[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Defining "pro"
What's the LUG list?? :-)
Andy
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Ken Higgins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a mostly-lurker here, I defer to just about everyone's greater
> musical experience on this list. Per is one whose postings I read
> regularly (here and on the LUG list), as his posts are usually quite
> enlightened.
>
> But now we're on dangerous ground. I'd like to respectfully disagree
> with Per and Travis.
>
> In my book, it's a matter of dedication, focus, intent and sustained
> follow-through (i.e. over years) that defines a Pro.
>
> Travis said,
> > "Turning pro" usually means "I've quit my day job".
> > If you've got a W-2 with something other than "musician"
> > listed on it, you're semi-pro.
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I completely agree with Travis' definition of "pro". A funny
> >definition of amateur is one who calls himself "pro" even though he
> >isn't able to make a living of his music.
> >
> >Per
>
> Hmm. That sounds like the definition of a "commercially successful"
> musician. Not a MUSICALLY successful musician. I detest a large
> majority of 'pop music'. Much of the FM dial is a wasteland (cliche,
> but true).
>
>
> Ranier wrote:
> > Still I understand your point relating to "pro" how your life plan
> > works, as opposed to how good you are, although this gives the pro
> > abbreviation a meaning closer related to "profitable"...
>
> Exactly. The 'market' does not inherently reward the worthy.
>
> Some of my favorite musicians still have a 'day job' to make ends
> meet. Even though two of them have multiple CDs out, and not
> released on their own personal/indy label, either. Their music just
> isn't what the big labels are looking for. And it doesn't sell for
> wedding or bars, either. Which is why I have to take Per to task for
> his, "even though he isn't able to make a living of his music",
> because these guys are _trying_ as hard as they can. They are
> talented. And they're smart self-promoters, too.
>
> It's more accurate to say that a majority of the listening market
> isn't "able to appreciate them".
>
> To me, a Professional Musician is one who is 'walking the talk' and
> _truly attempting_ to make his living with his music. If he/she is
> dedicated to their craft and trying to 'make it', and is staying true
> to their inner musical voice/intent/vision, then they are a Pro.
>
> OTOH, if they are a dabbler or music is simply a glorified hobby,
> THEN they are obviously not a Pro.
> And I've seen some really crappy 'artists' who were $$$ successful.
> Pro? I don't think so.
>
> Once again, my $0.02
>
> Ken
>
> P.S. How good or expensive their equipment is (or is not) has very
> little to do with their results, either. I do agree with many of the
> comments on how to distinguish between pro quality hardware, and
> semi-pro hardware that were in this thread. But haven't we all seen
> someone do an incredible set with a crappy guitar and a DL-4?
>