 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-03-07 03:34
I need some help with this.
I'm intrigued by the thread, 'What's a Jazz clarinet'?
I'd like to respond to the related Poll but have great timidity doing so. I don't really know, in the music biz world, what is considered a "Pro". I have played alongside, as a peer, almost an equal, of many professional musicians. There is, however, a difference. Not that anyone is 'better' than anyone else but, I certainly do not consider myself a professional musician.
Some of the answers to the (what's a) Jazz horn question bring up this question, probably asked a million times over before: Just what *is* a Music Pro?
My understanding of a **professional** probably differs greatly from your definition.
A professional, in my understanding, is one who has undertaken a certain prescribed course of study, college - university, has earned a degree in that field of study, maybe served an internship and is then entitled to practice the profession of... whatever.
A professional, as I understand the term, would be a doctor, lawyer, architect, teacher, engineer and a very long list of other earned status 'professions'. Many musicians are in the professional category. Many, many more who call themselves professional, in my opinion - in the real sense of the word - are not.
One would have to have completed a degree-earned education to respond to the Poll. I do not wish to 'make waves' by this post, rather I hope to clarify in my own understanding what a "pro" is.
ron b
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-03-07 03:53
A degree does not a musican make. There's no course of study for - ice skating, pro football, pro basketball, etc. Are these people not professionals? Do they not make their living at their chosen careers? I am a software professional, yet my degree has little or nothing to do with software, and if I called myself "professional" in my degree I'd be lying.
Are you confusing "certification" with "professional"??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-03-07 03:59
Many times, the definition of "professional" hinges upon performing the craft/ trade/ "profession" for a fee. A number of the professions you cite are regulated and require credentials based upon study, experience, or examination (or a combination) that are issued by the state or by associations. For athletes and performing artists the line seems less defined. For performers acceptance into a union or guild is often the determining factor, the premere such unions include AFM, SAG, EQUITY etc. though many who earn a living in the arts have no such affiliation. Don't assume that only professionals in the arts are capable of excellence, there are those who for many reasons never accept paid jobs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2001-03-07 04:44
I agree to Mark about degrees. The most conspicuous example is late
drammer Buddy Rich. He could not read scores or did not understand code
progression or other theories. Nevertheless he was a genuine genius!
I think a real pro(not a mediocre pro) is characterized by his/her dedication to
perfectionism.
A very nearly comical anecdote about Buddy Rich orchestra when they came to
Japan. They came as an orchestra but during tour in Japan Buddy Rich fired
ill permance 'pro's and at last they become only three.
His stickwork is so fast that one cannot see the stick!
Another very funny anecdote: One drum salesman came to Buddy and said he can play faster than anybody. Buddy's comment:"Faster than who, for example?'
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gavin
Date: 2001-03-07 06:49
Ron,
"Professional" is an adjective sometimes misused as a noun to distinguish a participant in a pursuit from an "amateur", solely, as I understand it, on the basis of whether the participant is in it for the money or not. Professional tennis players are ones who join a competition with the aim of making money. This doesn't automatically make them better tennis players, necessarily, just by reason of their decision to make tennis their livelihood. This is totally different to the concept of a "profession" - being the identification of certain occupations or callings as having the status of a profession by reason of limited entry, estoric knowledge, and self regulation of standards. Whilst you could make a case for calling music a "profession", it is not really a profession in the sense that medicine and law are. There has, of course in recent times been moves afoot to "professionalize" music and other pursuits by creating university higher degrees etc. The identification of some musicians are "pro's", however, has nothing to do with their membership of the music "profession": I'd suggest if has to do with the fact that they earn a living out of music, whereas amateurs do not. And yes, this does mean that some "pro's" might not be as learned, or may even not be as good a musician as some amateurs. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, and professionals built the Titanic...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-07 11:09
A professional is some one who makes the majority of their living from that activity regardless of their training, degrees, certifications, etc.
If they do not make the majority of their living from it, they may be of professional caliber but are instead hobbyists, amateurs, or part-timers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. Butler
Date: 2001-03-07 11:19
If you have ever engaged in making MONEY with your instrument? I had my own Dixieland combo and played at clubs and other functions for years. I'm out of the
"loop" now and my time is spent teaching and repairing, but I consider myself "adequate" to start the thread. If you feel like you can contribute, then do so. I'm sure that there are those who responded have more "pro" experience than I, but this is a forum for information. Let's not get caught up in the syntax. I think all can interpret the correct meaning of my earlier thread. I'm just having a little enjoyment here as do the rest of you.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Anji
Date: 2001-03-07 12:40
If you get money when passing the hat, and are shaken down for union dues, you probably fill the bill.
Alternately, if your day-planner doesn't have entries before 7:00PM, you're probably in there, too.
anji
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2001-03-07 12:55
If you consider the word "professional," it means one whose profession is doing a particular thing. A little looser translation would be one who makes money at doing something. I like to think that I was a professional musician during my college years because I was payed to play in the university's marching band, although I made less than $2000 over five years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-03-07 16:18
Based on some of the quick responses above I made an entry in the Poll. I, too, am here to have fun. And to learn. The above posts have accomplished both. I've been interested for some time that some crafts (trades?) have been attempting to standardize and regulate themselves and the biggest issue seems to focus on whether they want to be labeled (schooled?) 'professionals' or skilled 'technicians'. I don't think this movement has spilled into the music world - yet. I hope it doesn't... ever. It tends to set the stage for a 'them' vs. 'us' frame of mind; a deadly attitude for any of the arts. Yes, it does cause people like me to get somewhat caught up in the syntax and probably distracts from time better spent practicing :|
I earned money playing music for many years - as a high school graduate with a couple of years college (no degree). If being an AFM member is counted toward being a pro, I've been a pro twice as long as I ever earned money at it :]]]
Nowadays, being retired, I'd rather play spontaneously on street corners (forget passing the hat) than try to keep a music group together. I've played spontaneously on street corners and it was the most fun I ever had  ))
J Butler, If anyone earns their leader's fee money a 'bandleader' does and I admire you and others, with utmost respect, who were/are able to do it for any signigicant period of time. But that's another topic.
ron b
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-03-07 16:43
Great exploration of pro above. I can relate to most of it. Like J B, I used to earn pocket money as a "weekend warrior" sax & cl , even yet a small honorarium maybe once a year. Do minor repairs for school kids. I consider my ability as semi-professional, not good enough for a "living". Being a long-time AFM [locals 316/94] member and officer, and attending a number of International meetings is prob. my greatest claim to pro. Enjoy inexpensive collecting of woodwinds. I used to play for pay, now pay for opportunity to play. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-07 17:03
One thing that needs to be clarified is the difference between getting paid and making some income at the activity. If the expenses exceed the pay, then (by IRS rules) you are a hobbyist or amateur. So you have to subtract the cost of consumables like reeds, oil, and so on, mileage, depreciation on your equipment etc. Here's a real simple example from my own experience. I was playing in a community band that rehearsed once a week and gave one concert per week. The mileage deduction is approximately what was allowed by the IRS at that time
Mileage for rehearsal + concert = 100 miles x .33 per mile = $33 deduction
Payment for concert = $25
Difference (not including consumables, depreciation, etc) = $8 loss
Therefore by the IRS rules, even though I was paid, this was a hobby as no *income* was generated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-03-07 18:36
Being paid to play is a sign of entering the professional world. Making a living at it isn't required--but should be a goal. Being able to continue getting jobs keeps you in the profession. There are all levels of pros--ones who get jobs and ones who can't.
If you spend your day working on your skills as a musician and are able to get jobs where you are playing your instrument, you're a pro.
Education doesn't make you a pro. It makes you educated and helps get your feet in the door--but how you play and your attitude determines who wants to work with you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-03-07 19:40
There are professional-quality amateurs and amateurish professionals.
The only real difference between amateurs and professionals is the money.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2001-03-07 20:37
I believe the definition of a "true professional" is a combination of many individual qualities manifested into one. "Dedication to excellence" in their work ethic and strive for perfection. "Consistency" in having the innate talent and means to make a profitable living at their craft, and "Attitude" of believing in themselves, who and what they are. Somewhere in the world there's the WORST doctor, lawyer, professional athelete (in their chosen sport) musician, etc. Society says their professionals but are they really?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2001-03-08 01:20
I recognize very interesting situation quite often. The more artistic one becomes,
the less he calls himself 'pro'. The more inferiority complex he has, the more
he likes to repeat 'I am a pro.' Have never read any interview Leister,Wright,
Drucker, de Payer etc call themselves pro. The word 'vocation is more proper
for these people.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Willie
Date: 2001-03-08 03:01
I agree with Mark's thread. My stepfather had three PHDs under his belt (none in music) but his bread and butter was the playing and teaching of music for over 60 years. This is what he loved best. With his training and "certifications" in the medical field, he could have made more money, but not with near the enjoyability he got from music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-03-08 04:41
Great discussion!
Dee, if musicians need to make a profit by strict IRS rules, I suspect all but the most successful (financially) are hobyists.
Ken, I think I've been to that worst doctor, (I know I've had the worst lawyer!) I always liked the line; Half of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class.
Hiroshi, Mark C. said a few weeks ago in another thread something to the effect that true computer gurus never apply the term to themselves, I suspect you're saying the same thing about musicians.
Ron, in your later post you mentioned the word "technician" which might be even harder to define than "professional". I sort of gave up on some of this about the time "employees" became "associates".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-03-08 15:02
In school I had a passion for music and drama and spent many hours and made many sacrifices for both. I used to say I wanted to be as good an actress as Kathryn Hepburn--remembering her performance in Lion in Winter and others. Then I heard that she never thought of herself as particularly good. In my 39 years of playing the clarinet and pursuing other artistic endeavours, it seems the ones I deemed best were those who thought others were better--but yet had the courage and determination to continue working to perfect their art. When it was time for the applause, they never thought it was for them--rather for the whole "cast" of players because they knew one never arrives on his/her own without the help of others. That's a professional.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-03-08 22:28
DEE WROTE:
"One thing that needs to be clarified is the difference between getting paid and making some income at the activity. If the
expenses exceed the pay, then (by IRS rules) you are a hobbyist or amateur. So you have to subtract the cost of consumables
like reeds, oil, and so on, mileage, depreciation on your equipment etc. Here's a real simple example from my own experience. I
was playing in a community band that rehearsed once a week and gave one concert per week. The mileage deduction is
approximately what was allowed by the IRS at that time"
I understand what you are getting to here but just couldn't resist..............Your statement is not always true. I am licensed by the state to practice architecture. When I had my own firm the economy was slow and my expenses were less than the income (good thing my wife was making good money at the time) but I still considered myself a professional. The IRS did not consider that I was playing with architecture because I had a negative cash flow - that's just plain old business gone down the tube.
There is a saying in the architectural profession: "If I had a $1,000,000 I would practice arhitecture until it was all gone." Don't let those movies about wealthy architects fool you .........most of us work for someone else.
Ain't it fun!
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2001-03-09 00:31
One of the things that I like about this board is that there is no class division. I responded to the question about jazz clarinets, not because I play at a professional level, but because I own several horns and mouthpieces and enjoy different set-ups for different music. The key word is ENJOY.
I play as well as I choose to. To play better would require more time than I have to allot to my music. The last thing I want to do is turn my enjoyment into a "fatal attraction". Nevertheless, I am a decent clarinet player and have thoroughly enjoyed sharing thoughts with all the knowledgable people on this board. I also believe that the spirit of the question was that it would probably be mostly pro's that would own different horns for different music. It sure wouldn't have been me during my high school or college days!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-09 10:59
jerry wrote:
>
> I understand what you are getting to here but just couldn't
> resist..............Your statement is not always true. I am
> licensed by the state to practice architecture. When I had my
> own firm the economy was slow and my expenses were less than
> the income (good thing my wife was making good money at the
> time) but I still considered myself a professional. The IRS did
> not consider that I was playing with architecture because I had
> a negative cash flow - that's just plain old business gone down
> the tube.
I was trying to keep it simple. The IRS rules are of course a little bit more complicated than I indicated. Temporary negative cash flow does not put it in the hobby category of course. That happens to every business now and then. However, permanent negative cash flow does put it in the hobby class as does very long term negative cash flow (it's several years but I don't recall exactly how many years that is).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
