Last time I checked, the IRS only had one line for me to list my occupation. So if I'm still working at the University as I was up until a few years ago and also playing a few gigs, my gig money goes under miscellaneous income and my occupation is listed as Analyst.
There are a lot of factors that could go into being a professional. Income is certainly one. People have pointed out that many people making their living in music don't behave very well, so perhaps behavior is debatable. Again, for me that falls under the heading of professionalism but doesn't necessarily define an actual professional.
That's where I guess I differ from the idea that there's a continuum. For me it's very clear. You can be very professional in your demeanor and that's laudable but your professionalism is a separate thing from your occupation. But yes, it's certainly all debatable.
As someone who used to travel to play, being available was a professional requirement. A lot of people who play locally and get paid do to it are holding day jobs; they would not be able to meet that professional requirement. As I said earlier, there's a lot to being a full-time musician besides the paycheck. For me, all of that was part of the package. I did not have the capacity to do something else and play music when my calendar permitted or when I felt like it, because I needed to be where the gigs were. It was my job.
I sure don't ever want it to be my job again, so I'm happy to no longer be a professional, though I like to think that my professionalism is still intact.
It's been long time since I did pay gigs, but I remember having to do a separate schedule for musician income, and having to input some sort of numerical code that indicated what industry the income was earned in. It was not specific to musician, rather I think it was more like entertainment industry. I believe my primary occupation was simply military.
The idea of using a continuum to describe someone as more or less professional is actually from one (or more) of my business management classes. Although I think the class(es) related the continuum to whether an occupation is a profession or not. Years back I believe some of my Professional Military Education courses used the continuum concept as well.
I can't really debate your other points, because I think it depends upon how one defines the term professional whether I agree with you or not, as I have no interest in proving it one way or another at this point in my life.
Now if I were looking to become a professional musician and needed to meet some sort of requirements of the profession in order to get a job, then I would definitely be concerned; at least for myself. But that hurdle is already behind me
; so I will leave it to others to fidget over.
For context, I suppose I would have to say I was a professional military musician, which IMHO fits the academic definition of a profession fairly well.
On a tangential idea. The members of a profession or generally who actually defines the profession and any requirements expected of professionals. Along those lines, as I was retiring, the senior leaders in my careerfield were in the process of rewriting our job qualification standards, which leads credence to the idea of professional military musicians per the academic definition.
There are also several Air National Guard (ANG) Bands who must comply with the same job qualification standards as the active-duty bands. However, unless activated, they only get together on a part time basis. I still think of them as professional military musicians, but they are not full-time and typically have full-time jobs doing something other than their ANG duties. This fit's with my idea of the continuum fairly well. The ANG musicians are expected to do almost everything the active duty musicians do, just not as often. They probably also have some responsibilities that active duty musicians don't as well.
Anyway, I plan to unsub at this point, but I will respond if anyone does something to pull me back...and then I will try to unsub again.
Have a great day!
