Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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? >