You know, you're all behaving like a bunch of jackals.
All I wrote was that
society in general deems someone a musician when they have been paid for their work. The same applies to art and the artist.
If you'll please take care to note, what I wrote is the
primary definition of the word.
mu·si·cian [myoo-zish-uhn]
–noun
1. a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.
2. any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.
Like yourselves, in many respects I tend to agree personally with the secondary meaning of the word.
So again, all I ever wrote before is that from the point of view of
society, the first meaning applies the most as the
primary definition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
Well, in most societies, one thing and one thing only tends to classify one as a true professional musician. If one has been paid (this really should be "gets paid") for the musical work they do, then it is then generally accepted that they are a musician. That is the primary criterion.
|
And much as I figured, you vultures couldn't leave it alone.
I hardly see how I can be
corrected outright for stating something that is
merely common sense.
And I can't really envision why I would willingly continue to expose myself to such nonsense and ridicule anymore.