slartabartfast

A professional is someone who gets paid for doing the work that an amateur dose for nothing. There is an unfounded assumption that someone who gets paid spends more time at the job and hence becomes more proficient. Clearly that has never been the case, as the most accomplished amateurs are clearly more competent than the worst professionals.

 
Proves my point really, this definition totally flies in the face of the definition I quoted (as below). It ignores the skilful category of the definition. If you are not skilful you are not a professional regardless of whether you are getting paid or not. A person who is not accomplished or qualifed is not a professional they are just an amateur getting paid.... and that's the problem with today society. Todays society (mainly people who watch TV all the time) have been brainwashed into thinking skills don't matter, it's just getting paid. Getting society to think that you can be a professional with a lack of skills helps employers to keep the workforce wages down, and allows the rich to get richer, and the poorer to get poorer.
 
At this point I'm thinking for Bill Withers "Lovely Da.........y", whereupon the lyrics were altered to "Lovely Day, just got paid"....  The innocence of the lyric lost..
 

CakeAlexS
Oxford dictionary definition:
"Worthy of or appropriate to a professional person; competent, skilful, or assured".

Appropriate= Relevant. I might be a professional guitarist. That may make me a professional musician, but just because I'm a professional musician does not mean I can play drums professionally.

Skilful = Qualified academically or has something substantial to show for it.

A professional is someone who gets paid for doing the work that an amateur dose for nothing. There is an unfounded assumption that someone who gets paid spends more time at the job and hence becomes more proficient. Clearly that has never been the case, as the most accomplished amateurs are clearly more competent than the worst professionals.
 
So in effect you are saying only one part of the defintion
 
 
Clearly that has never been the case, as the most accomplished amateurs are clearly more competent than the worst professionals.

This brings me back to my watering down of the word, point in post #10.
 
You are entirely bypassing in my Oxford definition....
 
Skilful = Qualified academically or has something substantial to show for it.
 
This sort of opinion allows X-Factor, Pop-Idol, and cheap labour to thrive. Professionals are given a bad name, if you say you are a professional it's almost viewed with contempt.

My professional opinion is...
 

There are people who get paid  (often too much) but do far less than a professional job. And there are people who don't get paid and do a very professional job. But there are also people who are skillful, get paid  (very well) and do a professional job, and quickly, all aspects. If you are lucky enough it can be producing music and doing what you love, which after all is the ideal situation.
 
You do get very proficient at doing things when working in a regular and professional capacity. But not mentioned here enough is doing a very skilled and professional job in very tight time frames. Most people here who are do a very professional job but not getting paid (ie more hobby etc) would flounder (and fail) under the tight timeframes.
 
For example when you are doing things like producing 20 minutes of music for a documentary for a 30 minute program and you often have only 3 to 4 days to do it. From ideas right through to professionally mixed and mastered cues. That takes some skill. You cannot wait for creativity to swing by in that situation. You just have to write and write well then and there and track and record and then mix and master. 5 minutes a day. Or do a full jingle in a day. Or a production library TAXI brief in one to two days max. Track and mix a band in 2 or 3 days. (from recording sessions to master)
 
Software shows up all sorts of issues when under stress and being driven by a power user. It is one of the reasons I use Studio One. (At the time I switched X1 was coming out and it did not do well under pressure, sorry but true, but I am sure X3 is up to the task although you never know until you drive these programs this way) Studio One excels under pressure. Never falls over, period.. It does huge amounts on the fly. More time on the music. No time for technical issues or software problems when working this way. It has to be all about the music and the music only. Decisions have to be made. Not a lot of time for procrastinating. You work out ways to get things done more quickly as well with work arounds etc.. The actual workaround process itself is not important, it is about what it is aiming to achieve.
 
You have also got to be extra careful with backing up and archiving working under pressure too. It is these situations that can cause failure in a project due to not being careful.

Doubtfully 

I can say I'm a professional. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Last night.

I won $100 at the casino the other night, but then lost all but $5 of it before going home. Can I still call myself a professional gambler?

I stand on street corners...

http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3061479
 
The general principle when a word has several meanings is that the word can appropriately be used when it fits any  one (not each and every one) of the definitions. If someone is earning his livelihood from some job, then calling him incompetent would be appropriate if he is, but calling him a professional would still be correct. 
 
Although a self assured amateur may do a competent and professional job at something requiring some modicum of skill or training, most of us would not agree that such a person was himself a professional if he had never done it for money. It follows that most of us would be hard pressed to say that someone who does a sloppy or incompetent job, and makes a good living at it is not a professional nonetheless. He is just a sloppy and incompetent professional. 
 
I do not really see why defining someone whose opinion you disagree with as an amateur adds any clarification to the debate, especially as the root of amateur indicates that it was first applied to people who pursue an activity out of love rather than for the desire to earn money. I personally have never used amateur as a pejorative. Many dictionaries do not either, and I expect that the more recently popular negative meaning of the term is the result of the English speaking world moving from a time when skill and love were more highly valued than making money is today. I am an amateur at almost everything I do, but I try to do it well, and I respect the accomplishments of other amateurs when those accomplishments warrant respect. I certainly do not find it insulting when someone who makes his living at something I do as an amateur calls himself a professional. If he is wrong about what he is saying, I find no problem pointing that error out to him on its merits.
 
Note that ""Worthy of or appropriate to a professional person; competent, skilful, or assured". is the definition of the adjective professional and not the noun.
 
 

You seem to have interpretted my point in reverse. I haven't seen anybody in this thread speak of the word 'amateur' in a negative light. I certainly never did, that would be rather snobby. However I have seen negative comments about 'professionals'. Says it all really doesn't it?

And yes amateur is a word to be celebrated, as well as 'skilled amateur' and it isn't used enough. Exactly the same with professional... And I stand by my opinion here as to what defines as pro.

Here is the definition: A professional X is someone who primarily makes a living from doing X. Where X=sound engineer, artist, producer, etc.
 
One more truism: Often "pro" and "professional" are used as marketing buzzwords, like in "pro plugin". In my experience "professional" is about as meaningful as "gourmet" in the phrase "gourmet microwave food" in this context.