What are the differences between Pro, semi pro,writers, performers, and hobbyists

[Dr. Ellwood]

For a long time now on this Forum I have seen many different aspects and approaches to playing guitar. In many instances these differences have seemed to cause clashes in philosophical viewpoints. There seems to be a general attitude that players who do not write original material are somehow not complete in their motivations and have missed out on the creative part of their musical experience. What if any is the value in playing cover songs? Is the motivation to work in a cover band a far second to being in a original material band even if the original band does not work? I think a discussion of these attitudes might be a healthy and focused thing to ponder.

[Guitar55]

A friend of mine used to put in quite succinctly:

"Never confuse commerce with art."

[Phillydor]

Possibly the difference is that if Eric Clapton was having a chat with Brian May, probably the last thing they'd talk about is guitars. Both are huge cricket tragics, so more than likely they'd talk about cricket and how great it was for England to beat Australia in the recent Ashes Test.

On the other hand I've known people'(aka Trainspotters or Anoraks) who talk about nothing BUT guitars, even possess more instruments and gear than ten Rolling Stones, but they are complete amateurs. Cést la vie.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by ellwood:

What if any is the value in playing cover songs?...

Ellwood, where are you trying to go with this? Is it a trick question or something?

 

Anyway... for what it's worth: I don't think there's anything personally wrong with people who play in cover bands, it's just that it's not the sort of thing I've ever been interested in doing for a living.

 

And the emphasis is "for a living". If I was to play covers, I'd most definitely want to make a living from it, otherwise what would be the point?

 

MIdn you, I guess there must be a certain pleasure in having some guy come up to the front of the stage and ask you to play (say) "Bus Stop" by the Hollies ('cause it's raining just like the day he met his gurl) and yes, you CAN pull out stuff like that and make that guy and his date happy. That must have its own rewards, nein?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by ellwood:

...There seems to be a general attitude that players who do not write original material are somehow not complete in their motivations ...

 

...and have missed out on the creative part of their musical experience.

 

...What if any is the value in playing cover songs?

 

Is the motivation to work in a cover band a far second to being in a original material band even if the original band does not work? ...

 

It is definitely a cse of 'different strokes for different folks'.

 

It is also very important to UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between art and commerce.

 

Different people are motivated by different things. I grew up in a musical family. It was always there... a part of the fabric of my childhood, from both sides of the family. The family also encouraged creativity.

 

So I sang from the earliest, and my mom listed to lots of rock and roll, so I sang a lot of rock and roll.

 

But I learned to play drums and guitar, because I thought that it was cool. I learned to play cover songs, because when I was coming up, you did cover songs. It was unheard of to do originals, it wan't anything that anyone that I knew even considered.

 

When one of the guitar players in our band and I (I was the drummer/lead singer) started to write our own songs, it was shocking to people. But we wrote some okay disposable pop that fit in with the other disposable pop of the times, so it was okay. And I have written ever since.

 

So when I started, you only did covers. Now, I think that guys get into bands to be cool, and they play covers to get work and to emulate the performers that they think are cool. Some eventually find their 'own voices', some do not. Neither is right or wrong, it is just different to be creative and commercially sucessful with that creativity than it is to be re-doing what others have done. Does anyone trash Tony Bennett for not being a writer, or for covering songs that maybe Sinatra had already done?

 

You'll never see me at NAMM in someone's amp or guitar booth demoing shred technqiues to impress you. Most guitar players play better than I do. They know more licks, they know more styles, and they even remember the names of the chords that they are playing. I've been playing for so long, it is a much more organic thing for me... shit just comes out. Fortunately, it seems interesting to others. I might not be your first choice as a guitarist in your cover band. But as a creative guitarist, who sings and writes, I might very well be your first choice as a guitarist in your all-originals band. Depends upon your goals.

 

You cannot 'miss' something that you never had or are not capable of doing.

 

The motivation to be in a cover band is far different than the motivation to be in an originals only band, but neither can be classed as 'better', outside of anyone's personal reference of good better best.

 

One thing I can tell you..... it is very possible to out-think a situation.

 

I just read in an old book last night... a guitarist is telling a guy what jazz is, and in effect he said that it was the music played in the parlor of the whorehouse to get you fired up enough to want to go upstairs with one of the girls. He opined that what Mulligan and Monk did, though cerebrial, cogitated the woman right out of the music.

 

Now, the difference between a pro, a semi pro, and a hobbyist is pretty easy. How do you make your living? The guy who does it within the industry is a pro. The semi-pro is a guy who makes some money playing, but still has to hold down a 'straight' job to feed his wife and family and pay the bills. A hobbyist spends more money at GC than he makes performing each year, and is usually more interested in buying gear than in performing, as if somehow the gear was going to make him a better performer.

 

 

Bill

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

To me it's the same as any instrument in any setting.

 

How many pianists or cellists or violinists write their own concertos? How many simply perform the music that was written by someone else? Is the one that writes his own music somehow a better performer than the one who simply follows the conductor and plays the music in front of him/her?

 

I see performing and writing as two distinct and different art forms. If you can do both..great. If you can't or don't write, I don't think that makes you any less of a performer. Johnny Mercer composed over 1,000 of the best-known tunes of the 20th century and never learned to pay an instrument.

[Pappy P]

Ellwood.

 

I think you are in an enviable position.

 

You get to play guitar and make some money and have fun while doing it.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, and I doubt you have missed any thing creative wise.

 

Entertaining people is not easy.

 

Writing music is just a creative outlet for me. I don't spend a lot of time learning to play cover tunes because I don't have any gigs to play.

 

Not being a professional, my opinion may not matter to you, but here it is anyway.

 

I would love to be able to play my music with other musicians or have other bands play my songs. I think it might even be good if people liked the music they heard.

 

I had the opportunity to play some cover tunes with my church band (just to fill in), and it was a rewarding experience. I just don't think I would last long in a cover or tribute band because of the focus on accurate replication of a beloved song. That is just too much stress for me.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

To me it's the same as any instrument in any setting.

 

How many pianists or cellists or violinists write their own concertos? How many simply perform the music that was written by someone else? Is the one that writes his own music somehow a better performer than the one who simply follows the conductor and plays the music in front of him/her?

 

I see performing and writing as two distinct and different art forms. If you can do both..great. If you can't or don't write, I don't think that makes you any less of a performer. Johnny Mercer composed over 1,000 of the best-known tunes of the 20th century and never learned to pay an instrument.

Yup. It's not this way in pop music, though.

 

The reason may be simple. It doesn't take an inspired genius to write a Britney Spears tune, so the fact that Britney Spears and those types of pop artists don't write their own stuff by themselves, and the fact that really they aren't that great as singers either is sufficient enough to say that most of them aren't really "artists", but "entertainers". But this brings another question....

 

Most good art is 'entertaining', because it may incredibly beautiful, inspiring, engaing, deep, or interesting. And doing good entertainment is also, sort of, an art form.

 

When you're talking about classical music: once Beethoven got famous around Vienna in the 19th century something weird happened: the birth of the 'virtuoso' free-lance composer who was independent from royal courts, etc, and who wasn't necessarily a better performer than professional virtuosic performers. After him, instrumental technique reached new levels, and obviously, 'composing chops' did too.

 

A great performer doesn't necessarily make a great composer. I saw John Williams--the classical guitarist--last April, I think. He played a work composed by him that was, to be generous, 'a nice try' when compared to the rest of his program. It was a work comprised of 5 short pieces. At the same time, if you take one of these little pieces and compare it to "Classical Gas", the Mason Williams classic would seem like a MTV-unplugged version of a Poison ballad, being generous once again.

 

AC/DC write their own material and play their own instruments and I like them, but that doesn't mean I'll respect them as "artists" more than I respect Manuel Barrueco, Angel Romero or Denis Azabagic just because AC/DC write their own material and those classical cats don't (at least that I know of).

 

When we're talking about cover pop/rock bands in a 'local' setting, I'd think people get into those projects to: 1)make money; 2)have fun; 3)get experience and develop chops w/ 'proven' material'; 4) get to know the local music scene before trying to break into it w/ their own material.

[Shoes]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Perhaps that was the correct responce....

 

I've written a few numbers and I likely write more poetry (stuff that hasn't become a song yet) than complete musical compositions.... I keep learning new songs mostly for cover play...

 

I know there are a good many of you out there who attend some form of church on an on going basis. Question: Do you feel that you'd need to keep going if you could memorize your "good book" or would that just be rehashing the obvious?

 

I'm sorry if that was a in poor taste as a comparison but I thought it easily conveyed the potential benifits of participation. Both for the player and the listener.

 

I can't dance to save my life. I think that may have been what inspired me to start playing guitar at 15! I'm not certain. Fact is.. I have a lot of energy to toss out there and music is the key to expelling that excess.

 

This is a visual art or expression and the urge to participate is powerful.

 

Is this not just so much life being played out as it should?

[Billster]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by ellwood:

What if any is the value in playing cover songs?...

Ellwood, where are you trying to go with this? Is it a trick question or something?

Ahahahaha! Vince cuts through the BS

 

 

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Now, the difference between a pro, a semi pro, and a hobbyist is pretty easy. How do you make your living? The guy who does it within the industry is a pro. The semi-pro is a guy who makes some money playing, but still has to hold down a 'straight' job to feed his wife and family and pay the bills. A hobbyist spends more money at GC than he makes performing each year, and is usually more interested in buying gear than in performing, as if somehow the gear was going to make him a better performer.

 

 

Bill

I agree with that generally, but I think you are ascribing motivations to the hobbyist, as if they are buying gear in a poser fashion. Some folks get a lot of enjoyment out of creating things for their own health and well being, and share it freely with a small circle of friends and family. Do shutterbugs who buy nice cameras have to aspire to be commercially successful?

 

-------------------------------------

 

As for playing covers, what about jazz? You learn your craft by playing standards, and if you have talent you can write your own. There's less stigma attached to being an interpreter in the jazz idiom. I think people want to believe rock music is simple and anyone can write a rock 'n roll song, but that's not true.

 

Another aspect is film work, where you are doing a musical interpretation of another's artistic vision. The film director may not have any musical skills, but is the driving force for the thematic elements - in that sense you are "covering" the directors material with your own interpretation.

 

I've never been really motivated to use playing cover music as a way to make all my income. I know guys who did that, and busted their humps with the hours and wheeling-dealing, and it became just another 9-5 thing, only p.m. to a.m.

 

Frankly, music is too personal to me to have it take on those characteristics. I work a day gig that's ok, I get to encounter all types of people and learn interesting stuff as it peripherally touches the core business, so I'm lucky that way.

 

I do some cover music, but I like to twist stuff around, like my re-tooled "Behind Blue Eyes" , and I really enjoy doing film work.

 

I may get paid for music only rarely, but the stuff I do musically (cover, original, contracted, whatever) is of my own motivation, and that's what I prefer.

[Dr. Ellwood]

QUOTE by BILLSTER: "Ahahahaha! Vince cuts through the BS"

 

And what BS was it that I was supposed to have slung? what are you talking about? I asked a question is all, asking for dialogue on the question! What other motivation could there be, and to what end other than the responses? There was no cutting through any

[Funk Jazz]

Originally posted by Billster:

[edited for salient points]I've never been really motivated to use playing cover music as a way to make all my income. I know guys who did that, and busted their humps with the hours and wheeling-dealing, and it became just another 9-5 thing, only p.m. to a.m.

 

Frankly, music is too personal to me to have it take on those characteristics. I work a day gig that's ok, I get to encounter all types of people and learn interesting stuff as it peripherally touches the core business, so I'm lucky that way.

 

I may get paid for music only rarely, but the stuff I do musically (cover, original, contracted, whatever) is of my own motivation, and that's what I prefer.

very well said Bill

[GtrWiz]

 

 

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Now, the difference between a pro, a semi pro, and a hobbyist is pretty easy. How do you make your living? The guy who does it within the industry is a pro. The semi-pro is a guy who makes some money playing, but still has to hold down a 'straight' job to feed his wife and family and pay the bills. A hobbyist spends more money at GC than he makes performing each year, and is usually more interested in buying gear than in performing, as if somehow the gear was going to make him a better performer.

 

 

Bill

I agree with that generally, but I think you are ascribing motivations to the hobbyist, as if they are buying gear in a poser fashion. Some folks get a lot of enjoyment out of creating things for their own health and well being, and share it freely with a small circle of friends and family. Do shutterbugs who buy nice cameras have to aspire to be commercially successful?

 

Let me put a different spin on this aspect of the post. My whole adult life until 1 year ago, I made 100% of my living from music. Over the years I've done it all: taught guitar lessons, played in cover bands, local original bands, major label national acts (touring and recording), I was a partner in a recording studio, etc...

 

As my career became more "succesful", the less satisfied I became with the music that I was playing. It was very disheartening to be playing songs that I couldn't stand in front of 10,000 people. I couldn't figure out why I didn't feel grateful for being in a position that thousands of musicians would kill for...

 

So, long story short, I quit, packed up my wife, moved to LA and got a job.

 

After a few months of soul-searching I realized that, for me, it is more important to play music that I love and feel good about than where it gets me or how many people acknowledge it. I always wanted to put out my own record, so I started writing songs and I'm going to start tracking in January. I haven't been this excited about life in general in years.

 

So, does the fact that, for right now, I'm not making my living as a musician, make me any less of a professional? Maybe in the leteral sense, but in my heart, I don't feel that to be true, because everything that I do will be held to a certain standard. No matter what I do for money, I will always be a musician.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Jeez, who really cares?

 

I play in a cover band. I also play in an original band. I record my own music, and I've recorded covers. I get paid to play, and I play for free too. I've met some wonderful musicians who never make a dime from their playing, and some terrible musicians who get paid lots for looking good in a video.

 

IT'S ALL GOOD.

 

There's no shame or pride in any type of playing, be it for money or love. Why analyze it to death?

 

Should visual artists be judged in these same ways? Most great artists -- painters, sculptors, and so on -- die penniless. Do they automatically suck?

 

- Jeff

[Darklava]

Originally posted by Jeff Klopmeyer:

Jeez, who really cares?

 

I play in a cover band. I also play in an original band. I record my own music, and I've recorded covers. I get paid to play, and I play for free too. I've met some wonderful musicians who never make a dime from their playing, and some terrible musicians who get paid lots for looking good in a video.

 

IT'S ALL GOOD.

 

There's no shame or pride in any type of playing, be it for money or love. Why analyze it to death?

 

Should visual artists be judged in these same ways? Most great artists -- painters, sculptors, and so on -- die penniless. Do they automatically suck?

 

- Jeff

I get paid to do the wild thang

[Eric VB]

I use "full time" and "part time" instead of "pro" or "semi pro". In either case these are people that make money to various degrees; the hobbyist does not.

 

Composing (writing) and performing are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor are they dependent on each other. Sasquatch51 covered this pretty well. I'll just add that I know a drummer that writes songs without playing anything other than drums and without any musical theory training. He hums the parts to the guitarist and bassist and hands lyrics to the singer.

 

So, composing and performing are not extensions of each other, but it's certainly helpful for a composer to be competent in at least one instrument (including voice) to develop and convey his/her compositions. OTOH, writing a riff or chord progression is of little use to a performer that only reads sheet music or plays cover tunes. Hence composition is often seen as an extension to performance, even though it is not.

 

By analogy, a choreographer doesn't need to be able to dance, and a dancer doesn't need to be able to choreograph. However, a choreographer can always make use of dancing skills whereas a dancer may never need choreographic skills.

 

For local musicians, composition allows them to record and sell cds. This is like the visual artist that can draw Snoopy all day long, but can't sell those drawings, only originals. And you're not likely to find a composer at the local level that doesn't perform his/her own songs. So, from a practical standpoint, at the local level composition is an extension of performance. Still, it's not a necessary extension.

[Billster]

Originally posted by ellwood:

QUOTE by BILLSTER: "Ahahahaha! Vince cuts through the BS"

 

And what BS was it that I was supposed to have slung? what are you talking about? I asked a question is all, asking for dialogue on the question! What other motivation could there be, and to what end other than the responses? There was no cutting through any

You have a bad habit of laying out baiting questions and then when you get a predictable response, jumping on your soapbox.

 

I would bet dollars to donuts that the first guy who posted "cover bands are for sissies" would have gotten your dander going up one side and down the other.

[Dr. Ellwood]

"You have a bad habit of laying out baiting questions and then when you get a predictable response, jumping on your soapbox."

 

Ya and you have a bad habit BILL of THINKING you have the ability to cut to the chase and write with more clarity and deep meaning than others do. So my posts are BS and yours are not, yours are more meaningful somehow? There was nothing baiting about this post at all! I think the response was good. Who are you to judge what other peoples motivations are? or what their bad habits are. Where do you see me jumping on anyone here about what they have said?

[Billster]

Ellwood, everyone knows you play in a cover band. Read your first post in this thread - in context, it comes off as defensive. Vince saw that line, I just got a kick out of it.

 

Cover vs. original is a legitimate discussion, and I participated in that too, so don't think I'm just here to annoy you.

[GtrWiz]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I use "full time" and "part time" instead of "pro" or "semi pro". In either case these are people that make money to various degrees; the hobbyist does not.

So, along that line of thinking, would I be a professional-hobbyist?

 

I don't think so. I'm not being defensive, because I feel that I've proven myself, and I'm no longer willing to make the sacrifices that it sometimes takes to be a "full time" or "Professional" musician. For me, it's not a hobby, it's my passion. I spend way more time on my music than I ever will at my day job... ask my wife!

[Shoes]

Hmmmm......

It says right here that this thread has gone Moronic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/pek63/gears.jpg

 

The question is argumentative by the way it is written. It draws a line and finds one side preferred to the other and this causes people to naturally take sides.

 

It also causes people to side with common elements (such as forumites)

 

Should have been posted as an unbiased question to feed a poll rather than a "... hey support my thought" thread.

 

Simple mistake... perhaps.

 

Next....

[Billster]

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

For me, it's not a hobby, it's my passion.

Mrs. Billster tells me that all the time when I get grumpy about the peripheral crap involved in participating. She's right - I have to do this stuff.

[Funk Jazz]

Shoes =

[force]

Originally posted by ellwood:

What if any is the value in playing cover songs? Is the motivation to work in a cover band a far second to being in a original material band even if the original band does not work?

In my opinion, the value of playing cover songs is that it is entertaining to people in a club, bar, party, wherever. Also, it's fun for the musicians.

 

I would say the motivation to work in a cover band vs "original material band" is a far second yes. I don't put the violinist who performs in the Haydn quartet in the same ball park as Haydn. Cover bands cover, performers perform, composers create; it's apples and oranges.

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I use "full time" and "part time" instead of "pro" or "semi pro". In either case these are people that make money to various degrees; the hobbyist does not.

So, along that line of thinking, would I be a professional-hobbyist?

 

I don't think so. I'm not being defensive, because I feel that I've proven myself, and I'm no longer willing to make the sacrifices that it sometimes takes to be a "full time" or "Professional" musician. For me, it's not a hobby, it's my passion. I spend way more time on my music than I ever will at my day job... ask my wife!

Heh. Nicely put.

 

Unfortunately "professional" has more than one definition . We're not talking about doctors and lawyers, so we'll skip that one. When applied to an individual, there are two choices left: one based on money and one based on skill. Since it seems most people delineate based on the money aspect, I prefer to use "full time" instead of "pro", as the meaning is hopefully a little more clear? Perhaps "full time payed" musician would do it?

 

I think your case is more like the pro athelete that has retired yet still likes to play in a backyard pickup game. You may still play as hard, but you're not getting paid. Using this and my nomenclature, you could say you are a "former full time" musician.

 

Of course you are always welcome to label yourself whatever you want. You are a pro based on the skill definition. In fact, you might say you are: a pro musician working on a solo/original recording project.

 

Anyways, I don't think my 3 classifications imply level of skill. It's certainly possible that a hobbyist could have more skill/talent than a full time musician. Unfortunately there is the connotation that a hobbyist spends less time or maybe less effort, which may lead to less skill, which isn't always the case. I don't help that any by using "time" in the other terms.

 

Not a perfect system, but it was my attempt to get away from the career/skill duality of the word "professional".

[Eric VB]

Just to throw a wrench into one side of this conversation, would you consider a dj to be a "performer"?

[force]

I'd say a dj is a facilitator, more of an MC. Some do a terrific job too.

[Gifthorse]

Personally, I think you are an artist still even if you play covers. This is because being an interpreter of someone else's music is an expressive endeavor. It is creative in different ways. I have all the respect in teh world for good cover bands and good cover musicians.

 

To me I will notice anyone playing music well. Being a professional musician can either be measured by money generated by the person, or it can be measured by skill level. Like what if a guy makes a living playing music for 2 years, then he does something else. Is he a pro musician anymore? Yes and no. He has the skills to and is good enough, but he chooses not to make his money that way.

[GtrWiz]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I use "full time" and "part time" instead of "pro" or "semi pro". In either case these are people that make money to various degrees; the hobbyist does not.

So, along that line of thinking, would I be a professional-hobbyist?

 

I don't think so. I'm not being defensive, because I feel that I've proven myself, and I'm no longer willing to make the sacrifices that it sometimes takes to be a "full time" or "Professional" musician. For me, it's not a hobby, it's my passion. I spend way more time on my music than I ever will at my day job... ask my wife!

Heh. Nicely put.

 

Unfortunately "professional" has more than one definition . We're not talking about doctors and lawyers, so we'll skip that one. When applied to an individual, there are two choices left: one based on money and one based on skill. Since it seems most people delineate based on the money aspect, I prefer to use "full time" instead of "pro", as the meaning is hopefully a little more clear? Perhaps "full time payed" musician would do it?

 

I think your case is more like the pro athelete that has retired yet still likes to play in a backyard pickup game. You may still play as hard, but you're not getting paid. Using this and my nomenclature, you could say you are a "former full time" musician.

 

Of course you are always welcome to label yourself whatever you want. You are a pro based on the skill definition. In fact, you might say you are: a pro musician working on a solo/original recording project.

 

Anyways, I don't think my 3 classifications imply level of skill. It's certainly possible that a hobbyist could have more skill/talent than a full time musician. Unfortunately there is the connotation that a hobbyist spends less time or maybe less effort, which may lead to less skill, which isn't always the case. I don't help that any by using "time" in the other terms.

 

Not a perfect system, but it was my attempt to get away from the career/skill duality of the word "professional".

I gotcha, and just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I fully intend to make my living from music again, I just need to step away for a bit, and figure some things out. So I'll go with this one:

 

"In fact, you might say you are: a pro musician working on a solo/original recording project."

 

It's the trueth really...

 

For the most part this was a really good thread, and something that's been on my mind for a while.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by GtrWiz:

So, along that line of thinking, would I be a professional-hobbyist?

 

I don't think so. I'm not being defensive, because I feel that I've proven myself, and I'm no longer willing to make the sacrifices that it sometimes takes to be a "full time" or "Professional" musician. For me, it's not a hobby, it's my passion. I spend way more time on my music than I ever will at my day job... ask my wife!

I don't know why you have trouble with thins... just own up to what you have done. It is alright not to be a professional musician anymore. It will be just as alright if/when you decide to make your living from it again. Passion does not describe professionalism. One of the early parts of my original message I suggested that it is important to know the difference between art and commerce. 'Professional' implies (to 99.999% of the western world)the ability to earn a living from what you claim to do. It has nothing to do with passion.

 

 

Bill