Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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?