Pro's vs Non-Pro's

Willis Vanderberg · Post by **Willis Vanderberg** » 29 Apr 2005 3:18 pm

I know of one steel picker who has made a living at it. He has never worked for cash. Always been on a legitimate payroll , with taxes withheld and has always paid into social security. But in order to do this he works a lot of venues that are not country and he works extremely hard at his craft.
I consider him the ultimate pro.

Bud

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 29 Apr 2005 4:17 pm

Bob Carlucci wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I was a "pro" for many years.. Was I a "World Class" professional?.. of course not.. Did my family eat?... absolutely.
Even the last 20 or so years when I had to have a "day" job, I always had a considerable part of my total income derived from playing.. I classified myself as a "semi professional" musician..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Semi-pro" makes sense to me. Less derogatory than "weekend warrior", as you pointed out.

Like you, I supplemented my career income with music for many years, so during that time I guess I was a semi-pro. Now that don't rely on money from music at all but simply accept it when offered, I consider myself more of a "semi-amateur musician".

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 29 April 2005 at 05:19 PM.]

Larry Strawn · Post by **Larry Strawn** » 29 Apr 2005 4:25 pm

Hmmm,,,

I allways felt any one who "sold" thier services to another was considered a "pro".

Quality of service, is another matter, an NFL football team has a lot of pros, more sitting on the bench than starting the game, but I think they would be very upset not to be thought of as a "pro"

There's lot of us who don't make our primary living playing anymore, but are still selling our talents, and skills to paying clients on the week-ends. They in turn, are making $$$$ off of us. Where does this put us???

Larry

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 29 Apr 2005 5:01 pm

Steel Guitar Hoes!!

Larry Strawn · Post by **Larry Strawn** » 29 Apr 2005 5:07 pm

Ya got it Bob!!!! LOL....

Larry

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 29 Apr 2005 6:26 pm

Well, I started out by saying (IMHO)...

"Pros are very good, amateurs are not".

But, some didn't like that. I said it because I believe it's ability and style that seperates pros and amateurs. So, now on that basis, I'll let you all pick the one most suitable out of these four qualitative statements.

A.) "Pros are good, amateurs aren't."

B.) "Amateurs are good, pros aren't."

C.) "Pros and amateurs are equally good."

D.) "Pros and amateurs are equally bad."

This isn't about money or earning a living. This isn't about fame or how many times someone has recorded! It concerns only two types of players, and whether they are good, bad, or equal.

There y'are fellow deep thinkers...four different statements, four different selections. You can only pick one, and you can't argue the selections or change the choices.

So, what are you waiting for?

Just pick one.

Or are you afraid?

Bob Eldridge · Post by **Bob Eldridge** » 29 Apr 2005 7:54 pm

WoW!

I surely do appreciate the input! My question was really driven by my curiosity about and HUGE respect and admiration for those who have mastered this BEAST to the point where folks pay to hear them (live OR recorded) ... See, I was 'playing' many years ago and I feel that I kinda 'cheated' the system cause I was CLUELESS at that time. I"ve heard some of you play (Larry Bell, Roy Thomson & b0b to mention 3) and you guys have my ABSOLUTE respect (and a bit of envy?)!!

So, I really don't differentiate between those playing live and those who have or are now recording ... you're BOTH deserving of our admiration and respect. My original question was more a matter of simple curiosity ... has anyone here played on a hit record I might have heard. That would shed a whole new light on the listening experience, I think. And the second part of the original question was;" WHICH is better/easier/more enjoyable/rewarding ... whatever .... playing LIVE or recording"???

------------------
Bob's Place bobeldridge@bobeldridge.com GFI S-10D - ProFX2 + 2 Nashville 1000's

Bob Eldridge · Post by **Bob Eldridge** » 29 Apr 2005 8:03 pm

Thought I'd better add this...

those NOT playing for $$$ but who have developed their talent to a point where they could are equally deserving of that respect and admiration I spoke of. I did't use the term AMATEUR.. I said NON-pro... Possible semantic difference...

So if you're a good guitarist, however you define that, I think you BELONG in the same group as everyone else ... pro's... live players ... session players ... former pro's ... future pro's ... retired pro's ...

lemme see... did I leave anyone out?

------------------
Bob's Place bobeldridge@bobeldridge.com GFI S-10D - ProFX2 + 2 Nashville 1000's

Larry Strawn · Post by **Larry Strawn** » 29 Apr 2005 8:27 pm

Donny,,

You forgot
E.] "ALL PROS" are as good as Mr. Emmons, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Green, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Hughey, just to mention a few..
TRUE or FALSE,,,,

Larry[This message was edited by Larry Strawn on 29 April 2005 at 09:29 PM.][This message was edited by Larry Strawn on 29 April 2005 at 09:33 PM.][This message was edited by Larry Strawn on 29 April 2005 at 09:49 PM.]

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 29 Apr 2005 9:25 pm

My understanding of the word "pro" is that it is short for the word "professional". The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary supports this. To some degree, there seems to be confusion here as to whether "pro" means "professional" (one who is paid for their labors) or "proficient" (one who is adept at their labors). I think technically it is the former, but the modern vernacular tends toward the latter.

There! Does that clear it up?

Gene H. Brown · Post by **Gene H. Brown** » 29 Apr 2005 9:41 pm

I don't usually chime in on these little discussions, but I guess I will lay down my 2 cents worth.
I played for 29 years at six nights a week and sometimes 7 nights a week and ten years of that was one nighters traveling with different acts across the Northwest US and Canada and also many recording sessions, most unknown, acouple fairly known. Then, I took a rest for 9 years and didn't play a lick in that time, even sold my equipment.
At the end of the nine years I asked my wife if I could buy another steel and amp and she said go for it, so I did. Icame back with a vengance and a love I never knew before. Now I have two steels, three amps and I play every weekend and I still do session work, so let me ask you, am I not still a pro, I consider myself one and I really don't care who thinks so or not, I payed my dues many years ago putting up with loading and unloading equipment, people getting drunk and slobbering all over you and many long hours in the studio too. Now if that doesn't make you a pro, I guess I would be ready to take another 9 year break to try and figure out why. But, honestly, I think this debate is going nowhere anyway, anyone that's been on the road and played for a living their whole life , even a good part of their life, I consider a pro. It's not an easy living and you guys that have lived it, know that, marriages on the rocks for a lot of guys, no health benefits, no savings for most pro musicians, some have even drank theirselves to death and OD's on drugs. So what is it that makes a pro? I guess just trying to please yourself and everyone around you making beatiful steel guitar music and of course, getting payed modestly for it from time to time, which reminds me that I and quite a few of you other steelers out there have worked some gigs that we never got payed for and what about the benefits we've done for nothing, does that make you a non-pro, I think not.
Sorry about blabbering on fellows, just my feelings on this touchy subject.
I edited this because I also think this is one item that should be on a pro's resume' also. Some of the most well known pro's I've met and talked too are the most Humble, Down to Earth nicest people you would ever want to meet and to me, that is a very big deal to me, I don't care how good you are, you've got to be a human being first!
Gene[This message was edited by Gene H. Brown on 29 April 2005 at 11:02 PM.]

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 29 Apr 2005 11:02 pm

I'm with you, Gene.

Just pick one....or are you afraid?

Afraid? Of who, what, why? But I won't pick anything from a line of reasoning that is, (in my own worthless opinion) completely flawed.

Glad to see we didn't scare you right outta here, Bob!

You make some good observations in your last post.
[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 30 April 2005 at 12:57 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 30 Apr 2005 1:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A.) "Pros are good, amateurs aren't."

B.) "Amateurs are good, pros aren't."

C.) "Pros and amateurs are equally good."

D.) "Pros and amateurs are equally bad."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A) not at all true
There are some supurb amature players on any instrument.

They just choose not to work professionally,
and in some case are such icconoclastic nutters,
that they or others don't play well ensemble.

Yet they are technical monsters on their instruments.
Jawdropping players, who play for their own ends and no one leses.

B) this is in some cases quite true.
....But not all for sure, some pros are fair players, but know their job at the level needed,
and have other strtengths, that keep them working. ( likeability, dependability, consistancy, basic stylistic knowledge.)

WORKING being the operative word here.
No they can't pick like Doug or Paul, or Yngwe or Eric C.
but they ARE working.

But the inverse is also true.
There are super pros and lame amatures, as one must expect.

C) may work.
There are individuals in both catagories, who play at a very high level, but for various reasons, don't follow the same career path.

I know some amatures who play as well as the highest echelon of working professionals,
but don't care to work in that field.
So they are not pros

I am not talking specifically steelers, but musicians in general.

D) ok I doubt that ANY working pro is as bad as the worst amature debutant steeler
it makes no sense.

To say there maybe another Paul F. lurking out there unkown is stretching it.
There is a difference between the highest level of virtuoso and pro.

But to say there are people who can play most anything seen at ISGC,
and yet don't go onstage for money, is totally reasonable.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 30 Apr 2005 2:10 am

A "pro" is someone who covers up his mistakes.

Real simple, doesn't go into how much money they make or don't make or who they worked for, etc.

Bob Eldridge · Post by **Bob Eldridge** » 30 Apr 2005 4:42 am

Gene, I REALLY appreciate your comments. My hat is off to you, my friend!!! Thanks also to everyone for thier comments. I didn't realize that my question about recording vs live playing would touch off such an emotionally intense discussion. But it was fun!

After high school, I played (six-string) guitar professionally on the west coast. Those were the day's of Dick Dale and the Deltones, Duane Eddy and the Ventures. I developed my own set of 'heroes' and worked very hard to be as 'good' as they are. Within two years I discovered I didn't like the musical environment (drugs, booze, hours, etc) ... so I went off to fight a war (?) in Vietnam.

While I didn't continue to pursue a musical career professionally, I did maintain my connections, playing in little bands all over the place ... part time while prusuing more lucrative forms of self support. That continuing interest is evidence of my avid intrest in and respect/admiration for all folks so inclined. So.. bottom line... you ALL (pros and non-pros however you define those terms) are my 'heroes' now. And when I grow up, I wanna be JUST like YOU ALL!! By the way ... WHICH is 'better' ... playing LIVE or RECORDING??

See ya!

------------------
Bob's Place bobeldridge@bobeldridge.com GFI S-10D - ProFX2 + 2 Nashville 1000's

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 30 Apr 2005 5:23 am

Bob.. IMHO live playing with fine musicians is MUCH more rewarding WHILE you are doing it.. The energy can't be matched.. HOWEVER, when you record a very nice sounding piece that exhibits your musical talent,it is there for you to enjoy forever.. The "bar gig' from the night before will fade from memory quickly.. Even a concert in front of thousands fades with the wind when the amps are turned off.

When something is recorded, it endures forever!... Take your pick Bob, its all music,its all fun, its all rewarding, its all good!!! bob

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 30 Apr 2005 5:34 am

There is no better or worse.
They are different.

There is NO OTHER THING like that sense of connecting
with huge room ful of people,
All digging every inflection of you and your bandmates
interacting seamlessly and with BIG heart.

But recording is harder because.
" Tape Is Cruel. "
Without the emotional push a large audience gives live,
you must put that do or die perfection on to tape... and tape don't lie.

I get a bit more long lasting pleasure from getting that MAGIC down on tape,
and out into the world.
But then it becomes an individual expirence.
The listener and your delivery medium,
and their reproduction system ; as good or bad as it may be.

But the biggest rush is doing that incredible live show,
that you remember for decades,
even though there was no taped record of it.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 30 April 2005 at 06:36 AM.]

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 30 Apr 2005 5:58 am

I hang on tightly to my classification as a professional amateur.
(I've been both; I've played on records you've never heard. It's a convenient category.)

Webb Kline · Post by **Webb Kline** » 30 Apr 2005 6:48 am

I can cut and paste my way into perfection in the studio, unless it is a pro session where time is of the essence.

Hmm...I do definitely play better when I have to; when the pressure is on. Live, I can get a bit more lax, because each bad soundbyte goes into oblivion in the next passage. When I am writing in the studio and can cut and paste, I know that the mistakes can be quickly deleted, so I may take more chances, but when the clock is running, I have to make good with what I've got. I believe it puts me into the less-is-more mode and in the end, I believe that brings the best overall results.

I love the studio more than anything except for the magic of playing live with musicians who I can trust musically to take a song out anywhere we want to go with it without it falling apart. I have 3 guys I play with occassionally who are like that and it is flat-out the best musical experience I've ever had. In fact I don't know that anything compares with it. I will be truly sad when the day comes when we can no longer do it, because I've never had that kind of magic with musicians ever before. It takes a tremendous amount of energy and I am soaking wet by the end of a set. As 50 somethings, I know it won't go on forever.

Our mission has been: To take each song where no man has gone before and never play a song the same way twice. It's a blast and it takes many years of PROFESSIONAL playing to do what we do. People consider us pros, but the band is not our profession.

2 of us are music teachers. Wait, doesn't one have to be considered a pro in order to develop a clientel of students?

[This message was edited by Webb Kline on 30 April 2005 at 09:30 AM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Apr 2005 7:54 pm

Gosh! I just couldn't believe that my (tongue-in-cheek) simplistic statement would provoke argument.

Anyhow, for David and the others, my own interpretation of professional has to do with skills, not (dollar) bills. If that weren't the case, then the world's greatest steeler (whoever that might be) would no longer be classified as a "pro" the day after he retired. That would be rather sucky, wouldn't it?

Doing a "professional job" on something means it's it's done well, doesn't it? Suppose you wanted your car painted. You have the choice of doing it yourself with spray-cans in the driveway (the amateur way), or doing it expertly, using the right techniques, materials, and tools (like a professional spray-gun, drafted spray-booth, and a baking oven) to do a first-class job. That's why I consider how well someone does something (and not how much money they make) the significant factor. Those who relate "professionalism" more with money earned than they do with ability, talent, or what kind of job is done are a little jaded, in my book!

Sorry Mr. Van Gogh, you never made any significant money painting (you sold only one painting during your entire lifetime), so the world will surely remember you as just an "amateur painter".

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 30 Apr 2005 9:23 pm

The music business isn't painting cars.
It isn't painting picture art.

You're confusing professionalism with being a professional. They're two different words and two different things.

Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al·ism
Pronunciation: -'fesh-n&-"li-z&m, -'fe-sh&-n&l-"i-
Function: noun
1 : the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person

**********************

Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al

Pronunciation: pr&-'fesh-n&l, -'fe-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>

No one's going to say that professionalism isn't important when playing music, whether you're an amateur, semi-pro, or full-time professional player, or something entirely different than a musician; you can do what you with professionalism. That's NOT the same as being a professional.

An amateur can do a "professional" job at something. All that means is he did a job comparable to a professional. And what is a professional? A person who does it full-time for a living.

[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 30 April 2005 at 10:40 PM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 1 May 2005 1:45 am

Jim, excellent points.

I doubt anyone will say to Paul Franklin when he retires.
So Paul, how does it feel to not be a professional anymore?
Yeah right...!

I don't think ANYBODY would say that to Don Helms or Herb Remington...

Buddy E. isn't playing out near as much as he used too...
but he sure looks , acts and sounds like a stone cold pro when he does go and play.

Once you are a working pro,
you can then become a retired pro.
But still a profesional.

YOu may not have the virtuoso chops of the old days either,
but if you do a solid properly clean job, that is still pro,
even if you dropped a few arpegios.

I saw Stephane Grapelli a few years back at the NYC Blue Note,
his violin 1 YARD away from my head.
His right foot 4 inches from my arm.

He was sitting and I was so close I could see him move to a position,
decide he was too old to make the lick,
and go back for a SLIGHTLY simpler riff.

The audience behind me would have no idea he editied back,
because he STILL played like a total pro at 83 years old, and failing healthy.
He could barely walk, let alone stand for a whole set,
but he played an awesome show.
That to me was VERY pro.[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 01 May 2005 at 02:47 AM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 1 May 2005 6:01 am

The music business isn't painting cars. It isn't painting picture art.

Bullhockey! It's an artform just like picture painting (at it's best), and a business just like auto-painting (at it's worst).

And... from your own posted definition, that's right...under #1 of the definition you picked

...characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession.

Note that the part in definition 1 (about technical standards) is before the part in definition definition 2 (about participating for gain or livelihood in an activity).

Yes Jim, they did that for a reason! Even the source you quoted puts "technical standards" above "monetary gain" when defining a professional.

I rest my case. Thank you for assisting me.

Don Discher · Post by **Don Discher** » 1 May 2005 6:29 am

Go back and read "Ricky Davis's" response, it can't be explained any simpler than that.

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 1 May 2005 9:08 am

Donny, I KNEW you'd jump on that even before I posted it. Yes, the 1. definition closely resembles the definition of professionalism, doesn't it? Of course they're closely related and work together, or at least they should.

The first definition is the one we've already discussed, used for example, "He's very professional". Meaning as defined, his work has all the characteristics of a professional, it is LIKE that of a professional. The quality of his work is as good as that of a professional. That's not saying he IS a professional!

The most common meaning of MANY words are the No 2 or 3 listed definitions, not always the first one. Pick some words and look them up. Sheesh.

You said, "Even the source you quoted puts "technical standards" above "monetary gain" when defining a professional."

You want to just stop there, but the hard definition of a professional comes under the number 2 definition first, and ideally that professional has skills and good conscience and will do his job with professionalism and then both number 1. and number 2. will define him.

What you missed is that the source I quoted puts "technical standards" WITH "monetary gain" when defining a professional." You want to ignore definition No. 2, because No. 1. suits your argument. What then does No. 2 define, why is it in the dictionary?

Ideally they should BOTH describe a true professional, not just one or the other.

That's not always the case. There are some professionals in all businesses, painting cars or playing music...doing shoddy jobs or poor workmanship, that don't care about the quality of the work they do and DON'T pass the No. 1 "technical standards" definition, but they're still considered professionals, because they do it for a living. Definition No. 2.

You brought up car painters. How about that car-painter Earl Shieb? They have shops everywhere doing cheap paintjobs on cars, have been in business for years, probably a multi-million-dollar business. Are they not professional car-painters? Most people don't think their work is of very high-quality, so does that make them amateurs?

I consider they qualify as professionals, but the quality of their work is not as good as some other higher-priced professionals. It's this way with all services, some are better than others, it doesn't make the lower-quality/cheaper ones non-professionals.

Suppose a guy does a better paintjob on his own car in his garage, does that mean he is a professional carpainter and Earl Schieb's guys aren't? According to you, Donny, it does.

The guy who does a better job in his own garage may do a more professional job, but he himself is still NOT a professional.

You can do a professional job and still be an amateur, and you can do an amateurish job and be a professional.

(Apologies to any of you out there who are or know employees of Earl Shieb. I'm sure it's a great paint job for the price.)

I think the majority of people see the professional/amateur dispute like this, although there's always someone with another opinion.... like Donny....

By the way, I agree with what David D says about the masters; if Lloyd, Buddy, Franklin, Bobbe, Stephane and the other great ones were to quit today (heaven forbid!) and never play another note anywhere, if they no longer "qualified" as a professional by the hard definition of playing for a living, Don Helms and Herbie Remington were mentioned; I still consider them all the pros' pros, because of who they are, what they've done, they've earned the title and respect whether they ever play again or not.

Same as an Admiral or General will always have the title, "Admiral ____, Retired", after leaving the military.

I think all's been said about this that needs to be said and it's been spelled out clearly enough by several people already. If anyone else thinks good=pro, fine, whatever floats your boat, that's your right.
[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 01 May 2005 at 12:44 PM.]