Klarinet Archive - Posting 000648.txt from 1998/02

From: Dee Hays <deerich@-----.net>
Subj: Re: "Professional" vs. "amateur"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:02:06 -0500

I really liked your answer. There is indeed a vast difference between the
quantitative and the qualitative.

My personal point of view is to base it on the tax definition. If your
expenses typically exceed your earnings, then it is a hobby (i.e. amateur).
The tax laws define it even more precisely but I am merely summarizing the
basic premise. Then the natural opposite to this is reflected in one of the
dictionary definitions which defines a professional as someone who makes a
portion of their livelihood from the activity. If your expenses do exceed your
earnings, you can hardly be said to make a portion of your livelihood from it.

One of the other particpants has stated that if you get paid, you are a
professional. My dictionary does not state this. It states that a
professional gets paid but does NOT state that getting paid means you are
automatically a professional! Just about the only activity that uses such a
strict definition is sports and even there it is beginning to loosen up. A
few of the governing bodies are moving toward a definition of amateur that is
closer to that of the tax law.

However amateurs can and often do possess a professional level of expertise
and standards (say showing up for rehearsals on time). There are many
"professional musicians" who are very well paid but are lacking in
professional conduct, etc.

However we have had an interesting debate in my own household on this
subject. My husband (who played drums professionally for several years, and
yes, I do mean he made a signicant portion of his livelihood from it) does not
agree with me. He uses strictly the qualitative approach as embodied in the
term professionalism. He contends that being a professional is strictly a
state of mind and has nothing to do with whether or not you are paid or your
level of expertise but with how you view yourself and conduct yourself.

In a social context, when people ask "Are you a professional musician?" I
believe that they are approaching the subject from the quantitative point of
view. What they really want to know is "are you making any kind of decent
money off it?"

Edwin V. Lacy wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Daniel A. Paprocki wrote:
>
> > If you make most of your living by playing, are in the union, and
> > meet a certain standard of playing then you are a professional.
>
> The term "professional" can have two different aspects. I think we can
> call these the quantitative and the qualitative definitions. The
> quantitative one would consider such questions as whether income is
> derived from the practice of one's art, how much income, whether one
> belongs to professional organizations such as the musicians's union, etc.
> The qualitative one would derive from the fact that musicians have come to
> regard the term "professional" as an adjective. A person who is referred
> to as a professional is one who exhibits skill, a high level of
> competence, a professional, business-like attitude, etc. One could
> perform at a professional level and in certain circumstances never get
> paid for it, or conversely, and even more often, one could get paid even
> though he/she did not posess professional-level skills and attributes to
> justify the pay received.
>
> I wouldn't put membership in the union too high on the list of what
> qualifies one to be called a professional. Quite a few states, I think
> possibly about half of them, have what are called "right-to-work" laws.
> My state, Indiana, is one of those. In essence, that means that no one
> can be forced to join a union in order to work, and no one can be
> discriminated against by an employer solely on the basis of either
> belonging to or not belonging to a union.
>
> I belonged to the musician's union for probably 25 years or so, but I
> can't recall a thing that they ever did for me except charge me annual
> dues and work dues, and generally hassle me about everything I ever tried
> to do in music. I never heard of any musician who felt that the union was
> a direct benefit to them. It wouldn't have to be that way, but the
> musicians I know have felt that that's the way it is.
>
> Ed Lacy
> el2@-----.edu