Jazz Guitar

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

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

    48 17.14%
  • Hobby

    135 48.21%
  • I get paid occasionally/not full time musician

    97 34.64%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 101 to 150 of 228
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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
    Which society do you speak of when you say . . "most great writers would starve very quickly if they relied upon the money their poetry or fiction generated in this society"? We have MANY writers of fiction who thrive in our society. Poetry? Probably not as many. And, whom is it that is determining these starving writers are "great" or "master writers"? Seems to me that if a writer is selling, it's because people want to read his/her writings. If the "master writer" is starving . . . it's probably because the so called "master writer" sucks, or they are writing great stuff that no one wants to read do to their writing style.

    The literary world is no different than most others. There are publishers, lawyers and managers/agents who are all just waiting for a talent they can latch their hooks into and make money from. If a writer exposes himself as marketable .. . . they will be scooped up and marketed.

    Regarding your comments of . . . "it would seem to me that a master musician could at least eke out a living somehow if he tried" . . . . so too could a master writer, if he tried. If a master musician simply refused to create works or performances that were indeed marketable . . . he too would starve. If a master writer chose to create writings that were indeed marketable . . . he would sell and he would eat. If a master writer chose to be true to his beliefs of what he should be writing . . . or what he wanted to write . . whether or not those writings are desireable to the people who buy written works such as poetry, novels, fiction . . . whatever . . . and his style or choosings are just not considered to be desireable, then he will indeed starve. So, what's the difference?

    Further, you have a very incorrect perception and/or understanding of the term hobby and/or hobbist. Do you really think for one moment that you are the only hobbyist who devotes an inordinate amount of time and your very life to a hobby or a passion??? I know people who spend more time with flying their model airplanes or running their model miniature speed boats on lakes than they spend with their wife and kids. Does that make them a "pro" model boat guy . . . or a pro model airplane guy? No!! It's their hobby. The same definition applies to those of us who love jazz guitar and spend most of our lives getting better at it . . . but, never intend to use what we learn for gainful employment. It's then a hobby man. There's nothing demeaning about the term at all.
    Last edited by Patrick2; 03-17-2012 at 11:16 PM.

  2. # ADS
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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.

  4. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Further, you have a very incorrect perception and/or understanding of the term hobby and/or hobbist. Do you really think for one moment that you are the only hobbyist who devotes an inordinate amount of time and your very life to a hobby or a passion??? I know people who spend more time with flying their model airplanes or running their model miniature speed boats on lakes than they spend with their wife and kids. Does that make them a "pro" model boat guy . . . or a pro model airplane guy? No!! It's their hobby. The same definition applies to those of us who love jazz guitar and spend most of our lives getting better at it . . . but, never intend to use what we learn for gainful employment. It's then a hobby man. There's nothing demeaning about the term at all.
    I've never attached negative connotations to the terms 'hobbyist' or 'amateur' either. Maybe these terms are used like daggers in the literary world to demean writers who never get published or paid?

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk View Post
    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

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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.

  7. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    East of Eden
    Posts
    5,771
    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.

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,757
    dumbest thread ever?

    nah.

    regarding the above comment about "making a living" - it depends on what you call "a living". if you call charging $45 per hour, teaching 4 students per day "a living", then i guess you are making a living.

    on the other hand, just try paying a mortgage, paying for food, transportation, medical insurance, a spouse and kids, and funding a retirement with that.

    John McLaughlin has stated recently that he knows a number of young, world-class musicians who cannot make a living. He considers himself fortunate because he established himself in a time when one actually got paid for their albums, and because he developed a fan base that still supports him - they know who he is.

    so to be risk averse, one might say that the smartest thing that any musician can do - regardless of their skill/talent - is to remain a hobbyist, and to earn their living doing something else.

  9. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    dumbest thread ever?

    nah.

    regarding the above comment about "making a living" - it depends on what you call "a living". if you call charging $45 per hour, teaching 4 students per day "a living", then i guess you are making a living.

    on the other hand, just try paying a mortgage, paying for food, transportation, medical insurance, a spouse and kids, and funding a retirement with that.

    John McLaughlin has stated recently that he knows a number of young, world-class musicians who cannot make a living. He considers himself fortunate because he established himself in a time when one actually got paid for their albums, and because he developed a fan base that still supports him - they know who he is.

    so to be risk averse, one might say that the smartest thing that any musician can do - regardless of their skill/talent - is to remain a hobbyist, and to earn their living doing something else.
    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.
    Last edited by Jazzpunk; 03-18-2012 at 01:43 AM.

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Which society do you speak of when you say . . "most great writers would starve very quickly if they relied upon the money their poetry or fiction generated in this society"?
    Why, of course I speak of the tribal societies of Northern Australia.

    We have MANY writers of fiction who thrive in our society.
    Umm - no, we don't. This figure is several years old, but I guarantee you it hasn't changed appreciably: publishers estimated that *maybe* 50 writers in America (300,000,000 people?) support themselves solely by writing fiction. There is no known poet doing this today.

    And, whom is it that is determining these starving writers are "great" or "master writers"? Seems to me that if a writer is selling, it's because people want to read his/her writings. If the "master writer" is starving . . . it's probably because the so called "master writer" sucks, or they are writing great stuff that no one wants to read do to their writing style.
    Not all great writers are "starving." Most teach. There are thousands of people in America and the rest of the world, who have devoted their entire lives to the study of literature. There are even more who read books by the dozen, by the hundreds - who perhaps were literature majors, or who merely have a love of good writing. There's a thing called The National Book Award; The Booker Prize; The Pulitzer Prize; The Nobel Prize, and others. All these readers and prize committees - the cream of the literary crop in this world - they are but a few of the people who determine a writer's merit. The people, in other words, who read the damned books determine whether the writer is great or not. But, at no time in a writer's lifetime is he/she somehow pronounced "Great" or "Master" -- oh screw it -- literature - music - two different ballgames.

    The literary world is no different than most others. There are publishers, lawyers and managers/agents who are all just waiting for a talent they can latch their hooks into and make money from. If a writer exposes himself as marketable .. . . they will be scooped up and marketed.
    Oh God. No, this is NOT how it works with literature. Managers and agents? For junk fiction, maybe. Which, as with pop music and fast-food, is where the money is. The serious, talented writers of future classic novels, I'll dare say, are never "scooped up and marketed." All this talk of selling, marketing, money, managers/agents - in the same breath with art - it's so telling of EXACTLY what I've been talking about in all these posts. What the hell does money have to do with art? Necessarily, I mean. Heard of Vincent van Gogh? Emily Dickinson? Their art never caused one cent to change hands; but it was still great art.

    Regarding your comments of . . . "it would seem to me that a master musician could at least eke out a living somehow if he tried" . . . so too could a master writer, if he tried.
    No. A great guitarist can step onto a street corner, set out a cup, start playing his ass off, and people will almost immediately start paying him.

    By the time a great writer could write a salable short-story, submit it, have it approved, wait the usual six months to a year for publication ("We pay on Publication," say the editors), he'd be quite dead. The money moves too slowly with literature. I suppose the great writer could stand on a street corner and dash off poems, if he happens to be a poet, but how much money would he make? Not enough to buy lunch. /// I'll admit there is probably some writer, somewhere, who has the quirky talent to write street-corner poems and make money -- but she's an exception that proves the rule.



    Further, you have a very incorrect perception and/or understanding of the term hobby and/or hobbist. Do you really think for one moment that you are the only hobbyist who devotes an inordinate amount of time and your very life to a hobby or a passion???
    (my emphasis)

    Aha! So they are different things in your mind, too, Mr. Patrick! A hobby... OR ... a passion. See what I mean -- "hobby" just doesn't cut it. "Passion" I'll take.
    Last edited by Kojo27; 03-18-2012 at 05:26 AM.

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    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.
    So true, so true, oh Cosmic Gumbo. So they're all just hobbyists.

    kj

  12. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    So true, so true, oh Cosmic Gumbo. So they're all just hobbyists.

    kj
    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?

  13. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk View Post
    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

  14. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk View Post
    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

  15. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    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.

  16. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk View Post
    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.

  17. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk View Post
    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?

  18. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post

    I think it was one of the Mods who warned earlier in this thread about arguing semantics as being a potential and silly pitfall.
    This is ironic, to argue the semantics of the word "semantic" - but hey-ho. It isn't a bad thing, or wasn't -- it had no negative meanings -- until only two or three decades ago. Semantics is the study of word meanings. That's it!

    The association of "semantics" with "pettiness" might have started on an old episode of "All in the Family" - Archie Bunker, Meat Head, et al., where, all through the episode, Meat Head kept saying, "You're just arguing over semantics!" and Archie would make the face and mock his son in law, etc. I might be (probably am) wrong, but that show was #1, Prime Time, Sunday night (mega-millions of viewers) and lots of people started using the word in a negative way after that. I could be wrong (probably am) about this.

    "Semantics" is like "biology." A study of. It has nothing directly to do with pettiness. When I see a mod, or self-appointed mod, say, "Arguments over semantics get you nowhere," I have to grit my teeth. It's one of the things WORTH arguing over. Why? To preserve our language, for one reason. To learn the language, for another. If "amateur" is a put-down, according to several dictionaries, I'd like to know that. It isn't *always* a put-down, but it certainly can be. To make someone aware of something he's apparently ignorant of - in a forum, where a quest for truth is (I'd think!) part of its raison d'être - this seems to me a responsible thing, and not a petty thing, ever. Unless it's a groundless, petty wrangle, just to wrangle. But by then it's something else - semantics, as a science, is out of the picture and gone.


    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.
    It's the dreaded one-dimensionality of stuff like email and posts such as this one. There's no communication of facial expression, tone of voice, body language... and any "lean" writing will risk sounding "mean." So, do you pepper your writing it "LOLs" and "<grins>" and smiles - and do you water it down with frequent departures for reminding folks of your mood? Or do you write to-the-point, and well?

    In other words, honest, I was never angry or upset, in the least! When I write this kind of stuff, I feel detached from it -- I probably look as if I'm half asleep. No negativity - it's just a debate, a discussion, with intelligent people (you hope), and if someone disagrees with me, that's wonderful! How else can a debate help you?

    For the record, my only real gripe here is that I don't like being offered only two categories and an invitation to please dive into one of them and hush. It's purely personal and subjective - as you say, Patrick. You pick your labels, but don't assign them to me. I won't ever assign a label of my making to someone else, for no reason other than categorizing.

    PATRICK: I can't show you here how to do the multi-quote stuff, because it involves two simple "tags" - and if I type them in this window, they'll make a quote box! Heh. I don't know the tag for canceling out a tag. Send me email and I'll show you how, if you wish. Very easy, not a "button." kojo.27 ~ gma..il.com

    God, I hope this thread is over.

    kj

  19. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Well, one more thing - an apology:

    Sincere apologies to anyone (Fep for sure - sorry Frank) with whom I argued that "hobbyist" has negative connotations. I've been under unbelievable stress lately and am not thinking well -- but excuses be damned, I was mistaken... I probably was associating "hobbyist" with one of its synonyms, "amateur" (which does pack negative meanings.)

    I was dead wrong, though. Very sorry, guys.

    kj

  20. #119
    Incidentally, I actually invented Jazz and get a huge royalty check every week. But I mostly do smooth jazz jingles and music for restaurants on my casio but give all the profits to Invisible Children. So I don't know where that puts me in this poll...
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  21. #120
    I think it was a semantics argument, just not an argument by people well versed in semantics. I should amend my statement to say "Arguments about semantics between folks who don't know what a semantic discussion looks like rarely go anywhere." Obviously you know what you're talking about concerning semantics--I doubt most folks on the street do.

    Just like if we were to argue about biology here.

    Anyway, I do think it's time to let the thread die.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  22. #121
    Is Kojo a professional semanticist or just a hobbyist?
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  23. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post

    Anyway, I do think it's time to let the thread die.
    NEVER

  24. #123

    lets face it anybody who has a age a majority

    and spends his days learning guitar or playing guitar and they don't get paid you would think that somethings wrong.

  25. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by 604bourne123 View Post
    and spends his days learning guitar or playing guitar and they don't get paid you would think that somethings wrong.
    ?????????????????????????????????????

  26. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670

  27. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    I too would like to know what it is that some of us don't quite understand about the semantics of . . . semantics.

  28. #127
    Technically it's not that some of us don't understand the semantics of semantics, it's some of we.
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  29. #128
    what I understand of semantics (which is little) is that it's a discussion about the meaning of (and evolution of) language, not an argument about definitions.

    Which is a nice way of saying it's educational, not a petty argument that changes nobody's mind because the parties arguing have already decided the other is wrong.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  30. #129
    why hello mr. cat

    what a nice tie you have

  31. #130
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    what I understand of semantics (which is little) is that it's a discussion about the meaning of (and evolution of) language, not an argument about definitions.

    Which is a nice way of saying it's educational, not a petty argument that changes nobody's mind because the parties arguing have already decided the other is wrong.
    Yeah . . . . my understanding as well . . . if you take the word/term literally. I do not believe it's always meant to be taken literally, or used in it's purest literal meaning.

    We all have so many ways of saying what we mean, differently . . . or meaning what we say, differently, Interpretations are often totally beyond the true and original intentions. Thus . . . . the semantics of it all.

    I'm a pro . . . . meaning; I'm really f*****g good.
    I'm a pro . . . . meaning; I'm really not that good, but I get paid for what I do.
    I'm a pro . . . . meaning; I've studied so damn long and I'm so passionate about my music and my guitar that I must be a pro.

    I guess we could just say . . . "well, I mean it differently than you do". But, it's so much easier to just say . . . "we're arguing about the semantics (interpretations of langauge used) of it all".

    If we all start to take what each of us say to each other literally . . . . well, you know .. . . .

    So, it can easily become an argument/debate about definitions.

    I don't think the argument/debate was ever about someone being wrong. Just the interpretation of one's definition of pro vs hobbyist.
    Last edited by Patrick2; 03-20-2012 at 11:44 PM.

  32. #131
    The fact is, though, that to get sensitive about what is or is not "pro" seems to me to mostly just be an issue of ego. Sorry if that's a point already made - this thread is damn long.

    Going back to the original post, I suppose the whole side discussion could have been avoided had he asked "musicians: how do you make your living and are you starving and if not do you have kids" or something
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  33. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    I think it was a semantics argument, just not an argument by people well versed in semantics. I should amend my statement to say "Arguments about semantics between folks who don't know what a semantic discussion looks like rarely go anywhere." Obviously you know what you're talking about concerning semantics--I doubt most folks on the street do.

    Just like if we were to argue about
    Anyway, I do think it's time to let the thread die.
    Ouch - Jeff, I actually had forgotten that you'd said that, and I wasn't referring to this particular thread anyway. I was thinking in general, in all kinds of forums. I see the "just semantics" thing from mods and non-mods, just challenge a word definition and it's an ineluctable part of your future. And it's inbred cousin "pedantic." Just mention a dictionary on some forums and a thousand idiots will break their fingers to get to call you "pedantic." So, no problem with this thing. It is petty in places.
    Last edited by Kojo27; 03-21-2012 at 10:42 PM. Reason: common decency

  34. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,757
    what then, is the moderator's proper role i wonder?

  35. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeAcci View Post
    Is Kojo a professional semanticist or just a hobbyist?
    Neither, Jake - I'm waaaaaay beneath even the most superficial hobbyist. I'm not even a dabbler. Have never really dabbled.

    Quote Originally Posted by 604bourne123 View Post
    and spends his days learning guitar or playing guitar and they don't get paid you would think that somethings wrong.
    WTF??????????????

    kj
    Last edited by Kojo27; 03-21-2012 at 10:40 PM. Reason: common decency

  36. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    what then, is the moderator's proper role i wonder?
    That depends, are we talking professional moderator or hobbyist?

  37. #136

    Yntbom

    Hello all,

    I have been looking at this site for some time now and trust me I have got some great tips to help with my playing. I am a total amatuer but I have played off and on for over 20 years. This site is awesome and I am starting to really put some chords together but I need to focus on theory. I also love the updates that they have made here; the sky is the limit.

  38. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeAcci View Post
    The fact is, though, that to get sensitive about what is or is not "pro" seems to me to mostly just be an issue of ego.
    Jake, if you're implying that I became "sensitive" about the definition of "pro," you might need to read my posts again. The original OP's use of only two categories, no matter what they had been, is fine with me, if it's fine for him. Let him define them however he wants, if this gives him the answers he seeks. If the categories must be defined with regard only to money, then I'm a hobbyist. Or a hobbit, or a hobbledehoy, or whatever. An 'x - y.'

    I'm merely saying that such superficial categories don't satisfy me, at the end of the day; and I was dismayed by the number of forum members who didn't question these categories at all. Who seemed happily to accepted them as adequate, and didn't mind describing Julian Lage a hobbyist, and who rested with that as a good enough description of Lage's relationship to his guitar. "Pro" is probably even MORE fetid a thing to label a player with. These categories we all wound up in tell nothing more than 1) he makes a living with a guitar, or 2) he doesn't make a living with a guitar.

    That was the simple point. "Hobbyist" and "Pro," as main categories, and as the only categories, are nearly worthless in describing the artist. What can money have to do with it anyway?

    kj

  39. #138
    Kojo I wasn't singling you out.

    But I'll propose this question: What do we as musicians have to gain by clearly defining the term "pro musician?"

    My opinion is that the answer is "nothing."
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  40. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,670

  41. #140
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeAcci View Post
    Kojo I wasn't singling you out.

    But I'll propose this question: What do we as musicians have to gain by clearly defining the term "pro musician?"

    My opinion is that the answer is "nothing."
    I'm completely baffled by this whole post, Jake. In posing your question, are you helping me in making my point to others, or do you feel that the question is somehow a challenge?

    This question is saying to me, "I agree with you - so let me re-emphasize your point: What do we have...to gain by clearly defining...'pro musician'?"

    Throughout the whole thread, this has been my point! Why bother to define or use such a term at all, when trying to describe to one another, as musicians (or to lay people, for that matter), who we are, and what we are, as guitarists? We have nothing - NOTHING - to gain by "clearly defining" either "pro" or "hobbyist" -- these terms have nothing to do with guitar playing, per se -- as an art, as a craft, as anything save a money-making tool.

    I'm sorry if I'm missing your point. If I am, please rephrase.

  42. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    Which is a nice way of saying it's educational, not a petty argument that changes nobody's mind because the parties arguing have already decided the other is wrong.
    Mr. B, you take that away and half the internet forums of the world would die.
    Not sure whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but hey...

  43. #142
    I'm an amateur guitarist who is striving every day to become a professional. Of course, after reading the responses here, it seems like everyone has their own definition of what professional means. To me, a professional guitar player is someone who has multiple qualities that mark skill, dedication, discipline, and experience.

    Does a professional always get paid? Not necessarily.

    Can someone be a professional archer? Yes, but that doesn't mean that there is a "market" of customers that will pay archers to shoot arrows into targets and whatnot. Same goes for any professional that isn't as lucrative.

    It's all about what's in it for the consumer and consequent they put their own value on a product. So to me being a professional is more about having certain qualities rather than getting paid lots of money, if any at all.

  44. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by SeedsOfMusic View Post
    I'm an amateur guitarist who is striving every day to become a professional. Of course, after reading the responses here, it seems like everyone has their own definition of what professional means. To me, a professional guitar player is someone who has multiple qualities that mark skill, dedication, discipline, and experience.

    Does a professional always get paid? Not necessarily.

    If Kenny Burrell play a gig and gets paid for it, he's a professional. If he play a charity and doesn't get paid for it... he's still a professional guitarist . . . but, that's because he does do gigs for monitary compensation.
    Can someone be a professional archer? Yes, but that doesn't mean that there is a "market" of customers that will pay archers to shoot arrows into targets and whatnot. Same goes for any professional that isn't as lucrative.

    A professional archer?? Sounds like a hit man to me
    It's all about what's in it for the consumer and consequent they put their own value on a product. So to me being a professional is more about having certain qualities rather than getting paid lots of money, if any at all.
    We've all decided that there are many acceptable definitions and interpretations for the use of the words . . "professional" and even for the word . . "semantics". However, if the term is to be understood in its truest sense, there needs to be some form of compensation, somewhere along the way. Otherwise, I see it as "very skilled hobbyist guitarist capable of performing at a professional level".

    (not trying to stir the pot here .. . just seeing if I've got this multi-quote procedure correctly understood)
    Last edited by Patrick2; 03-25-2012 at 07:03 PM.

  45. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Well Kojo . . . it appears that I have not fully understood your directions. The multi quote didn't work for me. I guess I'm just not a "professional" multi-quoter?

  46. #145
    Send me your PayPal email & I'll send you a buck. Then you can qualify as a pro.

  47. #146
    Just send me your Paypal credentials... I'm workin' on being pro!
    "Jus' press." - Raymond Kane

  48. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Well Kojo . . . it appears that I have not fully understood your directions. The multi quote didn't work for me. I guess I'm just not a "professional" multi-quoter?
    No Patrick - you're practically there. Just change the parentheses you've put around "quote" - (quote) and (/quote) to brackets. Has to be brackets. Not {these}, but [these.] Straight brackets.

    Hit "Edit" and change the parentheses to brackets, then check it out. : )

    kj

  49. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojo27 View Post
    No Patrick - you're practically there. Just change the parentheses you've put around "quote" - (quote) and (/quote) to brackets. Has to be brackets. Not {these}, but [these.] Straight brackets.

    Hit "Edit" and change the parentheses to brackets, then check it out. : )

    kj
    Holy shit! I looked all over the keyboard for those brackets before I used the parentheses. How the heck did I miss them?? I'm gonna try it right now. If it doesn't work . . . I'm gonna hit the monitor with a baseball bat.

  50. #149
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    6,061
    Ah-ha!!! I think I'm on to somthing. Only, the brackets need to go around what I am responding to. Well . . . at least I've now got something to work with. I'll make a few more test runs . . . after I put the baseball bat away. Thanks Kojo.

  51. #150
    I'm a twelve year old, but I had to put down get paid occasional/not full time.

Join our Facebook Page

Get in Touch


Jazz Guitar eBooks
How To Get a Jazz Guitar Tone?
Privacy Policy

 

 

 

Follow us on:

Jazz Guitar Online on FacebookJazz Guitar Online on TwitterJazz Guitar Online on YoutubeJazz Guitar Online RSS Feed