Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I don't know about defining "professional" -- classically, a "professional" is, after all, one who professes -- and I think this debate might be pointless. Be that as it may (I could be wrong, after all), I'd like to say two things about the use of the word. In one case, it's a marketing tool to mark products for a certain audience, "pros," and to market products for another audience, pro-wannabes. Almost everything in a Musician's Friend catalog is "pro," the only other possible label is "entry-level," and even those usually are said to have "pro features at a remarkably reasonable price." So, for the most part, in the marketing of equipment, "pro" is for suckers. In the other case, "professional" is used to make a distinction between folks. It is, apparently, different than "good" or "serious," and it comes out when "good" or "serious" doesn't exclude the right people. But it isn't the simple "makes a living at" that Travis offered; I think you have to look at when and how it comes up. It seems to me it usually distinguishes "people whose opinion is valued" from "people whose opinions aren't" in everyday use. It is used as a way to discredit other points of view: "As a professional, I..." And you get membership in the class by commercial success (i.e., industry approval), so that people in the industry can use the category "professional" to limit other than their "official" points of view. I may be wrong about all that! But, what I'm really saying is what the word officially means is quite beside the point. It is insulting because of how it is used, and what it does. "Expert" would be a much less loaded word, for example. So says the "professional" academic. "Amateur," I will remind you, means "for the love of." Or it used to. Now it means, "doesn't get paid enough to qualify as a 'real' participant." On Oct 16, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Per Boysen wrote: > On Oct 16, 2005, at 21:15, David Trenkel wrote: > > >> And, the funny thing about being "pro" is, I can't afford any >> "pro" gear. 8< 8< 8< 8<.... >> > > Interesting post. I too have been pro for periods, but I have > always struggled to get back into the amateur zone; mostly because > I love the music and to play as a life experiment compared to > playing as part of someone's marketing plan. I've been hired for > studio sessions and once happened to play on hit record, which led > to getting hired for the touring band backing up that artist etc > etc. Another time me and companion signed up with a major label, > made an album and lots of singles as well as a couple of months' > global touring. Clever marketing hype resulted in foreign licensing > deals and it al spun off business-wise even with no record sales > yet (I still wonder who the hell lost all the money that others > gained by document ;-). It never got as bad as Albini's essay (a > MUST-READ!) but what I missed most in the Corporate Rock Thing > Sphere was actually - getting my kicks out of music. I think this > whole debate about pro or not pro is a bit too biased for having > any fair chance getting to some sort of clue. People are different > in music as everywhere; some just enjoy doing the thing their own > way while others might think that the option of receiving positive > attention justifies doing... well, whatever it takes ;-) > > Greetings from Sweden > > Per Boysen > www.looproom.com (international) > www.boysen.se (Swedish) > ---> iTunes Music Store (digital) > www.cdbaby.com/perboysen > > >