Professional musician, amateur musician

[JeffD]

I thought this was a good article.

Stuff to chew on anyway.

The amateur’s job is to love music, and to engage with it deeply. It is the professional’s job to figure out what music lovers are willing to pay for, and then deliver it, consistently. This is no small task.

and

It is amateur musicians who initiate, share and promote the culture of music. Professionals are mere servants of that culture. (They’re also the ones who make the money there is to be made in music, because doing things that other people want you to do for them is the stuff that pays.)

[Eddie Sheehy]

Kinda like Rich Man, Poor Man... or to put it into perspective Poor Man, Rich Man...

[JeffD]

Kind of makes one feel better about one's present position, while still being a little envious of the other one.

[billhay4]

Do you think this applies to lutherie, too?
Bill

[JeffD]

Hmmmm. Maybe, on a microscopic scale. Do amateur builders create a culture that the pros then fulfill, in the same way that amateur musicians do. I dunno.

I am still thinking about the whole premise of the article, upon which I am undecided.

[Astro]

One wants to. The other one has to.

[Jeff Mando]

Good, thought-provoking article. A couple things come to mind: "Yes, he's a professional musician--his wife has a good job with FedEx!" (or any Fortune 500 company)--a local musician's joke. Billy Ray Cyrus had a big hit, did a couple LP's, then disappeared, resurfacing a few years later to dabble in acting. They asked him why he hadn't been performing, he replied, "I didn't have to, I made 25 million dollars with 'Achy Breaky Heart'!" I thought of George Harrison as a person who was immersed in the business, but seemed not to be motivated by the money. I may be wrong, but it seemed he spent most of his life trying to answer spiritual questions, like "why me?"

[Petrus]

This is a scan from an instructional book. I think the categories are fairly useful. It also highlights what parts of musicianship each group needs to work on. (Hope it's legible at this resolution.)

[JeffD]

This is a scan from an instructional book.

Well he under-estimates street players, at least from what I have experienced. And I assume the author is a jazz player.

[JeffD]

They asked him why he hadn't been performing, he replied, "I didn't have to, I made 25 million dollars with 'Achy Breaky Heart'!"

Yea that whole aspect of it seems to have been missed, how the need to work can force one into a discipline that results in more creative output.

[foldedpath]

I thought the article glossed over the whole concept of "professionalism" that goes along with the ability to earn consistent money. For me, that's a dividing line at least as important as how much money you make, or how well you can depend on a consistent income.

Do you show up at the time you told the client you'd be there, and play for the contracted amount of time? Do you have enough backup gear that the show can go on when gear breaks down? Can you wire up a PA without causing a liability hazard for the audience or client (and have you even thought about liability insurance for yourself?) Are you experienced enough to know when to say "No" when either the stage or audience conditions are unsafe like bad wiring, or lightning at outdoor gigs? Can you smile under pressure, even when working with a "difficult" client?

And a few things that might be a little more contentious, like... Do you charge enough not to undercut other pros working in the same market? Do you act like a real business and charge a deposit to book a show, so clients learn to respect working musicians like any other contractor? (Note: some of this is specific to the wedding gig market I've worked in most recently).

For me, that's what separates amateurs from pros, more than the "love of the music vs. giving the audience what they want" or any of the other more nebulous factors. It's about professionalism when you agree to play for money. The market will sort out the rest, and tell you if anyone wants to pay for your music.

[Petrus]

Billy Ray Cyrus had a big hit, did a couple LP's, then disappeared, resurfacing a few years later to dabble in acting.

More like, resurfaced to become known as Miley Cyrus' dad. So that's two strikes against him.

[Petrus]

Well he under-estimates street players, at least from what I have experienced. And I assume the author is a jazz player.

It's from The Bass Player's Handbook by Greg Mooter. Short but smart book. He goes into a lot of detail about harmonics and intonation and the importance of learning how to properly tune the instrument by ear, not by looking at an LED gauge.

[dezguy]

I'm not sure I agree that professional musicians are slaves to the demands of the market. Somebody like Chris Thile does plenty of work which amazingly artistic and wildly self indulgent. And I mean that in a good way.

[Ivan Kelsall]

As an amateur,you have to reach ''pro.standard'' before you declare yourself to be a 'pro.' We've all see pro.preformers who were dreadful & we've seen amateurs who've been sensational. Turning from amateur to pro.doesn't necessarilly mean that all of a sudden the cash begins rolling in either. Going back to the Folk boom of the early to mid 1960's,i knew many excellent amateur Folk musicians who decided to go professional,many of them struggled to make it & eventually gave up. Only the truly great ones made it - Ralph McTell (Streets of London) / Bert Jansch / Davey Graham / Martin Carthy / Dave Swarbrick etc. Many of the others went back to their day jobs,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

You have to have two occupations in life: one that earns you money, and one that makes sense.

Some try to do both in one, but that inevitably triggers one of two events:
- the money disappears
- the sense disappears
whatever comes first.
You might call this cynical, but
- a constant flow of money is needed to keep you fed; often there is not a constant flow of sense.
- sense is a real value; money is just pieces of paper with a value merely imagined in the minds of total strangers.
- sense and money are not mutually convertible currencies.
- sense is a private value; somebody might give you money only for making his life meaningful, not yours

[Astro]

You have to have two occupations in life: one that earns you money, and one that makes sense.

Huh?

What if you don't have enough sense to make money ?

I guess then you could be a professional

[Mandoplumb]

The bottom line is a professional makes his living playing music. Some are remarkable musicians, most are good musicians. My dad was a remarkable music who loved his wife and kids enough to want to be home with them every night so he chose to be a machinist for a living and a musician as a hobby. I'm not saying that all professional don't love their wife and children, just that to decide to play for a living is a personal choice that one makes, personally. I know mucisians that for whatever reason don't play professionally, bit are as "good" as a lot of those that do.

[Astro]

I have a friend who is a very good professional musician and makes a decent living and is a great husband, dad to 2, and would be considered a "family man". I do have to say that out of the dozens of pro musicians I've acquainted over the years, he is the only one I can think of that seems to fit in that category and I dont think its that common. He is in a great local band and teaches music 6 days a week, works extremely hard, and does well. I know several who are older and really semi retired but they didnt make their career nest egg out of it --its spending money--and their kids are grown. Then again I know of (not personally) several famous and semi famous pro musicians who seem to be great dads/husbands. Generalizations arent fair to any individual but I do think its a tough life to hold together for a long term family commitment.

[Mark Wilson]

And I assume the author is a jazz player.

Yep. Sometimes how we describe others is a bigger tell about ourselves. Reading the article you linked one might assume that author has some personal regrets and broken dreams - music career wise - resulting in opinion that sounds a little like: I'm as good of a musician as they are - what do they have that I don't... must be marketing skills

[UsuallyPickin]

I read an article , maybe here, awhile back that described musicians in one of several categories. Seems like it fits .......
1. epiphyte like the plant seems to survive on music and air often wears an odd hat owns little lives on couches
2.silver spoon just falls into one good situation after another with no apparent planning or effort
3.working spouse has a very loving and supportive , literally and figuratively , partner
4.gig whore works anywhere anytime if there is a fiscal profit to be made
5.trust fund plays because he loves to and doesn't need to work for a living
6.chosen one those few that love and are loved for their music ......
I looked for the original article but couldn't find it ...... if one of youz folks has it a link would be appreciated .... R/

[jaycat]

I'm not sure I agree that professional musicians are slaves to the demands of the market. Somebody like Chris Thile does plenty of work which amazingly artistic and wildly self indulgent. And I mean that in a good way.

Absolutely. You can't just lump all "professional musicians" together. The really talented ones create the demands of the market.

How many "new Bob Dylans" have come and gone over the years? How many groups like Gerry and the Pacemakers, Searchers, etc. sprung up in the wake of the Beatles?

I did think this quote was right on: "Although amateur musicians do just fine by themselves, they benefit undoubtedly from the existence of a professional class of musicians—just like amateur athletes and chess players benefit from supporting a professional class in their fields." Go to your next jam session and tell me how many of the songs you play were written by "amateurs."

[farmerjones]

I've found there's as many different approaches, as there are musicains.
Music and musicianship is so much between one's ears, there can't hardly be blanket statement about any of it. The very nature of it is like trying to catch smoke.

Everybody knows, "good enough to get paid to play" is a loaded gun. If somebody asks you to play for money and you do, you're a pro in my book. This means much much less to me than if you or i can hang with the bunch. Music to me is two or more people pickin, With or without a tip jar.

[dezguy]

Perhaps there is a third category: artist. Which houses both amateurs and professionals.

[Tobin]

Go to your next jam session and tell me how many of the songs you play were written by "amateurs."

Depends on the jam, I suppose. If it's one of those where most of the songs played are from modern albums written by professional songwriters, it's vastly different than a jam where all of the tunes are traditional folk tunes that came from the mountain folk and have no identified author. It's fair to say that Old-Time and ITM jams fall into the latter category. I'd venture to say that those people who played this music generation after generation were amateurs by any definition, yet they created - or modified into the versions we know - much of the music we play. For that matter, much of the traditional music we play came from across the pond as much older and more traditional tunes. Originally played by amateurs and handed down via amateurs. Most of them have been played and recorded by professionals at some point, but they are tunes that sprang from amateurs.

Personally, I consider the relationship between amateurs and professionals to be symbiotic and mutually beneficial. And I think the difference is pretty simple. Professional musicians play music as their profession. It doesn't mean they're good or bad or anything else. It just means they have chosen it as a profession. Similar to my title as a professional engineer. I'm sure there are a lot of people who consider themselves amateur engineers, and perhaps even good ones, but unless it is their profession/career, they aren't professionals. And so it goes with sports players, etc.