 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-05-19 17:22
What is the difference between an amateur and professional musician?
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rcnelson
Date: 2015-05-19 18:19
By definition, the only real difference is that professionals get paid, amateurs do not. In reality, there usually is a difference in skill/talent although the difference could be small.
There is a quote that keeps me practicing: Amatuers practice until they play it right. Professionals practice until they can't play it wrong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-05-19 18:31
When an amateur musician sits down to play, he/she doesn't really know totally what is going to happen, much is left to luck ... when a seasoned professional sits down to play he/she KNOWS what is going to happen!
A amateur practices lifting 50 lbs, in HOPE of lifting 100 lbs. in a performance. A professional practices lifting 200 lbs. so that he/she CAN lift 100 lbs. in a performance.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bud Miller
Date: 2015-05-19 19:23
This may not apply to musicians but an amateur does a job for the love of the job and does it to the best of his ability, while the professional does it to earn a paycheck and does the job to the point of satisfying the average person.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-05-19 19:32
Beyond all that I'd say that it is playing all the time, when required, even when you don't feel like it. You may have a cold, a headache, would much rather be in bed but there you are playing for the enjoyment of others. It is also part of the job that 'others' remain unawares lest they suffer along with you.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-05-19 20:02
As a binary opposition, amateur vs professional has lost a bit of its bite--most of what's posted above with regard to professional musicians could apply just as well to some talented "amateurs" I know.
Historically speaking, professional musicians could improvise/compose and had a theoretical understanding of music. Amateur musicians were trained to play others' compositions, often for the amusement of their family and friends. Amateurs of the 18th and 19th century, therefore, weren't less skilled players--just more of what we'd call specialists. Robert Levin has pointed out that, in many ways, the professional and amateur designation has been flipped: professional classical musicians are specialists, trained to play others' compositions, and often lack the sort of theoretical knowledge that a composer would be expected to have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-05-19 22:52
"professionals get paid, amateurs do not"
I played in the Mummer Parade back in 1970 and got a grand total of $20. Does this make me a professional?
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-19 23:15
I once spent a month touring with the Buddy Rich Orchestra in 1976. In case you are not familiar with the famous Buddy Rich bus tapes, lets just say he had a way with words if he was not happy with a performance. One night the band got on the bus, and after his usual and colorful display of four letter words he called us all thieves, and we should be arrested. Quote: "I am paying for professionals, and you guys are F---ing amateurs who are stealing my money." Keep in mind this was after he hired a band of musicians mostly from NYC, and these guys were killers on their instruments. So I guess it depends if you meet the expectations of the leader whether or not you are a professional or an amateur receiving money for services rendered, but the leader is unhappy at the moment for whatever reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-19 23:59
Here are some of the Buddy Rich bus tapes which may help to clarify things. Note: Very explicit and colorful language, but this is the reality of life on the road for people who think they are professional musicians. It is a fine line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covUesgI6fA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-05-20 00:12
Dear Wisco99,
The question was, "What is the difference between amateur and professional," not, "What is difference between those who have PTSD and those who don't."
:-)
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-05-20 00:18
Quote:
Note: Very explicit and colorful language, but this is the reality of life on the road for people who think they are professional musicians. It is a fine line.
I've only been playing professionally for 12 years, but in that time, no contractor or band leader has ever treated the musicians in that way. It isn't professional: it's Buddy Rich being an *******. The tapes are well-known precisely because he was such a huge *******, not because they provide any insight into being a professional musician.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-20 00:21
Paul,
I do not believe Buddy or anyone else on the band had PTSD. Buddy was the only genius I ever met. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-20 00:33
bryon,
Buddy raised the bar for the musicians in his band. If you did not like it you could leave, and some did. Looking back I think Buddy only demanded of others what he demanded of himself, which was 110%. He made you play better than you ever thought you could. I have worked for conductors who may not have used that language, but who were just as brutal over the smallest thing. The number of years you have played for money has nothing to do with being a professional. I have worked with major symphonies where the musicians acted like spoiled kids during rehearsals. If the band was on and played great Buddy also let you know that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-05-20 00:51
A few other aspects of it from the financial side. I compare it to photography, for which amateur vs professional can also be tough to decide.
- If you didn't earn enough to legitimately claim all your music (photog) expenses as tax deductions rather than just a hobby, and did not end up paying at least some tax on some music (photog) profit that remained after you paid for all your equipment and supplies, you're probably an amateur.
- And even if you paid taxes on some music (photog) income after paying all the expenses, but then it worked out you earned 15 cents per hour worked, you're probably an amateur.
- And even if you netted better than minimum wage for your hours spent, if you would have done better financially by doing something else with that time---, you might be a pro, but I hope you're getting a lot of other rewards out of your music (photog) to justify it.
Oddly- none of this seems to always have much to do with your music (photog) skills, value of equipment used, professionalism, business acumen, etc
Not fun to ponder such things, for most of us.
PS- can someone who is a profitable clarinet pro explain to me how it's financially wise to spend $4000 on a clarinet when under $2000 will get the job done, or even way less than that? I mean from a profit standpoint. Lexus makes great cars, but why buy one for a company vehicle when a Toyota will do the job? I'm looking for justification along the lines of, "The $4K clarinet gets me a higher paid position, or higher recording sales, than the $1500 clarinet, and I net more in the long run."
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2015-05-20 01:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2015-05-20 03:32
I pretty much agree.
If you take out the F-bombs, I've played under several conductors who were equally abusive as Buddy Rich. The difference: Buddy had real, documented, epoch-defining talent.
Also... being on the road for weeks on end with a bunch of twenty-something jazz musicians is a recipe for a meltdown. It's not exactly the easiest demographic to get respect from. I'm always amazed that folks seem to assume that Buddy was ranting at a bunch of society ladies...it's not like those cats never heard those words before.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MSK
Date: 2015-05-20 05:11
Although I am a skilled enough musician to get occasional paid jobs, I support myself through a non-music occupation, and consider myself an amateur. I also have less training and less skill than professionals I know. Nevertheless I always thought the professional designation had more to do with occupation than skill. I have several friends who are conservatory graduates but no longer support themselves by performing music. Two are music teachers and two others are elementary school teachers. Most people would call them teachers rather than professional musicians.
Are music teachers professional musicians? How about music teachers who perform part time on the side?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-20 06:57
The answer to this topic is there is no answer. My high school band director refused to be called a music teacher and refused to teach. He would only conduct the band or baby sit study hall. Many music educators I played with said they had the best of both worlds because they had a steady paycheck teaching music, and would play on Saturday night when there were still gigs. The IRS has clear cut rules regarding what is a hobby and what is a profession. It comes down to making a profit on a regular basis. Musicians who earn their living solely from playing music and getting paid for it consider themselves professional, yet if they always show up late they do not see that as being unprofessional. To me it has elements of getting paid for playing music, being professional in your attitude and actions, making a profit from playing music, and many other things thrown in. A friend who made a living playing trombone for decades and has not worked a gig in several years still considers himself a professional. That to me is a delusion, but that is just my viewpoint. Perhaps it is all in the eye of the individual. No easy answer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2015-05-20 07:07
"PS- can someone who is a profitable clarinet pro explain to me how it's financially wise to spend $4000 on a clarinet when under $2000 will get the job done, or even way less than that? I mean from a profit standpoint. Lexus makes great cars, but why buy one for a company vehicle when a Toyota will do the job? I'm looking for justification along the lines of, "The $4K clarinet gets me a higher paid position, or higher recording sales, than the $1500 clarinet, and I net more in the long run."
The attitude toward instruments may be another dividing line between amateurs and professionals. I think in general the ONLY value a clarinet has to a professional is how it plays, but that's a lot of value. A professional will generally be unwilling to spend extra for an instrument that does NOT play better than a less expensive model (the old bottom line), but will probably be more willing spend more money for a smaller improvement than an amateur would. There are exceptions, of course; some professionals get by on a shoestring.
IF the hypothetical $4000 clarinet is distinctly better than the $2000 clarinet; IF it helps me play better in tune, if it helps me place attacks more precisely at the exact instant and dynamic level required, if its resistance and sound are more even across its range, if it holds its sound over a wider dynamic range, if it helps me more easily make a sound that I like, if that sound is a better lock with the rest of my section, if its mechanism aids my facility or is more robust and requires less maintenance (a BIG consideration on tour), I'll buy it if at all possible. The extra cost is spread over thousands of hours of playing and hundreds of concerts, and if those thousands of hours are more pleasant and the concerts are better for it, is that not a wise financial decision? Bear in mind also, for the professional musician, the gun is always loaded. You never know who is listening, or what opportunities might depend on the most insignificant-seeming concert. "Just getting the job done" may be a satisfactory level for pros who have settled into their glide slope, but for those of us still fighting for altitude, it's not.
This doesn't mean to spend recklessly, it just means that you take care of the things that take care of you. At the moment, my soprano clarinets are all regular R13s, my basses are Prestige, and my e flat is a Prestige, but I would replace any of them with any model that played better. My car, on the other hand, is a paid-for econobox. I might enjoy a Lexus, but I can't justify it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-05-20 07:14
My 1976 R13 that was "Brannenized" by Bill Brannen of Evanston Illinois plays much better than a stock R13. I went for the best instrument I could find because I want every edge I can get. Same with saxophone and flutes which can run up to $50,000 making a clarinet a bargain. Then again Charlie Parker could pick up a white plastic Grafton saxophone because his regular horn was in hock for drug money and still sound just as great. Mere mortals need all the help they can get.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-05-20 07:40
JHowell - nicely said! Thanks.
Wisco99 - some choices are not clear cut, but we spend $ for the CHANCE for good things to happen. Well, I certainly do. And when nothing happens, I guess it was wasted? Nah. Yes clarinets are cheap by comparison.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2015-05-20 15:02
If Andre Rieu is viewed by some as a virtuoso, then I've heard much better amateur players! Do people honestly aspire to him?
I heard his version of Dvorak's 'Song to the Moon' from Rusalka on the radio yesterday and he's sapped every last element of musicality out of it.
Absolutely devoid of any life or any emotion which is something you should normally have in abundance with violinists. But then again he does peddle all that Johann Strauss guff which appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Have a listen and decide for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayMj5YIVC8g&feature=share
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-05-20 15:40
"But then again he does peddle all that Johann Strauss guff which appeals to the lowest common denominator"
I resemble that remark
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2015-05-20 17:33
Chris P wrote:
> But then
> again he does peddle all that Johann Strauss guff which appeals
> to the lowest common denominator.
Hmmm. Wonder where that impression of musicians having elitist attitudes comes from ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2015-05-20 20:33
Same as any profession, really. Talk to a chef about food, an actor about TV, a mechanic about cars, or an IT guy about computers...the more you know about and appreciate something, the less you're inclined to be a sucker for schlock. Doubt that qualifies as being elitist...just educated.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EaubeauHorn
Date: 2015-05-20 21:06
To me, a professional is someone who makes their living at it. An amateur may make money but it is not something they can live on. You get a big range of talent and accomplishment in both groups.
I was professional for about five years, making my entire living off of music. I didn't enjoy it that much, wanted to have a higher standard of living, and went back to school to get an engineering degree. At that point I became an amateur musician although I still got paid at times.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-05-21 00:06
Maybe the issue isn't really amateur vs. professional, it's part-time vs. full-time performer. There are a lot of part-time free-lancers who play per-service work at AFM scale at a high level of skill but who eat and pay the mortgage from other things - teaching principally, or running a picture framing shop, working in a music store, writing, even working in offices for Verizon and a couple of insurance companies.
There's no doubt that getting a full-time job playing in an orchestra with a 35+ week season or a jazz group with a nightly gig takes a high level of skill. There's nothing to say *some* part-time freelancers aren't as skilled but find something about full-time music performance unsatisfying - too limiting, too repetitive, too low-paying or too high-pressure.
So. maybe amateur-professional is a false dichotomy that in the end misses a more realistic distinction.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
