does not mean that they are any more or less of a musician than a person who performs exclusively and earns $100,000 or more from it. If you use the criteria of "make money playing the tuba", then the vast majority of people who read this site would be "professional musicians", including any high school student that might have made $50 at a church gig, as well as Rick Denny, a self-proclaimed amateur. If you want to classify the "wonderkid" from another thread (who can only play three pitches) a professional musician because hypothetically he might have been thrown a wedding gig once in his short "career", then go ahead. I prefer to call someone who derives the majority of his income from performing a professional musician. Or, better yet, a MUSICIAN. In fact, some (including the IRS) might want to add to that "someone who derives the majority of his income from performing, and who does not live with their parents or attend school full-time".
As far as the quoted statement above, most full-time music teachers who teach because they want to would be proud to be called a teacher, rather than a professional musician. As the free-lance music business becomes more and more problematic each year, I find myself doing more private teaching. And I'd like to think that I'm a good teacher. However, I don't call myself a teacher. My wife is a former member of the Florida Philharmonic (which went bankrupt a couple of years ago) who now teaches Suzuki violin full time. She still performs with high level but part-time orchestras in the area (all there is at the moment) and plays frequent string quartet jobs, but she now calls herself a teacher.

Somehow, I don't think Bloke would be insulted to be called a repairman or a music businessman. And I suspect that some people who teach, but are insulted when they are not referred to as a professional musician, might have benefitted from Bloke's advice in the College Audition Material thread

[TexTuba]

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!

Yes, you're right..sorta. What separates Texas/USC from all of the others is that they're undefeated! All of these teams had their chance to go undefeated, but in the end couldn't. Therefore, while a playoff sounds great, it's not fair to those who have earned the No. 1 and No. 2 spot. Now if there were say 4 undefeated teams? I'm all for a playoff there. But since they DIDN'T, I say HOOK 'EM!!!

Ralph

[TexTuba]

RALPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHERE IN THE WIDE, WIDE WORLD OF SPORTS, HAVE YOU BEEN???????????


Well, heres another thing, what if say your brass group and or...other music ensemble dosnt get paid, but given things other then money in return (I.E., getting on feild seats after peforming national anthem, FOOd) stuff like that?

-tubachris

Just as good to me! Are you asking if you're a "professional" Chris? I mean, it's okay if you are. But...really...hahaha. Just kidding.

Ralph

[Arkietuba]

This is one of my favorite quotes, it's from Mr. Larry Jones (professor of Trumpet/Jazz here at the Univ. of Central Arkansas)..."An amatuer practices something until they get it right...a professional practices something until they cannot play it wrong."

[Charlie Goodman]

So what´s a semi-pro ?

Half of a professional. For instance, the left side of Gene Porkony, or Alan Baer's top half.

[Mark]

This is one of my favorite quotes, it's from Mr. Larry Jones (professor of Trumpet/Jazz here at the Univ. of Central Arkansas)..."An amatuer practices something until they get it right...a professional practices something until they cannot play it wrong."

Well, then I guess there are no professional musicians. Because even the best will occasionly play something wrong.

[Arkietuba]

"Well, then I guess there are no professional musicians. Because even the best will occasionly play something wrong."

Yes, that is true...but they practice the crap out of their music...

[quinterbourne]

to expand on...

"An amateur practices something until they get it right...a professional practices something until they cannot play it wrong."

In my opinion,
An amateur will practice a passage as many times as it takes them to play it correctly, once they play it correctly, they are finished practicing it. If this means it takes one time, then they practice it once. If they look at a passage they think they can play, they won't practice it. If there is some extra difficult passage, they will be happy if they will be able to play it correctly 50% of the time. At every performance... leading up to the passage, they will pray that they will play it correctly.

A professional will practice EVERYTHING, no matter how easy it looks. They will listen to recordings, "over-criticize" themselves, play along with recordings, check their intonation on every note and make sure every single articulation is perfect. They will then play each passage over and over again for 15 times... and if they screw up on the 14th time, they will start all over again. They know that if, during a performance or even a rehearsal, they screw something up enough times (which, for some groups, is once) they could lose: their job, their salary, their home and their ability to support themselves and their family (if applicable). They are INVESTED into every singe note at every single rehearsal and performance. They train themselves to be absolutely certain, with out any doubt, that they will be able to play the passage perfectly every time. They will, realistically, play every perfectly 95+% of the time, and never have a major screw up.

Someone who prepares anywhere in between the above two classifications shall be considered a semi-professional. They will play everything perfectly 65-80% of the time, and they will screw up majorly less than 10% of the time.

SCENARIOS (my opinions as well):
a) I play with the local community band. I get paid nothing, so I don't really care so much if I screw up. In this case, I would consider myself playing an amateur concert. I show up 15 minutes before the concert.

b) I play a wedding gig with a brass quintet. I get paid $50. Nobody's really listening to us. I try my very best to play as well as a can, but if I screw up a little, that's ok. Or, I play a gig with a SUPER GOOD orchestra, but for little to no money. In these cases I would consider myself playing a semi-professional concert. Include 5 hours playing with a Portuguese marching band for $75 in this category. I show up 30 minutes before the concert.

c) I play with a brass quintet at a church for Easter. I get paid $250. Or, I play with any group for a reasonable amount of money ($100+). I will practice my music like crazy, over and over again, until I am confident it will be impossible for me to screw up. I would consider myself playing a professional concert in this case. I show up 60 minutes before the concert.

*please note: I am not saying that I will allow myself to suck as a concert at which I am not being paid. I do understand my reputation is at stake, and that this unpaid concert may lead to paid gigs. All I do is prioritize concert preparedness based on how much I am paid, how difficult the music is, and how REWARDING playing with a certain group is (usually in that order).

So, one could define a(n):
- amateur musician as one who does mostly a) and a little bit of b)
- semi-professional musician as one who does mainly b) and a little bit of a) and c)
- professional musician as one who does mostly c) and maybe a little bit of b)

Again, amateur, semi-professional and professional are SUBJECTIVE terms. People can play at the "professional level" but still consider themselves "amateurs." I know plenty of people who play at the "amateur level" but consider themselves "professionals." I think Schlep's tuba buddy may fall into that category.

People seem to want a precise definition for all three. Well, just decide for yourself! It has to do with a combination of a level of performance as well as level of payment for services. Once you define your PERCEPTION of amateur and professional, the term semi-professional will apply to everything in between.

[winston]

People seem to want a precise definition for all three. Well, just decide for yourself! It has to do with a combination of a level of performance as well as level of payment for services. Once you define your PERCEPTION of amateur and professional, the term semi-professional will apply to everything in between.

A very good post. Thanks Corey.

Another point that you may wish to add to this is being able to first understand the perspective from which you are percieving it from. Different cultures will have different ideas of what the difference between "amateur" and "professional" musicians are. See the excerpt from an interview with Patrick Sheridan below. My point is that the ideas of what the difference will vary from culture to culture.

Another passion of mine is to make “amateurâ€

[quinterbourne]

Ok, let's say we have two groups in Cincinatti.

Group A: "Amateur" group. Nobody gets paid. Concert tickets cost $5.

Group B: "Professional" group. Everyone gets paid enough to live off of. Concert tickets cost $30.

If groups A and B were equal according performance level, then almost all patrons would go to see group A's concerts. Group B would go bankrupt, all of the salaried players would lose their jobs and their income, and would end up flipping burgers at Burger King. This is not a good thing.

I do agree that Amateur groups need to "step it up" quite a bit in North America as a general rule. Hopefully, this will expose people to "classical" music who wouldn't be able to otherwise afford it. This would also give amateur players better experience to prepare them for a professional group.

I don't think this specific problem (amateur groups sucking) has anything to do with amateur vs. professional... but with the lack of public interest in "classical" music. Popular music (and I use this term broadly, to apply to rock, punk, country, alternative, etc) is popular to a much higher degree in North America than it is in Europe. This is why amateur groups in Europe are better than they are in North America, and why there are FAR MORE professional orchestras per capita in Europe than in North America.

Orchestras in North America are trying hard to get good audiences, by having "light" concerts where they may feature music by John Williams, or even the Beatles arranged for orchestra... but the growing public interest towards U2, Green Day, Nirvana, etc. still pull the orchestras down. I won't even get into the causes of this... it's essay material. I'll leave that where it is!

[Dylan King]

A professional will practice EVERYTHING, no matter how easy it looks. They will listen to recordings, "over-criticize" themselves, play along with recordings, check their intonation on every note and make sure every single articulation is perfect. They will then play each passage over and over again for 15 times... and if they screw up on the 14th time, they will start all over again. They know that if, during a performance or even a rehearsal, they screw something up enough times (which, for some groups, is once) they could lose: their job, their salary, their home and their ability to support themselves and their family (if applicable). They are INVESTED into every singe note at every single rehearsal and performance. They train themselves to be absolutely certain, with out any doubt, that they will be able to play the passage perfectly every time. They will, realistically, play every perfectly 95+% of the time, and never have a major screw up.

Ask Tommy Johnson how much he practices.

A pro would never think like the quote above. Some practice more than others. Some practice barely at all, and never have much need to do so.

A pro has the confidance in their own ability to compete with other musicians and be successful.

No time to be guessing oneself and working out the details.
A pro's time doing music is just that. It should be done with pleasure and ease.

Tommy Johnson is the Arnold Palmer of the tuba.
One might say that Pat Sheridan is the Tiger Woods.
Roger Bobo is Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan, and perhaps a little John Daly all in one.

Arnold Jacobs invented golf.

If a player's on tour, he knows it.

[windshieldbug]

I show up 60 minutes before the concert

The trombone section I played with made it a point of honor to see who could show up latest, and then play the hell out of a concert...

[quinterbourne]

There are exceptions to every rule...

Tommy Johnson, Pat Sheridan, Roger Bobo and Arnold Jacobs may be considered not as pros, but as gods.

My point is that professionals will do whatever it takes to make every performance and rehearsal absolutely perfect. The basic concept of being a professional musician is that there are very few rehearsals for every concert, so there is absolutely no time for work on individual parts at the rehearsal... if they're paid $250 for a rehearsal, it is assumed $100 is for the 2-3 hour rehearsal and $150 is for 4 hours of individual practice time before the rehearsal.

Again, there are exceptions, if it takes a professional just one time to be secure in the knowledge that they will play a certain passage absolutely perfectly every time, then so be it. What I am trying to say is that when a professional sits down for the first rehearsal - they play perfectly - not a single note is missed or played incorrectly, dynamics are accurate, articulations are perfect. The rehearsals are used to spend time on musical aspects, not notes.

[Rick Denney]

Since nobody seemed to like my careful etymology, let me try some different definitions:

Pro: One who smiles when the word "Tacet" appears on a part, as long as he still gets paid.

Amateur: One who complains if the music has more than a four-measure rest.

Pro: One whose objective is to never hear the word "Tuba" escape the maestro's lips.

Amateur: One who feels neglected, or even discriminated against, if the director never complains about the tuba section, and thus might be tempted to decorate the music beyond the ink just to see if the director notices.

And here I introduce a couple more terms:

Artist: One who is concerned about the final musical effect more than any hope of technical perfection.

Pro: One who worries that a small mistake will cause the word "Tuba" to escape the maestro's lips.

Amateur: One who constructs the final musical effect in his head in spite of what comes out of the instrument.

Duffer: One who has no final musical effect in mind at all.

Artist: One who has no regard for money.

Pro: One who judges clients solely by whether their checks bounce. Alternatively, one who refuses to play in groups that charge dues.

Amateur: One who would pay dues to play.

Duffer: One who has to pay dues to play.

That ought to get just about everyone riled up.

Rick "duffer" Denney

[Tom Mason]

Professional........

Never lets anything be an excuse for playing correctly.

I played a gig with a rather large name in the sax world (no, it wasn't craftsman or murray), a couple of years ago. Did the one rehearsal and the concert while passing my first kidney stone.

Tom Mason

[TubaRay]

Pro: One whose objective is to never hear the word "Tuba" escape the maestro's lips.

I can recall a particular episode in my own not-too-distant past when I was actually involved in a traffic accident on the way to an (important) rehearsal. (My car was sideswiped by another vehicle.) I had built in about twenty or so extra minutes of "extra" travelling time (in addition to the normal amount for that commute, and also the amount of time I knew it would take to enter the building and prepare to play).

I determined that the other driver was a responsible person, collected/exchanged information, mutually agreed that - if the police were called - they wouldn't arrive for hours, cut-and-pulled on stuff hanging from my car to make it driveable, BACKED DOWN THE SHOULDER OF THE RAMP FROM ONE FREEWAY TO ANOTHER (as a horrible - and visually hidden - traffic jam on the subsequent freeway was, for the most part, the real cause of the accident), went an alternate (much longer) way on the original freeway, and STILL arrived at that rehearsal (in my seat) with two minutes to spare.

bloke "professional?"

IMPRESSIVE!!!

[windshieldbug]

[Leland]

If a player's on tour, he knows it.

Probably the best definition-per-sentence length ratio here.

Pro: One whose objective is to never hear the word "Tuba" escape the maestro's lips.

Oh, the conductor can say "Tuba" all he wants, as long as it's always followed by something like, "... that was excellent."

[quinterbourne]

Well, it may a little tough, in some aspects, to compare musicans and doctors/lawyers since we are so much different. Keep in mind that anybody could be the principal tuba of the CSO... but someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer needs to go through specific schooling programs and testing. There are some ways to connect, though.

Perhaps we could consider the term "professional" as being a verb instead of a noun. Hence the term "professional performance" implies that all the musicians are being paid (often a certain amount determined by the union). So one could say you are a professional when you are performing for money (of a certain amount).

On the other hand, when a lawyer does pro bono work, isn't that still considered a professional quality service? The lawyer doing pro bono work isn't an amateur. This is an interesting concept to wrap one's head around. If a full time orchestral musician does a gig for no money, they are still a professional, and will most likely give a professional quality performance.

How many of you have gone to the doctor, a "professional" doctor, and have been treated poorly? The doctor may have acted unprofessionally. Does this stip him of this "professional" status? If a full time orchestral musician screws up royally in a performance, he/she is still a professional.

In many ways, I like to associate ones attitude with their status of being "amateur" or "professional." I guess this is just one factor in determining whether or not someone is a professional. When I am (and everyone else in the ensemble) is being paid a reasonable amount of money, then people tend to act professionally. The ensemble also tends to have a professional performance. So, at that moment, I would consider all of them professional musicians (even though many of them may have "day jobs" outside the music field).

Also, if people perform for no money, but still treat it as if they were (which is 99% of the time not the case) and act and perform professionally, give a professional performance... I would consider them to all be professionals.

As I said earlier, it all comes down to personal opinion. I must stress though that people need to act professionally when they are being paid. If you don't, you won't be asked back. Competition is for fierce in our business.

[quinterbourne]

Yes, I'm sure some doctors and lawyers think that they didn't really need the schooling that was required... but it was required (as opposed to recommended, expected or preferred).

Yes, I suppose there is "testing" for the spots in the orchestra, the audition. You are correct on that point (keep in mind the "test" for the orchestra can only have one person pass, unlike the BAR exam, where it depends on how well you do).

To expand on that... orchestral auditions take the best person. There is not necessarily a "standard" set, just the best person gets in (although I guess they could choose nobody and just play mozart all year). Theoretically, someone who is not really capable and unsuited to take the position could get it (due to luck, and based on how everyone else played).

The BAR exam is different though - either you pass or you fail. It doesn't depend on how well other people do... if you can meet the standard they have set, you are allowed to practice law.

As far as schooling is concerned... to be a lawyer it is required. To be a member of an orchestra, it is recommended, maybe expeced, but not necessary. I'm sure they like seeing the resume, but ultimately they pick the best player for the job (even if all the player has is a highschool education).

My argument is, there aren't any STANDARDS set in stone for the music industry (besides those that natually develop due to competition). If someone got a job with the CSO and royally screws up, there is no "music license" to be taken away.

very funny