Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Defining "pro"





  What's the LUG list?? :-)

 Andy







On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Ken Higgins wrote:

> 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?
>