What makes one a pro? Do you have to do music for a living? Do have to make money composing, writing or playing? What happens when you wake up one day and are no longer an amateur musician? Is the word "pro" self proclaimed or are you voted into some kind of fraternity? Can you buy your way into being a pro? I'm sure after hearing some of your answers I will have to remain content just playing music for selfish personal pleasure and over indulgance!!! -charley

[This message has been edited by sk880user (edited 01-09-2003).]

I'd guess pro implies professional which implies it is one's profession or occupation. Easier with technical occupations than something like music...

There's an exhibition coming to my city in a few weeks where punters will have a chance to go and see the world's largest model railway.

So, what I'd really like to know is... at what point does a large model railway become a *real* railway?

I would have to agree with Cloakboy but in the long run I'd say "attitude" has a lot to do with it. If you do...what you do...with a professional attitude, who's to say?

Your bank statement?

...Ouch !!

Ha yeah. If you're broke th first half of the month, you're a pro.

When a person's entire livlihood is made by a trade skill or profession whereby the rent they pay and food they eat is generated from these skills.

I am semi-pro because with the money I make, I buy and live on Top Ramen noodles.
MORPH!

the Shrimp flavor is the best!!!!

Y'know, back when I was a struggling "professional," they didn't HAVE Ramen noodles...Banquet pot pies were $0.19, and each had roughly the same salt content as the Dead Sea. Of course, we had to walk barefoot 6 miles through 3 feet of snow to get 'em...uphill both ways...

"Professional" means more than just making money primarily from something, since that "something" generally must be considered a "profession." Most folks wouldn' call someone hired as a street sweeper a professional, even though he's being paid for it. However, he, I'm sure, would use the word! Same goes for musicians, who are generally looked upon as scalawags and ne'er-do-wells (as well they should be! ).

The moral of the story - call yourself anything you like, but make music. One of the greatest American composers was Charles Ives, who made his living from insurance and wrote music only on weekends (here's a short biography ).

------------------
"The problem with the world is that the ignorant are cock-sure, whereas the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

No. Just no.

To everyone else: Check out "Ives Singing Ives" for a good laugh.

Are you serious cloakboy? Ives was jawsome!

I am WAY confused...I googled "Ives Singing Ives" and came up zip (a lot of Burl Ives, but nothing about Charles Ives).

Ives invested heavily in harmonic bitonality and chordal juxtaposition, which made him an acquired taste for many audiences of the time. But short of Copeland, Gershwin and Barber, he's one of the most performed American composers.

Which, of course, is besides the point. The reason he's mentioned in this thread is because his music was created as a secondary activity to his "day job," was first performed only after he'd retired, and was recognized as important and innovative after his death - making him a significant force in classical music despite his lack of "professional" standing during his creative lifetime.

Are we still confused?

------------------
"The problem with the world is that the ignorant are cock-sure, whereas the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

I'm not confused at all. Charles Ives's music is shit, and the only reason he ended up being reknown in the first place was because he claimed to come up with a lot of Europe's most innovative 20th century techniques first. An examination of his sketches showed that he often altered the dates on his pieces, claiming that they were composed earlier than they actually was. Some guy named Schoenberg devised a new 12 tone system? Doo-dee-doo, I'll write a 12 tone piece, then date it a few years before he did it, I'm innovative!
Never trust an insurance salesman.

Ives is probably the only major 20th century composer that I have no respect for.

There is a CD availible called "Ives singing Ives," or maybe "Charles Ives Sings Charles Ives." Something like that. It is absolutely atrocious.

I just love the "Pop-Think" here, the need to pigeon-hole music as "great" or "shit." I notice that Bartok is in your list of interests. I can play "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste" in my head from memory, but I gave up years ago finding very many folks who shared that passion, and I'm fine with that. As I've stated, there are plenty of folks out there who don't get a lot out of Charles Ives. As far as the date accuracy of his innovations, I don't know enough to comment.

All I know is that, in the eyes of a pretty significant number of classical critics, theorists, and performers, the jury is not still out on Charles Ives - he has his place and importance, and the ruminations of participants in an on-line synth forum won't have much impact on that. The chamber chorale of which I'm a member has performed only a small number of American performers over the last few years, one of which is Ives.

Frankly, if we were going to hope for some 20th Century composer to go away, we could aim lower...Dvorak comes to mind...But no amount of trashing of his music is going to change the fact that every major orchestra includes "From the New World" amongst its repertoire. Just the fact that you and I both know who Ives is and what he did has a lot to say about his significance for the question of this thread.

A musician who is consistently excellent, accomplished, refined, dependable, and versatile earns the respect of his colleagues and is usually called a professional. Talent gravitates toward success

BTW, pros don't waste time with online pissing contests. Cool off.