Being a pro without being a pro

[faa2010]

Do you think it is possible to have an advance level in piano without being a professional?

[pianoplunker]

Do you think it is possible to have an advance level in piano without being a professional?

I 'm sure it happens all the time.  I have seen young children play Chopin, Beethoven at a very advanced level of style and grace. They are not professional . How about the other way around. Can you be a professional without playing at an advanced level ? I'm sure that happens all the time as well. Many a golden hits with simple keyboard parts.

[keypeg]

A professional is someone who gets paid for playing piano or teaching piano.  So yes, it is possible to play at a high level without being paid for it.

[dima_76557]

A professional is someone who gets paid for playing piano or teaching piano.

IMHO - not enough to be true professional. I think person also:
- should have objective expert skills,
- should have high moral obligations towards client, student (for teachers), audience (for artists),
- should be recognized as professional by other professionals.

So yes, too often pro (paid for work) is not actually pro (master of craft/art).

[lostinidlewonder]

How can you make a living off something if you don't make a living off it?

You can play select pieces at a top level but what about your learning rate? If you can only play a small selection of pieces well and take a long time to polish them up that is still an armature level. Pros learn fast and play at a high level.

[j_menz]

How can you make a living off something if you don't make a living off it?

Clearly you aren't a tax accountant.

[andreslr6]

I think it's possible but that it depends on the mentality one has... and being lucky enough to have or had good guides/teachers ... but mainly mentality. There are "pros" out there who have the tools but also have a mediocre mentality.

[ajspiano]

Do you think it is possible to have an advance level in piano without being a professional?

Yes obviously, but "advanced" (whatever that means exactly) takes a certain amount of dedication/time. Its a lot easier to put in the time if you can make your money that way, rather than having to spend time making money elsewhere.

[lostinidlewonder]

Clearly you aren't a tax accountant.

In the context to this discussion though,  are not talking about anything else. I doubt a tax accountant would be able to say much about this thread.

[dima_76557]

How can you make a living off something if you don't make a living off it?

"Make a living" is not good parameter for pro-level performance.

You can play select pieces at a top level but what about your learning rate? If you can only play a small selection of pieces well and take a long time to polish them up that is still an armature level. Pros learn fast and play at a high level.

For some professionals not important to learn quickly. Learn fast is elementary skill here in Moscow simply to survive Conservatory, but 11/12-year-old boys and girls - not pros! Everybody here can do it. That is not parameter for pro. Even "high level" playing - no parameter. They just kick you out of school if you can not do it.

Better parameter for a sample:
For pianist: learn serious solo works like Chopin/Liszt etudes in one week to performance/competition level (winning position).
For teacher: get good or satisfactory results with "monkey" students within very short time.

Problem is: usually needed qualities for real pro - not tested in tradition system. Teacher simply give first lesson 1, then lesson 2, lesson 3, etc. If student cannot follow - he is "monkey". That is why diploma not means much. Many amateurs (no diploma, not paid) much better level than many paid pros.

[lostinidlewonder]

"Make a living" is not good parameter for pro-level performance.

It is the definition of professional, that it is your profession. Did you learn that in your Russian English school?

For some professionals not important to learn quickly. Learn fast is elementary skill here in Moscow simply to survive Conservatory, but 11/12-year-old boys and girls - not pros! Everybody here can do it. That is not parameter for pro. Even "high level" playing - no parameter. They just kick you out of school if you can not do it.

For pros it's not important to learn fast but in conservatories it is an elementary skill? Lol. You Russians are funny.

Better parameter for a sample:
For pianist: learn serious solo works like Chopin/Liszt etudes in one week to performance/competition level (winning position).
For teacher: get good or satisfactory results with "monkey" students within very short time.

Problem is: usually needed qualities for real pro - not tested in tradition system. Teacher simply give first lesson 1, then lesson 2, lesson 3, etc. If student cannot follow - he is "monkey". That is why diploma not means much. Many amateurs (no diploma, not paid) much better level than many paid pros.

Did you just make this all up on the spot?

[dima_76557]

It is the definition of professional, that it is your profession. Did you learn that in your Russian English school?

Definition -> for academics, linguists. I talk about code of behavior & absolute level of performance. Different things. Charlatans also make money, but are they professionals?

For pros it's not important to learn fast but in conservatories it is an elementary skill? Lol. You Russians are funny.

I said "for some", not "for all". For piano teachers, for a sample, this practical skill - not necessary to very high level.

Did you just make this all up on the spot?

Description of what humble student sees in real life. They judge me - I judge them also.

[dima_76557]

Did you just make this all up on the spot?

Please see for yourself this clip for university student level audience with "instruction" how to play arpeggios. Official title and status of person: "Dr.", "Advanced piano pedagogy instructor". Makes money officially teaching piano at university. Formally his profession, so according to official definition this person must be professional. However, what person shows is worse than lowest amateur level and students may be cripled when repeating such playing method after him:

P.S.: Excuse Google Translate English please.

[keypeg]

The OP asked:

Do you think it is possible to have an advance level in piano without being a professional?

So is it possible to play at an advanced level without being somebody who makes money out of piano either as a performer or a teacher.

Why should it not be possible?

One should reverse this.  Is it possible to be a professional without being at an advanced level (in those skills that a professional needs)?

Why should you not be able to play piano at an advanced level, merely because you don't earn money through it as your primary income?

[dima_76557]

The OP asked:

So is it possible to play at an advanced level without being somebody who makes money out of piano either as a performer or a teacher.

Why should it not be possible?

One should reverse this.  Is it possible to be a professional without being at an advanced level (in those skills that a professional needs)?

Why should you not be able to play piano at an advanced level, merely because you don't earn money through it as your primary income?

Title has dangerous association: In every day life "pro" and "advanced level" are not synonyms. Absolute quality standards needed to solve this problem. Here on forum, for a sample, we have "hakki" who humbly calls himself "amateur pianist" (not a pro), but his playing level is very very high (search YouTube for "hakkithepianist"). We also have people here on forum who make money teaching, have diplomas, misquote books from Dark Ages very well and show very poor results on YouTube.

[kriatina]

I have been coming across a few books written (in the 1930's and 1940's)
by amateur pianists whose full time job was to work for example in the music business
as sound engineers etc. for record companies etc. and/or they worked for newspapers
as music-reporters but they were known all over America not only for their newspaper articles
but also for their wonderful "coast to coast" performances of their most beloved piano pieces
in a most professional and very impressive way.

Best wishes from Kristina.

[keypeg]

Title has dangerous association: In every day life "pro" and "advanced level" are not synonyms. Absolute quality standards needed to solve this problem. Here on forum, for a sample, we have "hakki" who humbly calls himself "amateur pianist" (not a pro), but his playing level is very very high (search YouTube for "hakkithepianist"). We also have people here on forum who make money teaching, have diplomas, misquote books from Dark Ages very well and show very poor results on YouTube.

That was my point.  The question being asked is wrong, and to answer that you cannot play at an advanced level without being a "pro" is wrong and actually a bit absurd.  One has nothing to do with the other.  The only thing that makes sense in this respect is reversing the question - can you be a pro (really professional - not just a money-earner-through-music) without playing at a high level?

Like, what does this question really mean?  What assumptions are being made?

[pianoplunker]

That was my point.  The question being asked is wrong, and to answer that you cannot play at an advanced level without being a "pro" is wrong and actually a bit absurd.  One has nothing to do with the other.  The only thing that makes sense in this respect is reversing the question - can you be a pro (really professional - not just a money-earner-through-music) without playing at a high level?

Like, what does this question really mean?  What assumptions are being made?

Your point is well understood by me and I agree. Just want to add that aside from money, a "Professional" is one who has the necessary fundamentals mastered. BUT I dont think that necessarily means as in virtuoso. It could mean someone who has the ability to sight read very well or even play by ear very well and also knowing what is going on within the music at all times.  Someone who can transpose the music without getting lost. Able to create and understand substitute chords, transcribe ..all that and more. If we bring money into the picture, a pro not only makes money, but pays the rent and eats by way of being a professional.  One can make money playing a concert and still not be a professional. Although there may be professional skills involved, it must pay the rent and food in order to truly be professional.

[ajspiano]

Although there may be professional skills involved, it must pay the rent and food in order to truly be professional.

I agree with this, I remember a school teacher once telling other student to pay attention to my friends and I because we were "professional musicians" (we had played pub gigs as a cover band) which was fair, because we did know a lot more than most of our fellow classmates.. But the notion that we were professional musicians at that stage was just a load of hocum..  We were more like a bunch of self involved monkeys that had gotten good enough at imitating our favourite bands that other monkeys would pay to watch it while consuming brain destroying substances.

I actually remember my friend saying the exact words to the teacher "i'm not a professional, a professional is someone who survives off the income they make in their field". We really didnt care about making the money..  we just wanted to make noise in a public place and happened to get paid to do so.

[dima_76557]

The only thing that makes sense in this respect is reversing the question - can you be a pro (really professional - not just a money-earner-through-music) without playing at a high level?

Obviously, there must be a minimum quality level to make the playing "professional", even if it is about "twinkle twinkle little star" or "Für Elise". That kind of quality parameter is probably what OP is asking about but for advanced pieces.

When we look at synonyms for the REVERSE of professional, i.e. "unprofessional", we get words that mean "lack of quality", but nothing about "not being paid":
amateur, amateurish, ignorant, improper, inadequate, incompetent, inefficient, inexperienced, inexpert, lax, negligent, nonexpert, unethical, unfitting, unsuitable, untrained, unworthy
https://thesaurus.com/browse/unprofessional

Even more neutral "nonprofessional" gives "lack of quality standard" but no comment on "not being paid": amateur, dilettantish, lay
https://thesaurus.com/browse/nonprofessional

[pianoplunker]

Obviously, there must be a minimum quality level to make the playing "professional", even if it is about "twinkle twinkle little star" or "Für Elise". That kind of quality parameter is probably what OP is asking about but for advanced pieces.

When we look at synonyms for the REVERSE of professional, i.e. "unprofessional", we get words that mean "lack of quality", but nothing about "not being paid":
amateur, amateurish, ignorant, improper, inadequate, incompetent, inefficient, inexperienced, inexpert, lax, negligent, nonexpert, unethical, unfitting, unsuitable, untrained, unworthy
https://thesaurus.com/browse/unprofessional

Even more neutral "nonprofessional" gives "lack of quality standard" but no comment on "not being paid": amateur, dilettantish, lay
https://thesaurus.com/browse/nonprofessional

To break it down, the key word is "Reputation" .  Very important for a professional in any field

[dima_76557]

To break it down, the key word is "Reputation" .  Very important for a professional in any field

Before people can earn solid reputation, they have to show other professionals in same field consistent high-quality ("professional") performance. I think OP really wants to ask this: What are minimum QUALITY standards of performance to sound "professional"?

[faa2010]

Title has dangerous association: In every day life "pro" and "advanced level" are not synonyms. Absolute quality standards needed to solve this problem. Here on forum, for a sample, we have "hakki" who humbly calls himself "amateur pianist" (not a pro), but his playing level is very very high (search YouTube for "hakkithepianist"). We also have people here on forum who make money teaching, have diplomas, misquote books from Dark Ages very well and show very poor results on YouTube.

I know, and that's the reason of why I intentionally put the question as it is right now.

As you know, the word pro is the abbreviation of professional, which means something related to a profession. A profession is an activity whose one of the main goals is having a job, and employement, something from which you can make your living.

However, in our culture, we have started to use the word pro to describe someone who is an expert in the activity no matter if he/she hasn't done a major or university studies. Eg. a pro in videogames, cooking, sports, etc. It expresses that the activity is done extremely well.

That's where there is a point where both definitions clash.  That's where it is said that you are an expert by default (that you have a lot of knowledge and experience) if you are a professional, and if you didn't do formal studies about it, then you are taking it as a hobby, you are an amateur, however, the word amateur has been used also as someone who lacks knowledge and experience in the subject.

[dima_76557]

That's where it is said that you are an expert by default (that you have a lot of knowledge and experience) if you are a professional, and if you didn't do formal studies about it, then you are taking it as a hobby, you are an amateur, however, the word amateur has been used also as someone who lacks knowledge and experience in the subject.

I tried to say same as you, but my English is poor.

I think person can also become pro (expert human being) not only through formal studies, diplomas, etc., but also through personal practical experience and self-teaching. Many examples exist in Jazz, in gypsy music and in classical music. Most famous example - Franz Liszt, who was refused from Paris Conservatoire (today would be formally "amateur") but still became standard for all pianists.

Most important I think: absolute high quality level of playing (or teaching), deep love for art and real interest in people. Money can be pleasant addition to everything, material reward for certain quality, but is not automatically proof that quality is high and that person is really pro. And reverse - person can be doctor for living or work in supermarket, but may be able to play piano at pro level without getting money for it. Just not lucky.

[unimaster]

I've been recently fascinated with the comparisons between playing piano and my other artistic vocation (writing). What’s really interesting to me in dealing with this question is how the two crafts completely part ways on this particular issue.

I see what most everyone is saying here, and I agree with it. Why should someone who’s extremely gifted at playing, who could tickle ivory circles around most piano teachers we know, not be considered “advanced” because they aren’t paid to do it (or because they haven’t taken some test or another)? That’s just foolishness to me. Likewise, there’s no end of musicians out there making beaucoup bucks off their encyclopedic knowledge of a handful of power chords. Does that make them “professional?” Maybe fiscally, but nothing like it when it comes to skill level or experience.

And yet when it comes to writing, the language refuses to split those kinds of hairs. In that sphere, “professional” is an entirely financial term. If someone tells you’re they’re a professional writer, it means they’re paid to do it. Period. It isn’t a question of ability or quality of results. I’ve read many professional writers who think a run-on sentence is some sort of lost art form—yet no one would argue their position as a professional. Conversely, I know many bloggers and other “amateurs” who could teach English at a university level and lead seminars on how to use the language . . . but who don’t get paid for what they do (whether by choice or not).

When we look at synonyms for the REVERSE of professional, i.e. "unprofessional", we get words that mean "lack of quality", but nothing about "not being paid":
amateur, amateurish, ignorant, improper, inadequate, incompetent, inefficient, inexperienced, inexpert, lax, negligent, nonexpert, unethical, unfitting, unsuitable, untrained, unworthy
https://thesaurus.com/browse/unprofessional

Even more neutral "nonprofessional" gives "lack of quality standard" but no comment on "not being paid": amateur, dilettantish, lay
https://thesaurus.com/browse/nonprofessional

I loved this—and yet it only goes to strengthen my point. This issue is irrelevant where writing is concerned. A writer’s conduct while they’re working is rarely called into question, because writing is something nearly everyone does alone. Picking your nose, swearing a blue streak, insulting everyone you know and their mothers with them . . . none of that makes you a less “professional” writer when you’re writing. (Behavior like that is, in many cases, what gets some writers through the arduous process of wordsmithing.)

I guess the point of all this is to acknowledge the unspoken code of conduct involved when it comes to playing piano or any other symphonic sort of instrument. Music seems to involve ethics that don’t exist for other forms of artistic expression. Much of its wonder and power is derived from a traditionalized perception of its dignity. There’s also the fact that there’s usually more collaboration involved. People would hardly shell out money to watch eighty writers sit together on stage and ply their craft at the same time. Nor do people schedule weekly meetings with a writing teacher, who watches them write, makes them write something someone else wrote, then sends them home with a conditional promise to keep writing that other piece several times during the week. We write alone, and learn most of how to do it when we’re alone. We make music together, and that requires a certain comportment when we do so.

I dunno. I’m thinking aloud (on my keyboard) here. I just find the comparisons and contrasts very enlightening, that’s all.