I agree with most of Mimi Ezust's lucid discussion of amateur vs.
professional musicians, but I would like to add something about the
category of the "serious amateur," which I think she did not give quite
enough attention to.

She wrote:

>Amateurs are in an altogether different category.  Surely you can see that.
>Amateur organizations meet once a week at the most, (and not all year long,
>either) for only a few hours, and I know for a fact that most of the
>members, enthusiastic as they may be, don't take their instruments out of
>the case from rehearsal to rehearsal.  Most amateur organizations have no
>entrance requirements, do not hold auditions, and do not fire members.
>Conductors plead with them to look over their parts.  They hold section
>rehearsals to teach their parts to them.  Amateur choirs are in even worse
>shape, with many members not EVEN able to read music.  The director must
>teach parts by rote.  Do you have any idea how much time is wasted that
>way? Time that could be spent on musicianship is wasted on the nuts and
>bolts, because truely mediocre people do not take themselves seriously
>enough to learn to be better at what they do.

This is all too true in too many cases.  But there are also amateurs who
take pride in their music-making, even if it is not the main focus of their
lives and they cannot take enough time to bring their skills up to the
highest levels.

As a high school student, I played in a community orchestra which was
fairly serious.  I recall that we did the Sibelius 1st and Mendelssohn's
Elijah, for example, and we didn't mess them up too badly, I think.  I
also played in the pit for a couple of musicals.  I might very well have
decided to go on to become a professional, but when I got to college I got
interested in other things and dropped music performing entirely, because
it would have distracted me too much from my studies.  After I got out of
school, it would have been too late for me to go back to a professional
musical career even if I had wanted to.  But I still retained an interest
in playing music and have kept it up to the present (switching instruments,
however).  Even though I would never be able to make a living playing
(indeed, it would be more likely that people would pay to hear me *stop*
playing), I have some idea of how the music I play should sound (by
listening to professionals, as Mimi says), and I try my best to make it
sound that way.

>It is not arrogant to be excellent.  Arrogance is unpleasant behavior, but
>it has *nothing* to do with excellence.  Talent is something that must be
>developed, and excellence in music is the shining beacon for it.  Mediocre
>performances do not inspire.  They disappoint and discourage people with
>good ears for music.  The best music written demands the best possible
>performances.  Anything short of that does disservice to the art of music.

I fully agree with all of this.  I would only add that perhaps the greatest
talent of the amateur is to realize when she or he is playing "the best
music" only for the enjoyment of tackling a great challenge and seeing how
close one can come to being equal to it.  In such cases, the amateur should
be modest enough to realize that she or he should only play such pieces
when alone, or at most for a trusted friend or two, and not try to inflict
them on the public, even for free.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]