Separating the pros from the amateurs; a list

[Ed Fuqua]

...I think that points to why having a set of aesthetic criteria to apply to music (or art, or literature) is a good thing. Not because everyone is going to agree with your aesthetic criteria, but because they are signposts to what helps you develop as a musician, with your own voice.

Again, it depends on how you're establishing this "aesthetic criteria". Deciding that oranges are bad for you to eat because they have too much acidity or you have a citrus allergy is different than deciding that they're bad for you to eat because they're not bacon. I just don't care for opera, no matter how many times I've dropped the needle over the years. I've only gone to hear one live, the Met doing MAGIC FLUTE, and still and all I'd rather just listen to Mozart's horn concertos. But to decide that that music is somehow less than "professional" because it doesn't fit some personal choice I made as to what I find appealing in music would be the height of stupidity.

Just by the by, do you have anywhere online to hear what you sound like?

 

[TigerInATrance]

This may be a good list, unfortunately it is worded in a way that makes it confrontational and seems to imply that there is really only one valid style of playing (whether or not that is the intent is immaterial since it is fairly obvious that the way it has been taken is that you mean that simple, in the pocket playing is the only valid style of bass playing that one could consider a professional approach.)

Of course, this list also doesn't speak to all music. It's probably pretty accurate for genres in which the vocals (and more importantly, the singer) are the focus (i.e. Pop music.)

However, the only real distinction between pro and amateur is the fact that one receives compensation for their playing and the other does not.

 

[lfmn16]

IMHO this obsession with playing simple bass lines has really gotten out of hand. There used to be a lot of great bands that didn't have simple bass players - Rush, Yes, Faces, Deep Purple, the Who, Hendrix, etc. Not to say every song needs a complex bass line, but in general it takes a skilled bass player to create an interesting bass line that works with the song.

 

[t77mackie]

• Play more notes than necessary
• Not take into account what the singer or the rest of the band might be doing
• Change register for no reason
• not put what is best for the song ahead of everything else
• fail to articulate notes in order to enhance the time feel
• execute rhythmically inaccurate lines and fail to lock in with the other players

I would make a distinction - a 'pro' makes a living playing with his instrument. Your list would identify an 'immature' player. Semantics. Subjective.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I would make a distinction - a 'pro' makes a living playing with his instrument. Your list would identify an 'immature' player. Semantics. Subjective.

I beg to disagree with you.
Let's take a truly PRO bass player who plays in some Radio/TV orchestra. That bass player is well educated and even slightly "snooty" about it. That bass player sight-reads any kind of bass-lines he/she sees, and because of that, makes a good living.
Sometimes on a side, that bass player does some bar gigs, etc...
In the mind of that bass player, all those gigs - not serious business; therefore, he/she plays them like "playfully dribbling around a group of kids/musicians".
But...
Let's say, some passing-by musician/or a bass player listens to our "truly PRO" bass player's "noodling" playing, and thinks, "That bassist disregards the song and the other musicians. That bass player sound more like an amateur".

My question:

Is "our truly PRO/Radio&TV bass player" a mature player or "immature" one.
(But he/she is TRULY PRO - education, plus making money with the bass guitar.)

I completely agree with Fergie who said,
"The difference between a professional and an amateur , in anything, is attitude."

 

[matthewbrown]

I think I'd better get to work on my writing skills as much as my playing skills, because I seem to have caused far more of a ruckus than I intended. I sure don't want to get into a pi$$ing match over this with anyone.

First, I didn't mean to disparage busy bass lines, which seems to have been what many readers took away from the OP. "No more notes than necessary" can still be LOTS AND LOTS OF NOTES. Second, I'm not trying to disparage any particular style. Third, I'm interested not in discussing players, but performances.

Perhaps the terms "amateur" and "pro" are too loaded.

So here's what I think I could use discussion from some thoughtful bassists at TB: What are the criteria by which you judge an excellent performance? How does this vary across styles? How does excellent performance differ from just being a really creative musician, and where do these two things overlap?

For the record, I'm just a semi-pro player who is lucky enough to get called sometimes to play live gigs with some people who are much more talented and skilled than I am. I am not inviting critiques of my work right now; if I get a decent recording of what I consider a good, representative performance, I'll post it on soundcloud.

In the meantime here's some Paul Hanson on electric bassoon with an excellent drummer I shared the bandstand with over the years, Alan Hall. [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[MegaSwing]

<snip>Perhaps the terms "amateur" and "pro" are too loaded.<snip>[/MEDIA]

"Pro" is simple: At some point or another, you've been paid for your services. Actually, that is a pretty low bar to clear.

Even "working pro" is fraught, because you can play for money a lot without depending on that income for subsistence.

Both can be "amateurs".

We need a ruling.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

So here's what I think I could use discussion from some thoughtful bassists at TB: What are the criteria by which you judge an excellent performance? How does this vary across styles? How does excellent performance differ from just being a really creative musician, and where do these two things overlap?

I know you want it to be objective, but it's really not. It's subjective and cumulative and as contingent on mood as much as personal development. When I'm listening to music, not participating, it has to affect me emotionally somehow and that has as much to do with me as it does the musicians. One of the things I've found from working in a couple of major museums and visiting a lot more, the same work can have a different effect/affect on different days and different viewings. Things that I didn't even give a second glance before can suddenly become heavy with meaning, and vice versa. The painter didn't suddenly become more creative or less creative, MY reaction to the work changed. And, as evidenced in the world of outsider art, even those artists who have no training, have little craftsmanship and present roughly finished work can still achieve moments of True Universal Beauty, if the work hits you just right. Even if, like Verdi, Henry Darger still leaves me cold.

Then you have those things that aren't immediately appealing, but the more time you spend listening, viewing, contemplating (sometimes it's just more time being alive), the more the work can open to you. I know when I first heard Bird, all I could hear was velocity. He played fast and none of the notes sounded wrong, so he must be good, right? But it was hard to listen to the recordings, because the recording quality wasn't what I was used to hearing. But, as I worked on ear training (so I could hear on a deeper level) and as I played this music more, it got more and more that I could really hear what Bird was playing, none of that mattered. I could listen to the music, not the recording.

Skill sets change, depending on the music you're trying to express. The goals don't, really. All the really great musicians, no matter the genre, are just trying to get some conception of what they are hearing internally out into the air. For the guy sitting in some village in Mali with a 3 string guitar that he plays overhand sitting on his lap to the woman playing p'i paa with the Peking National Opera company. To try to judge one with the criteria for the other without hearing the music and being open to the feelings that engenders in you is, to me, sadly missing the whole point.

 

[Nydhog]

The difference between a professional and an amateur is refusing to play Wagon Wheel.

As a bass player in a Country/Southern Rock cover band: That song helps pay the bills lol. But god how I hate it....

 

[tjontheroad]

I'm not a pro. Nor do I feel like an amateur. I studied piano and saxophone. Played guitar longer than anything. I play my bass in the context of the whole band and how it fits in the music.

What's an amateur? My signature says it all for me.

An amateur plays it until he can play it right. A professional plays it until he can't play it wrong.

 

[dalkowski]

So here's what I think I could use discussion from some thoughtful bassists at TB: What are the criteria by which you judge an excellent performance? How does this vary across styles? How does excellent performance differ from just being a really creative musician, and where do these two things overlap?

What Ed said.

This is so subjective, it makes my teeth hurt. But since you asked, I'll deem my performance as "excellent" if I'm making butts move. "Creativity?" Whoever's playing, it's all in service to the song—if it's a sweet and solid groove, then that's creative enough for me.

Good night, and good luck.

 

[FerruleCat]

...So I'd take the OP's list as indicating what it takes to be a "responsible" bassist at ANY level...

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I liked Joebone's wording here. I'm not playing with anyone at the moment, but I can't wait for an opportunity to stop, stare at the guitar player, and say, "Dude, that was just irresponsible."

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I find that kind of stuff quite ridiculous ... pro vs amateur.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Why ? I think that chemistry between the band member is important to make it works even if you never played togheter before. It doesn't mean you are pro with many years of Learning music and actually progress in music.

 

[matthewbrown]

I know you want it to be objective, but it's really not. It's subjective and cumulative and as contingent on mood as much as personal development. When I'm listening to music, not participating, it has to affect me emotionally somehow and that has as much to do with me as it does the musicians. One of the things I've found from working in a couple of major museums and visiting a lot more, the same work can have a different effect/affect on different days and different viewings. Things that I didn't even give a second glance before can suddenly become heavy with meaning, and vice versa. The painter didn't suddenly become more creative or less creative, MY reaction to the work changed. And, as evidenced in the world of outsider art, even those artists who have no training, have little craftsmanship and present roughly finished work can still achieve moments of True Universal Beauty, if the work hits you just right. Even if, like Verdi, Henry Darger still leaves me cold.

Then you have those things that aren't immediately appealing, but the more time you spend listening, viewing, contemplating (sometimes it's just more time being alive), the more the work can open to you. I know when I first heard Bird, all I could hear was velocity. He played fast and none of the notes sounded wrong, so he must be good, right? But it was hard to listen to the recordings, because the recording quality wasn't what I was used to hearing. But, as I worked on ear training (so I could hear on a deeper level) and as I played this music more, it got more and more that I could really hear what Bird was playing, none of that mattered. I could listen to the music, not the recording.

Skill sets change, depending on the music you're trying to express. The goals don't, really. All the really great musicians, no matter the genre, are just trying to get some conception of what they are hearing internally out into the air. For the guy sitting in some village in Mali with a 3 string guitar that he plays overhand sitting on his lap to the woman playing p'i paa with the Peking National Opera company. To try to judge one with the criteria for the other without hearing the music and being open to the feelings that engenders in you is, to me, sadly missing the whole point.

Thanks for this excellent post, Ed. I found I had the same reaction to Bird, yet now I listen to much of his legacy with great pleasure -- and play quite a few of his tunes, too. I agree, too, with your emphasis on the emotional content of the music. I find that in my own listening I like a balance between emotional and intellectual engagement.

I think there are many worthwhile ways to engage with music, and that the subjective element has to be there. I'm actually not interested in some kind of objective aesthetic scale. I'm reminded of the scene in Dead Poets Society in which Robin Williams' character has the student ripping just such a scale out of their textbooks (quite rightly!). At the same time, there are times when a performance that might have been successful didn't work (I have a lot of these myself!), and I feel it's good to reflect on the elements that make up a successful performance as part of one's practice, as both performer and listener.

 

[radioface]

Playing to loudly! Playing the same style regardless of the song being played, and not being able to adapt well, to new music on the fly, are just some of the amateur things I notice some bass players do on stage. Not knowing his/her instrument is my biggest pet peeve.

 

[JACink]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the people that say that the difference between Pro and Amateur is purely monetary.

There are amazing bassists that do not get paid for doing what they do, and are therefore amateurs, there are also some terrible bassists (not mentioning names) that make a lot of money from playing and are therefore Pro.

You can make millions of lists regarding what makes a good or bad bassist (and everything in between), but Pro vs Amateur is only a case of money.

 

[TroyK]

I always hate this conversation, it's been played out a million times and the discussion always meanders the same jacked up path. I think the emotion people bring to it has to do with something other than what we claim we are debating. JACink said it pretty well. There's no reason to negotiate the meaning of words. Those definitions were decided years ago by people who were unconcerned about our consent:

professional

[pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
adjective

1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain:
a professional builder.


amateur
[am-uh-choo r, -cher, -ter, am-uh-tur]
noun

1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

We can debate the definition or distinction of words we make up like "heavy cat" or "ass hat", but there is complete futility in debating what English words mean.

There are other perfectly good words that I think apply to many players, e.g.:

avocation
[av-uh-key-shuh n]
noun

1. something a person does in addition to a principal occupation

But I don't think the point of these discussions is ever to analyze people's tax returns. It's usually either about taste or how much we can or can't deal with someone else being the way they are or whether we respect them and what they do, which in itself is a nasty way to start a conversation.

Sometimes people need a day job to live, but they actually spend more time (and passion) in their avocation. Those people generally don't like being called "amateurs" or "hobbiest". Sometimes people take day jobs, because they find playing cruise ships and weddings soul crushing and they want to have a different relationship with music. Sometimes people need health insurance and no amount of gigs or touring is going to provide it to them. Sometimes professional 25 year old jazz musicians with attitudes about who is a pro and who is a hobbiest are living on trust funds.

What is it that we would really like to be discussing? Musicality? Reliability? Technical ability? Any time someone starts by making a proclamation of who is a real pro and who's not, everything within reach gets sucked down a nasty vortex.

 

[TroyK]

By the way, this was on ESPN this morning:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/15-year-american-catherine-bellis-makes-history-us/story?id=25143867

A 15 year old girl beat the #12 seed in the US Open (Tennis). She declined the $65k prize, because had she accepted it, she would lose her amateur status and not be allowed to play in college (NCAA). The distinction is purely monetary. But at least on this particular day, she was a better tennis player than the #12 ranked professional that she beat.

I strongly suspect that she takes herself just as seriously, works just as hard, etc.

 

[Moley13]

This may be a good list, unfortunately it is worded in a way that makes it confrontational and seems to imply that there is really only one valid style of playing ...

I actually feel (and posted earlier) that the wording carefully avoids actually stating anything of value!

"Pro" is simple: At some point or another, you've been paid for your services. Actually, that is a pretty low bar to clear.

It's a tricky line, though. Here in Australia, we have separate categories in income tax for when people get paid for services, but they aren't considered "professionals" - usually the payment was more of a gesture or compensation for TIME (and nothing else!). For example, if a weekend warrior has a little band who rarely gigs, and they play the office Christmas party, they might get $50 each, but this isn't for their performance, more for their time (or just as a gesture). They are NOT considered professional by tax law despite having been paid.

The rules mostly revolve around whether it is a service which some people engage in as a hobby, or whether any of your peers (e.g. band mates) consider it a hobby themselves, or (this is a big one) whether you are "expected do deliver an outcome, and rectify any defects" - an office party band can make a few mistakes, and it's all good fun, but a professional recording artist is expected to play till they nail it, and potentially compensate the employer for lost studio time etc.

I always hate this conversation, it's been played out a million times and the discussion always meanders the same jacked up path. I think the emotion people bring to it has to do with something other than what we claim we are debating.

I completely agree with this, however:

JACink said it pretty well. There's no reason to negotiate the meaning of words. Those definitions were decided years ago by people who were unconcerned about our consent:

I couldn't disagree more. Linguistic philosophy is quite a large field, and I suspect they'd be quite offended at such an offhand dismissal of their "profession"

But I don't think the point of these discussions is ever to analyze people's tax returns.

OH RIGHT, my bad, sorry

It's usually either about taste or how much we can or can't deal with someone else being the way they are or whether we respect them and what they do, which in itself is a nasty way to start a conversation.

Those guys are thread derailers.

Sometimes people need a day job to live, but they actually spend more time (and passion) in their avocation. Those people generally don't like being called "amateurs" or "hobbiest". Sometimes people take day jobs, because they find playing cruise ships and weddings soul crushing and they want to have a different relationship with music. Sometimes people need health insurance and no amount of gigs or touring is going to provide it to them. Sometimes professional 25 year old jazz musicians with attitudes about who is a pro and who is a hobbiest are living on trust funds.

What is it that we would really like to be discussing? Musicality? Reliability? Technical ability? Any time someone starts by making a proclamation of who is a real pro and who's not, everything within reach gets sucked down a nasty vortex.

Fair enough. It would be nice if we could discuss these things in a civil manner, but perhaps such conversations are best had in person between close friends, not on the big bad internets

 

[Joebone]

I beg to disagree with you.
Let's take a truly PRO bass player who plays in some Radio/TV orchestra. That bass player is well educated and even slightly "snooty" about it. That bass player sight-reads any kind of bass-lines he/she sees, and because of that, makes a good living.
Sometimes on a side, that bass player does some bar gigs, etc...
In the mind of that bass player, all those gigs - not serious business; therefore, he/she plays them like "playfully dribbling around a group of kids/musicians".
But...
Let's say, some passing-by musician/or a bass player listens to our "truly PRO" bass player's "noodling" playing, and thinks, "That bassist disregards the song and the other musicians. That bass player sound more like an amateur".

My question:

Is "our truly PRO/Radio&TV bass player" a mature player or "immature" one.
(But he/she is TRULY PRO - education, plus making money with the bass guitar.)

I completely agree with Fergie who said,
"The difference between a professional and an amateur , in anything, is attitude."

Sounds like our hypothetical "pro" indulged in some "irresponsible" bass-playing!

When you think about it, that noodle approach to playing with less-accomplished folks is kind of a diss.