View Poll Results: Do you play as a job or as a hobby?

Voters
352. You may not vote on this poll
  • Career

    56 15.91%
  • Hobby

    174 49.43%
  • I get paid occasionally/not full time musician

    122 34.66%
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 197
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    well I am surely only a hobbyist by any definition, have never played out, but I do thoroughly enjoy playing music, to the best of my ability...just holding a guitar feels good to me.

    Myself, even when I was young was never cut out to be professional musician or artist...I chickened out of going to art school, believing then that you needed more than talent to make a living and was not willing to take the chance (just not devoted enough I guess).

    I have always admired the people, who for the love of their craft went ahead to pursue their dream of being an artist no matter what. In all of the arts it is usually the most devoted that are most sucessful.

    Nowadays I make a living as a graphic artist, so I do get to be creative, and I'm not rich but I'm not starving, so it is not all that bad. I enjoy photography as well and shot one wedding a couple of years back and found that I never want to be a pro-photographer, as it then became work.

    With music, I do want to improve, but I don't really care how good I get as long as I keep enjoying it, and I do enjoy it very much. So I am happy to only ever be an amateur.

    I have to say this has been a very interesting thread. ..I think it is pretty cool to hang out here with such varied group of musicians. this internet thing can definitely be a good thing.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    I know this is an aging thread, and I've been finger-wagged already for using a dictionary (OMG, he brought in a dictionary, the pedant! This sh*t ain't gonna solve anything!)... but:

    I really, really, really dislike this whole thread. I'm amazed (dismayed, maybe) by the number of guys here who went right along with the notion that you're either one... or the other. Pro, or hobbyist. Make a living at it? PRO! Don't make a living? Hobbyist.

    Bullshit.

    Why do musicians have to accept a stupid pigeon hole label, and wear it like a crown, by god? Do artists - painters, sculptors, writers - do they put this question to each other? Being a writer, I can tell you, No. You're either a writer, or you're not. If you write, you're a writer. Of course, if you're talking about imaginative writing, almost 0% of writers "make a living" at it, so you could go to the huge, yearly Maui Writer's Conference and I guarantee you that nobody would say anything like, "Hello: are you a pro or a hobbyist?"

    I guarantee you that almost nobody would ask at all about how money figures into your art. Is creative writing a higher art? A finer art? When I see threads like this, I tend to think maybe so. No, on second thought, it's more likely that the art isn't a finer art; rather, the artists are perhaps a little more artistic, and a little less uneducated, as a group. By "artistic" I mean, among other things, being unconcerned with whether they ever make a dime from it -- or, being inclined such that they'd be doing it regardless of money - it's an art, not a job. Guitarists sometimes seem all confused about this, and sometimes lose perspective altogether and even quit playing because "it doesn't pay," or something similarly stupid.

    A "real writer" can't NOT write. I'd say a real guitarist (artist) can't NOT play -- at least in his head. Imprison him and he'll go on playing.

    When I first joined this forum, I had no intention of staying. I needed some "stuff" - and I'd planned to move on as soon as I'd gotten that. But wow! The guys here are VERY smart and educated - so I wanted to stay (despite my having come across as two different people by then - long story). The members here seem smart and educated in general, as with writers. No, to be a good writer of literary fiction, the keenness of mind and the education (formal almost always) is a must. We can play damn good guitar and not *necessarily* have any real education. With jazzers that's probably rare, however.

    Being aware of the intelligence of this group is probably why this thread's seemingly unquestioned acceptance surprised me, almost nauseated me. Two pigeon holes, two labels? 1) Pro 2) Hobbyist. Where does "Artist" come in? All pros probably aren't real artists - many are closer to journeymen. They can play many styles, can play in time and in tune, and can drop into almost any band and make the band sound more complete, or whatever -- but many of these "pros" aren't artists. Yet many, MANY guitarists whose music simply is not commercially viable, are unquestionably artists. Pat Metheny is certainly an artist, and he obviously makes a handsome living with his music. But he's busted his ass for 35 years! The same band of guys, give or take, playing show after show, night after night -- this builds a tremendous fan base. A big fan base brings big money - or bigger money. Bigger than he'd have if he played on the weekends, in the Northeast, except for finals and mid-terms...

    I just think "Pro" or "Hobbyist" - pick one -- I think this is ludicrous, and I'll be forever surprised that anybody here discussed it seriously.

    What was Vincent van Gogh? A hobbyist. Haha! It should be criminal to assign a word with derogatory connotations (look it up!) to van Gogh, or to Mick Goodrick, or to a certain mandolin player who lives down the road from me. Maybe it's the wordsmith in me that balks at calling serious, and talented, and hardworking artists "hobbyists."

    I know I rambled a bit, but God, I feel better.

    Kojo

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Kojo27 . . . . That was probably one of the most opinionated and senseless posts I've ever read on this forum. Your comparisons and analogies are way off base and very unrelated to what the OP was questioning.

    Realizing that you and I have had contentious dialog in this past, and most specifically on this very thread, I know I should have just let this one go by without a response. But, being the dick head that I am I just couldn't . . . especially when it reads as though you are scolding us for even taking part in it and sharing our opinions. It's as though you are saying to us . . .

    "how dare you fools pidgeon hole all musicians into just two catagories? That's not my opinion and therefore it's wrong!!"

    That's what I'm hearing you say in this post.

    Your comparisons to someone in your own walk of life . . writing . . do not equate. You and your peers are "writers" for sure. We and our peers are "musicians" for sure. No one is doubting or challenging that. As mentioned here repeatedly, it's just a matter of semantics. Here are a few different ways of saying the same thing;

    Question; "Are you a professional musician? Or a hobbyist?
    answer; "well, I'm a musician. I have played professionally in the past and still do so occasionally, but it's not my main source of income"

    Question; "are you a professional musician? Or a hobbyist?
    answer; "well. I'm very capable of performing at a professional level. I could walk into a Broadway theater pit tomorrow and fill the chair of guitarist quite competently. (probably one of the most demanding jobs for a guitarist) But, I have no interest in doing so. I play at home for my own enjoyment"

    Question; "are you . . . .
    answer; " Playing an instrument is all I ever do for my income . . so, yeah . . I'm a professional.

    Question; "are you . . . .
    answer; "well, let's see . . . I can't read charts, I show up late and unprepared for gigs. I miss rehearsals, I have no clue about how to improvise over anything other than E9, my amp constantly buzzes and breaks down, I usually get very drunk between sets at gigs . . . but, ya know what, I do get paid at the end of the night . . . so I guess I'm professional."

    I have no idea why you would let a casual discussion on this topic get you so angry.

    Some people choose to catagorize anyone who might be remunerated in any way for playing their guitar . . . . as a professional.

    Some choose to catagorize anyone who plays guitar, at any level, and never receives compensation for doing so . . . as a hobbyist.

    So what?? Why would that upset you??
    Last edited by Patrick2; 03-17-2012 at 11:00 AM.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Kojo27... I asked this question and poll because 1) I'm 15 years old, and really interested in a career in music, and most of these people seem to know what they're doing, so I was curious as to what the level of skill you need to be a jazz musician is 2) to see what percent of them just do it for the love of music 3) to just start a healthy discussion. No need to be offended

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    A hobbyist does it for the love of music.

    I like the term hobbyist for me as I do do it for the love of music. It's a term one can be proud of. I'd rather be a happy hobbyist than a jaded pro (not to say all pros are jaded).

    (Oops, I said do do )

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarimbaGuitar
    Kojo27... I asked this question and poll because 1) I'm 15 years old, and really interested in a career in music, and most of these people seem to know what they're doing, so I was curious as to what the level of skill you need to be a jazz musician is 2) to see what percent of them just do it for the love of music 3) to just start a healthy discussion. No need to be offended
    Marimba......I admire you, and thank you, just for asking about this. Here's a pat on the back and good for you! You raised a good subject and you are doing the right thing by inquiring. There's a ton of knowledge and experience here (excluding me) so stay motivated, and don't let some of the off-topic back and forth bother you. Keep posting and asking. You are the future.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    There aren't just two categories, there are three. Pro, hobbyist (amateur), & somewhere in between.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarimbaGuitar
    Kojo27... I asked this question and poll because 1) I'm 15 years old, and really interested in a career in music, and most of these people seem to know what they're doing, so I was curious as to what the level of skill you need to be a jazz musician is 2) to see what percent of them just do it for the love of music 3) to just start a healthy discussion. No need to be offended
    I apologize, MG - I should have been clearer. I don't dislike the thread as you started it - I understand (esp. now - thanks) what the question was, and for YOUR purposes, these categories are what you wanted and are fine and dandy. And, BTW, I'm not "offended" or any of the other things ("angry," "upset") I'm charged with. When I write stuff like this, I'm quite detached and tranquil.

    What I find bizarre is how quickly and unquestioningly so many of the posters here slapped on their appropriate arm band and jumped in the appropriate line, as if there are no gray areas, and no areas excluded by these two money-based categories.... It's "Pros over here; hobbyists, over here. That's everybody? Good."

    In other words, who decreed that just two categories exist? And who decided what they'd be based on? Probably only in a country with an economy so absolutely dependent upon maintaining an earn-and-spend, earn-and-spend mentality in its populace would you get these two categories only, accepted as sufficient by a forum of fine players, after seeing them thus defined. Your identity as an artist - as a guitarist, a musician -- is decided by what? Yep - how much money you grub up with it. Or whether your art can be fed into the money machine such that a meal ticket comes flapping out the other side.

    As mentioned above, some players make no pretensions to art. "I made $210,000 last year pickin' this thang." Same licks, night after night, basically in tune and in time, and that's a "product" that people will pay for, for whatever reason (the guy played on the record? He's good-looking? It doesn't matter!) - so there's MONEY. In this case it has *nothing* to do with art, but it tells us just about all we're interested in about this guy and his guitar playing. "A pro, aye? Cool!" Or: "Oh, just a hobbyist? Well, there's nothing wrong with that if it makes you happy."

    I think YouTube might be good for music in this respect. What you hear is what you get - pro or no, it helps a whole lot if you're a fine player. Julian Lage teaches - not many want to hear his music on the radio, and he doesn't sell out arenas; yet he's one of the best guitarists in the world, at 23 or 24. An artist's artist. But in this society (and on this forum) his guitar playing is just a hobby. Keep playing, Julian - as long as it makes you happy...

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Star
    There aren't just two categories, there are three. Pro, hobbyist (amateur), & somewhere in between.
    THANK YOU. One of the definitions of "hobbyist" *is* "amateur." Which is probably why having it as the only alternative to "Pro" seems wrong (and "Pro" is utterly meaningless, outside an economic application of some sort: economics and art - mmm, boy.)

    What about "Artist" as a category? I don't know - just a thought.

    What if we asked, "Are you an artist -- or not?"

    How would our forum respond? Oooo! We'd have to think more deeply about ourselves and our playing than the thickness of a checkbook. Am I an artist? Yes. So there - I think it would make a great thread. Few would respond, though. I predict.

    To clarify: am I saying I'm a musician-artist? Yes. (I suspect a few might have wondered...) Am I a chord-melody artist? A bebop artist? Hell no! But some things just don't come up on a jazz forum.
    Last edited by Kojo27; 03-17-2012 at 06:24 PM.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27
    I think YouTube might be good for music in this respect. What you hear is what you get - pro or no, it helps a whole lot if you're a fine player. Julian Lage teaches - not many want to hear his music on the radio, and he doesn't sell out arenas; yet he's one of the best guitarists in the world, at 23 or 24. An artist's artist. But in this society (and on this forum) his guitar playing is just a hobby. Keep playing, Julian - as long as it makes you happy...
    I was under the impression that Lage made his living from playing and teaching music. Is this not the case?

    Why do you feel so compelled to attach the term 'artist' to the term 'professional'? A professional musician may or may not be an artist and an artist may or may not be a professional.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fep
    A hobbyist does it for the love of music.

    I like the term hobbyist for me as I do do it for the love of music. It's a term one can be proud of. I'd rather be a happy hobbyist than a jaded pro (not to say all pros are jaded).

    (Oops, I said do do )
    Wow, Frank - that is extremely surprising to me, that someone would be proud to be called a hobbyist. The word does have some slightly negative connotations. It's a synonym for "amateur," which is freighted with bad connotations.

    However, I know you're a smart and educated man, so I'm curious as to how you came by the notion that "hobbyist" is a good thing to be called. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel how you do; I simply had never imagined it this way. Every day we learn something new, I suppose.

    Oddly maybe, I've never been asked, "Are you a professional or a hobbyist?" If asked, I'd probably say, "Neither of those," and leave it hanging, unless the person wanted further explanation. I couldn't, with a straight face, call it a hobby. It's to intense for that word to fit. "Hobby" has the "in your spare time" meaning, and this is a full-time, almost-never stop, passion - except for the few hours a month I spend working. I'm suffering a pretty crappy illness, so I don't get to play as much as I would otherwise, but it's as fast as the old jalopy will go. Full throttle, man.

    kj

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    I was under the impression that Lage made his living from playing and teaching music. Is this not the case?

    Why do you feel so compelled to attach the term 'artist' to the term 'professional'? A professional musician may or may not be an artist and an artist may or may not be a professional.
    Maybe I'm wrong here, but what I meant was that Lage has a day job of teaching. Yes, he teaches guitar and improvisation, I imagine, but they pay him to TEACH, not to play.

    I don't "...feel compelled to attach the term 'artist' to the term 'professional'." I pointed this out myself -- how being a "pro" has nothing to do with art, necessarily. So I'm missing your meaning - sorry. Any examples you can cite?

    kj

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fep
    A hobbyist does it for the love of music.

    I like the term hobbyist for me as I do do it for the love of music. It's a term one can be proud of. I'd rather be a happy hobbyist than a jaded pro (not to say all pros are jaded).

    (Oops, I said do do )
    I have to say: if the definition of "hobbyist" is one who does it for the love of the music, and if that's a fairly widely-accepted definition, then by golly I'm a hardcore hobbyist.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27
    Wow, Frank - that is extremely surprising to me, that someone would be proud to be called a hobbyist. The word does have some slightly negative connotations. It's a synonym for "amateur," which is freighted with bad connotations.

    However, I know you're a smart and educated man, so I'm curious as to how you came by the notion that "hobbyist" is a good thing to be called. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel how you do; I simply had never imagined it this way. Every day we learn something new, I suppose.

    Oddly maybe, I've never been asked, "Are you a professional or a hobbyist?" If asked, I'd probably say, "Neither of those," and leave it hanging, unless the person wanted further explanation. I couldn't, with a straight face, call it a hobby. It's to intense for that word to fit. "Hobby" has the "in your spare time" meaning, and this is a full-time, almost-never stop, passion - except for the few hours a month I spend working. I'm suffering a pretty crappy illness, so I don't get to play as much as I would otherwise, but it's as fast as the old jalopy will go. Full throttle, man.

    kj
    Hi Loren,

    I'll quote a previous post of mine in this thread (post #42).

    I'll also add, I think if I have to have a label, amateur or hobbyist is the suit that fits me best. To tell you the truth, I'd find it a little embarrassing if I was considered a pro. I just don't think my skills measure up to what I'd want them to be if I was is making a career out of music.

    People on this site have heard me play plenty of times. To me that's all that matters. I am what I am and everyone can have their own opinions. Regardless of my skill level or the way anyone wants to label me, this is my passion and I love playing music. No one can argue with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by fep
    I don't have a problem with the word or definition.

    A lot of folks are passionate about their hobby. Car collectors, horse owners, golfers etc.

    Same with amateur. I think you can be proud to be classified an amateur.

    "Latin source, amtor, "lover, devoted friend, devotee, enthusiastic pursuer of an objective," and from its Latin-derived French source, amateur, with a similar range of meanings." Amateur: Lover of...

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    ditto that Patrick2. besides Kojo27, any fool can write a little bit. most would not be expected to make a living at it.
    I don't know how "into" literature you are, ff, but it's different from music, regarding making money - IMO. A master musician, it would seem to me, could at least eke out a living, somehow, with music, if he tried.

    However, a master writer would probably starve to death, no matter how hard he tried. Great writers might (and probably do) write in a unique style, or about unusual subject matter, or they might write in a style that is too difficult for most to read -- or whatever; there are as many barriers between a writer and his reader as there are writers and readers, and most great writers (vs. writers of "McFiction" and K-Mart Fiction) would starve very quickly if they relied upon the money their poetry or fiction generated in this society. A century ago, things were different. Ours is the age of music-video, after all. To wit: YouTube

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fep
    Hi Loren,

    I'll quote a previous post of mine in this thread (post #42).

    I'll also add, I think if I have to have a label, amateur or hobbyist is the suit that fits me best. To tell you the truth, I'd find it a little embarrassing if I was considered a pro. I just don't think my skills measure up to what I'd want them to be if I was is making a career out of music.

    People on this site have heard me play plenty of times. To me that's all that matters. I am what I am and everyone can have their own opinions. Regardless of my skill level or the way anyone wants to label me, this is my passion and I love playing music. No one can argue with that.
    Cool, Frank. I admire all the things you do here - honest to goodness. To the OP, these labels were necessary; beyond that though, what good are they? Why label artists according to the source of their income? These are the things I wish the players here would take a closer look at - and think about.

    I'd be embarrassed to be called "pro" as well. I'm fraught with limitations, could never make it as a studio musician, etc. But if I wanted to sing (I can sing) and play in carcinogenic, redneck dance clubs, I could probably make enough money to live on. Barely, but people do get by on less. For the love of God, though, don't call me a "pro" because of it! I'm not a pro! Tommy Emmanuel is a pro.

    And no, I don't know how I define "pro." : )

    I sincerely dig your attitude toward playing, Frank. I am with you. If I never play a solo over Giant Steps, I'll play on just the same and love it and wallow in it daily. BTW, you are playing very, very well. I want to join you guys on the Berklee book, though it will be review for me. At first I'll have to upload audio.... such a grand idea to work the books that way - kudos!

    I just hijacked my own thread. EDIT: What? This ain't my thread!
    Last edited by Kojo27; 03-17-2012 at 11:38 PM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27
    Maybe I'm wrong here, but what I meant was that Lage has a day job of teaching. Yes, he teaches guitar and improvisation, I imagine, but they pay him to TEACH, not to play.
    When I saw Lage in L.A. it was $30 a ticket plus a two drink minimum for an hour long performance (two shows that evening). I guarantee you he got paid. How else do you imagine that he and the musicians in his band are able to go on tour?

    As far as teaching goes, I think most professional jazz musicians teach these days. Just the reality of the jazz music scene.
    Last edited by Jazzpunk; 03-17-2012 at 11:50 PM.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    When I saw Lage in L.A. it was $30 a ticket plus a two drink minimum for an hour long performance (two shows that evening). I guarantee you he got paid. How else did you imagine he and the musicians in his band were able to go on tour?

    As far as teaching goes, I think most professional jazz musicians teach these days. Just the reality of the jazz music scene.

    You should e-mail Lage and see if he thinks of himself as a professional musician or if he views everyone who can strum a G chord as a professional and an artist. Might be interesting to get someone at his skill level to chime in on the subject.
    Well, the accepted definition of "pro," here, in this thread, is someone who makes his living playing guitar. I never said I like the definition - but I'm willing to accept it for matters of discussion.

    My reasoning is this: if Lage were making his living playing guitar, why is he teaching? Of course the guy could make a living playing, but apparently it wouldn't be the kind of living he wants right now - or something like that. The reason doesn't matter. As the previous posters have defined the word, Julian Lage is not a "Pro." And there's only one other category, so he's a hobbyist. To become a pro, according to this thread, he'd have to give up his teaching job and make his living solely from playing. I assume record sales are permitted.

    Hope that clears things up some.

    kj

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27
    Well, the accepted definition of "pro," here, in this thread, is someone who makes his living playing guitar. I never said I like the definition - but I'm willing to accept it for matters of discussion.

    My reasoning is this: if Lage were making his living playing guitar, why is he teaching? Of course the guy could make a living playing, but apparently it wouldn't be the kind of living he wants right now - or something like that. The reason doesn't matter. As the previous posters have defined the word, Julian Lage is not a "Pro." And there's only one other category, so he's a hobbyist. To become a pro, according to this thread, he'd have to give up his teaching job and make his living solely from playing. I assume record sales are permitted.

    Hope that clears things up some.

    kj
    I've always considered teaching to be a respectable part of making a living for a professional musician. Do others not feel this way?

    I guess you could say one is not a professional performer if one only teaches but are they not still involved in music as a profession?

    Lage is one of my favorites btw. Definitely an artist in addition to being a professional.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Art and commerce are natural born enemies. Almost all career artists in any discipline of the arts depend on some income from teaching. More today than ever, it's just a fact of life. Very few exceptions.
    Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 03-18-2012 at 12:24 AM.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    I've always considered teaching to be a respectable part of making a living for a professional musician. Do others not feel this way?

    I guess you could say one is not a professional performer if one only teaches but are they not still involved in music as a profession?

    Lage is one of my favorites btw. Definitely an artist in addition to being a professional.
    I agree - if Julian Lage isn't a professional guitarist, then nobody is. I think the definition of "professional" being used here is ludicrous when applied to an art. You have to make your entire living at it? Crap - Frank Vignola teaches private lessons! I think Julian Lage might, too.

    Yeah, Julian is the man. Jazz-wise, he *is* my favorite. By far.

    kj

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    Who said teaching music is not part of being a professional musician? I've never heard this statement until now. Was it said earlier in the thread or just something that you've decided upon?
    Dude, I think we're almost in agreement -- that's what I'm griping about! The definition is insane. They put it in place early in the thread. It's nuts.

    kj

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27
    Dude, I think we're almost in agreement -- that's what I'm griping about! The definition is insane. They put it in place early in the thread. It's nuts.

    kj
    Ah, got ya. I didn't read through the entire thread so must have missed it.

    Most of the big names out there teach in some capacity. Pat Martino has been teaching privately for years and I doubt anyone here would challenge his authority on the instrument.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    Who said teaching music is not part of being a professional musician? I've never heard this statement until now. Was it said earlier in the thread or just something that you've decided upon?
    Jazzpunk . . . I think I might have said that in an earlier thread. I really don't care to go back and review all I've posted here. So, if I'm wrong and I didn't say it, then I'll say it now; If someone earns 100% of their income as a guitar instructor/teacher, then I would not consider them to be a professional guitarist. I would consider them to be professional educators . . . . capable of performing at a professional level if they chose to. That's not to be confused with those guitarists who perform professionally and also teach. I would then consider them to be professional guitarists as well as professional educators.

    A guy like Angelo Dundee spent his entire life teaching guys like Cassius Clay - Muhammad Ali . . . Sugar Ray Leonard, etc., how to fight and prepare for fights. He was paid handsomely for it. Did that make him a professional prize fighter? Or, a professional trainer (educator).

    Mick Jagger has made . . . "a few bucks" . . . performing on stage and writing/selling his works. He has also slung a guitar while performing one or two songs on stage. Does that make him a professional guitarist? Or, does it make him a professional entertainer who occasionally defiles a 6 string object? The crazy semantics could go on for ever . . . or is it forever? (sorry Kojo . . . I couldn't resist that )

    I think it was one of the Mods who warned earlier in this thread about arguing semantics as being a potential and silly pitfall. That was wise.

    Mr. Kojo . . . I appreciated your reply to my post comparing the literary world to the world of music . . . and I genuflect to your knowledge of it. (I've really got to learn how to use that multi quote button as well as you did.)

    If you want to call your obsession to jazz guitar a "passion" rather than a hobby, then I'm OK with that . . . (not that it's any of my business anyway). But, if I or others choose to be passionate about our "hobby" then you should consider being tolerant of that as well. (not that it's any of your business). But, I really do appreciate that you seem to have become less angry with the whole professional vs hobbyist debate. It's really not important enough to get upset over.

    All in all, it's been a really fun thread . . . could probably go on for days . . . . but, it's get rather repetative. Although, that certainly won't stop me from continuing to post.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    Where did you come up with $45/hr? I can't even find a decent 'no name' teacher in L.A. for that lol.

    I agree that trying to make it as a musician is not the most financially sound decision one could make but life isn't always about making sound decisions. In fact, most influential artists made their careers based off of conventionally unsound decisions. Being risk averse and being a successful artist/musician rarely go hand in hand. Most of the jazz legends had pretty rough lives financially.

    I tried to 'make it' for about 15 years and finally threw in the towel. I actually enjoy playing now more than I ever did back when I was just barely scraping by but I'm glad I gave it a shot.

    The flip side is, I don't have near the time I used to have to dedicate to my instrument. I wish I did but that is the trade off for security. I certainly respect those who dedicate their lives to their craft and can't imagine looking down my nose at them because they are not making a lot of money.
    no doubt. it depends on where you live. and it depends on whether you are paying "standard" rates, as opposed to "name player" or "well known professor" rates.

    i lived in LA for awhile and still visit every few months. it's a very expensive city and part of a very expensive state. that's too bad. if it weren't i would move there in a second, along with 50 million others no doubt.

    so what does one pay an average (not jazz wizard) guitar teacher in LA? $55 per hour?