Sorry, communication is harder through the internet, but do you mind explaining this post? I'm reading it as sarcasm. Is that your intent? If so, what did I say to provoke you?please tell what is a musician
Last edited:
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Sorry, communication is harder through the internet, but do you mind explaining this post? I'm reading it as sarcasm. Is that your intent? If so, what did I say to provoke you?please tell what is a musician
YES YES YESTo me, removing money from music has made a huge difference. When I slogged through bars, trying to make money out of it, we had band drama, we had bar owners who treated us poorly, we had small audiences. It was, over time, exhausting. Playing in decent churches, I play with people who are far more professional in their skills, attitude, punctuality, and we're all in it (with the exception of some of the paid folks) for the same reasons.
If money talks, in this instance, what it's saying is not positive. I'm richer in terms of quality of life, enjoyment, and artistic fulfillment from avoiding whatever it's saying. If other people feel differently, good for them, but for me, money ain't saying anything worth listening to on this front.
WELL SAIDno its not sarcasm i really want to knowSorry, communication is harder through internet, but do you mind explaining this post? I'm reading it as sarcasm? Is that your intent? If so, what did I say to provoke you?
by definition:
noun
- a person engaged or qualified in a profession: professionals such as lawyers and surveyors.
- a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
- a person competent or skilled in a particular activity: she was a real professional on stage.
I don't agree - look at the three definitions above. You can certainly be a professional without deriving the bulk of your income from music. It's all a matter of understanding the word and its function.Denny Zeitlin is a clinical professor of psychiatry in San Francisco. He's also an acclaimed jazz pianist with many well-received albums to his name, and he's won DownBeat magazine polls (look him up). Because the bulk of his income is derived from teaching and practicing psychiatry, does that mean he isn't a "professional"? No, obviously. Point being, the percentage of income derived from music performance is irrelevant to the definition of "professional musician." Not sure "professional" is even a useful term when it comes to music. You're either a player, or you're not. (However, whether you play for money or for free is probably a good gauge of where you stand).
These are two different things that might make one "professional" - competency and earning a certain amount of money doing it. They are not necessarily connected though. Also, I would like to point out to everyone, no one is a "professional" because they feel like they are. Those are also two different things.it's about a certain level of competency. But, money is usually the first indicator that you have reached it.
To me, removing money from music has made a huge difference. When I slogged through bars, trying to make money out of it, we had band drama, we had bar owners who treated us poorly, we had small audiences. It was, over time, exhausting. Playing in decent churches, I play with people who are far more professional in their skills, attitude, punctuality, and we're all in it (with the exception of some of the paid folks) for the same reasons.
If money talks, in this instance, what it's saying is not positive. I'm richer in terms of quality of life, enjoyment, and artistic fulfillment from avoiding whatever it's saying. If other people feel differently, good for them, but for me, money ain't saying anything worth listening to on this front.
This is not accurate. It is accurate to say that talent and attitude are not relevant to whether one was a professional under the "income" meaning of the word, but when using the "a person competent or skilled in a particular activity" definition, talent and attitude are everything.Talent and attitude are irrelevant……Sid Vicous was a professional musician.
Who cares? You get paid, or you don't. You're good, or you're not. Venues like clubs and bars are trending towards placing less value on live acts. Clearing the air about what we call a "pro" musician changes nothing. I live near LA, and have meant plenty of people working a regular job who are really actors that are just "in between opportunities". Are they "pros"? Wouldn't change nothing if they were.This is a serious question. It has a lot to do with the level of proficiency in live music now, as opposed to the level of proficiency required when I first started playing. And I don't mean reading. I mean showing up and suiting up and playing solos in the correct keys, not stopping songs in the middle because you didn't like something, and just generally not being a hobbyist.
My personal contention is that the market currently pays for hobbyist level music, and that's generally what they get. So is getting up on a stage and playing badly but taking home gas money now considered "pro?" Because nine times out of ten, that's what I'm hearing on stages in my town. What's happening in your town?
I think Gauguin and Van Gogh probably wouldn't give a rat's patootie whether they were considered pros.We are talking about Art right!? If you make money you are a pro!!!? How about painting? This is another form of Art. There is many painters dead or alive who couldn't (can't) make money to live in a standard level.
According to most of opinions here Van Gogh and Paul gauguin were not Pro.
Nonsense.