Professional vs Amateur
Thu, 22 Dec 2005, 02:31 pmBill Macpherson17 posts in thread
Professional vs Amateur
Thu, 22 Dec 2005, 02:31 pmCan anyone point me in the direction of info about the differences between setting up a professional company vs an Amateur one.
Am I naive in assuming the major difference is that some people might get paid ?
cheers
Russell Chandler
Am I naive in assuming the major difference is that some people might get paid ?
cheers
Russell Chandler
Re: Willo vs Harwood
Thu, 5 Jan 2006, 12:02 amAHarwood wrote:
>
> crgwllms wrote:
> > just as you make a distinction between amateur/professional
> > performers which isn't defined simply by whether they get
> > paid or not, similarly I would say just because you get
> > offered some money doesn't make it a professional company.
>
> So what does? Because I believe many of the actors involved
> in the companies they pay co-op/profit share tend to believe
> they are now professional because of it.
O-kay...that's back to YOUR argument again, which was how do ACTORS define themselves as pro or am. I was talking about COMPANIES, and to be considered a professional company I would expect them to be paying Equity Award rates, including superannuation, workers compensation insurance, and public liability insurance. Rehearsals and overtime would be paid and a host of other standard work conditions would be met.
As far as the MEAA is concerned, there is no such legal entity as a 'co-op' (those situations we usually call 'co-ops' are actually 'partnerships', legally speaking), and 'profit-share', while acknowledged as a form of partnership agreement many actors and producers find themselves in, is not really considered to meet professional standards as defined by the Award....regardless of the fact that they might pay you a bit of money.
There are also the rare independent producers who put on a show and might not follow the Award exactly, but pay the talent handsomely in compensation, so that give or take some conditions, the artist comes out with better than the Award minimum.
I'd say that answers your question, and Ross's analogy about cricketers isn't too far off the mark.
> > And other shows have no budget at all.
> > This is why amateur groups have the 'guts' to put on huge
> > cast shows...the professional ones literally can't afford it
>
> We had this debate a while back if you recall. I wasn't
> having a dig at the professional companies for not doing the
> big musicals, I am merely saying don't write off Community
> theatre simply because you don't get ten dollars for doing it
> - that some of your best experiences (again as an actor and
> as a human being) will come from being a part of these
> shows. As you know I have produced a couple of shows myself
> and now totally understand the difficulties and costs
> associated with doing shows whether they are big musical or
> otherwise.
I was simply responding to your previous post, which made it seem that you were complaining about the professional companies not 'having the guts' (perhaps you just meant Black Swan and Deckchair..?). I fully agree with you and am certainly not writing off Community theatre...it's only been 2 weeks since I was there with you enjoying such a performance experience.
However, as much fun as being a part of a Community Theatre musical is, I have to state (as a full-time actor and part-time human being!) that my absolute BEST experience was not from being in one of these unpaid shows, but from being in a fully professional large-cast musical....for exactly all the reasons you state, PLUS the fact I was being paid..!
> > Oh, and that's another good point -
> > all of the funded professional companies I mentioned above
> > are NON-Profit Organisations, which means they pay wages as
> > part of covering their costs, but no one stands to make any
> > huge profits out of the deal. Budget surpluses are
> > re-invested in future productions, and effect how much
> > funding is allocated to them next round.
>
> As they should be.
And I forgot to mention the Cameron Macintosh -type companies (and whoever produces We Will Rock You, Mamma Mia, etc), which ARE 'For Profit' Organisations, but still pay their performers standard rates. These guys sometimes make obscene amounts of money, and I say good on 'em as long as they're not ripping their performers off.
> > So, call me naive but I DO expect (and get) Equity rates from
> > the theatre I do in Perth. That's how I make my living, and
> > why I consider myself a professional actor.
>
> I did not mean to say you were naive for doing it, but think
> what would happen if everyone that wanted to be a
> professional actor gave up work and sat on the dole waiting
> for their next professional gig. I mean, seriously, how much
> work is there for a Professional actor here in Perth without
> going out and making it yourself (which means you need money
> from somewhere - thus a job) let alone trying to break into
> the A-list castings associated with the Pro companies here in
> Perth. I am simply saying Realistically (funny since I am
> reknowned as an idealist) people shouldn't simply EXPECT to
> survive off Theatre alone here in Perth and I can't abide
> people who do simply wait on the dole until the next role
> pops up - which could be five a year to one every five
> years. How productive is this for you as an actor and as a
> human being? (wow these two things pop up a lot in my
> speaches)
Your original quote was "To expect equity rates in Theatre in Perth is simply naive and we all tend to be grateful for whatever little bit is offered."
Sure, it might be naive to expect to get a lot of work, and to survive off it. (Although I can demonstrate it IS possible).
My point was that you SHOULD expect Equity rates for the work you ARE offered. The sooner we all expect it, and demand it, the better off we'll all be.
Your paragraph above has actually helped refine our definition of what it means to be professional. Giving up work and sitting on the dole does not make you a professional ANYTHING. Just saying 'I want to be a professional actor' does not make you one, regardless of whether you occasionally earn money or not. None of what you describe above really applies to SERIOUS professionals, therefore you are describing a different type of performer who by my definition is NOT professional.
> > The performance job I am currently doing is paying
> > above-award rates,
> > and we turned down other gigs that simply weren't offering
> > enough money.
> > Personally, I think that's the real definition of
> > 'professional'.
>
> So it is the money - the being paid Equity rates - or is it
> the ability to be turning down work because you aren't being
> paid enough?
It's both. It's working for the correct amount of money, and it's being willing to turn down insufficient offers.
The ABILITY to turn down poorly paid work only arrives from the DECISION to turn down poorly paid work.
That DECISION might be the ONLY thing that separates a professional from an amateur...
> Personally - (isn't it always) I agree. The money defines
> the status somewhat but I have to say, shouldn't the work
> standard as well as the attitude also have a part in this?
> Because once again, I have encountered some very Professional
> Community actors and some very (I will use the word because I
> know few Community actors that would behave and perform the
> same way) Amateurish Professional actors.
> Or am I simply being Idealistic again?
The words 'professional' and 'amateur' have so many connotations that they start to lose their meaning. Work Standard, Attitude, Money Earned, Status, and I would also add Work Ethic all contribute to the mix - none of the component parts by themselves define you as professional, it requires top marks in all. Your 'Professional Community actors' may be high up the list, but unless they're being paid to work in a community project, I don't define them as professional.
But by the same logic, just getting paid doesn't make you professional, so I would dispute the existence of your 'Amateurish Professional' actors. I'd just call them lucky amateurs.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> crgwllms wrote:
> > just as you make a distinction between amateur/professional
> > performers which isn't defined simply by whether they get
> > paid or not, similarly I would say just because you get
> > offered some money doesn't make it a professional company.
>
> So what does? Because I believe many of the actors involved
> in the companies they pay co-op/profit share tend to believe
> they are now professional because of it.
O-kay...that's back to YOUR argument again, which was how do ACTORS define themselves as pro or am. I was talking about COMPANIES, and to be considered a professional company I would expect them to be paying Equity Award rates, including superannuation, workers compensation insurance, and public liability insurance. Rehearsals and overtime would be paid and a host of other standard work conditions would be met.
As far as the MEAA is concerned, there is no such legal entity as a 'co-op' (those situations we usually call 'co-ops' are actually 'partnerships', legally speaking), and 'profit-share', while acknowledged as a form of partnership agreement many actors and producers find themselves in, is not really considered to meet professional standards as defined by the Award....regardless of the fact that they might pay you a bit of money.
There are also the rare independent producers who put on a show and might not follow the Award exactly, but pay the talent handsomely in compensation, so that give or take some conditions, the artist comes out with better than the Award minimum.
I'd say that answers your question, and Ross's analogy about cricketers isn't too far off the mark.
> > And other shows have no budget at all.
> > This is why amateur groups have the 'guts' to put on huge
> > cast shows...the professional ones literally can't afford it
>
> We had this debate a while back if you recall. I wasn't
> having a dig at the professional companies for not doing the
> big musicals, I am merely saying don't write off Community
> theatre simply because you don't get ten dollars for doing it
> - that some of your best experiences (again as an actor and
> as a human being) will come from being a part of these
> shows. As you know I have produced a couple of shows myself
> and now totally understand the difficulties and costs
> associated with doing shows whether they are big musical or
> otherwise.
I was simply responding to your previous post, which made it seem that you were complaining about the professional companies not 'having the guts' (perhaps you just meant Black Swan and Deckchair..?). I fully agree with you and am certainly not writing off Community theatre...it's only been 2 weeks since I was there with you enjoying such a performance experience.
However, as much fun as being a part of a Community Theatre musical is, I have to state (as a full-time actor and part-time human being!) that my absolute BEST experience was not from being in one of these unpaid shows, but from being in a fully professional large-cast musical....for exactly all the reasons you state, PLUS the fact I was being paid..!
> > Oh, and that's another good point -
> > all of the funded professional companies I mentioned above
> > are NON-Profit Organisations, which means they pay wages as
> > part of covering their costs, but no one stands to make any
> > huge profits out of the deal. Budget surpluses are
> > re-invested in future productions, and effect how much
> > funding is allocated to them next round.
>
> As they should be.
And I forgot to mention the Cameron Macintosh -type companies (and whoever produces We Will Rock You, Mamma Mia, etc), which ARE 'For Profit' Organisations, but still pay their performers standard rates. These guys sometimes make obscene amounts of money, and I say good on 'em as long as they're not ripping their performers off.
> > So, call me naive but I DO expect (and get) Equity rates from
> > the theatre I do in Perth. That's how I make my living, and
> > why I consider myself a professional actor.
>
> I did not mean to say you were naive for doing it, but think
> what would happen if everyone that wanted to be a
> professional actor gave up work and sat on the dole waiting
> for their next professional gig. I mean, seriously, how much
> work is there for a Professional actor here in Perth without
> going out and making it yourself (which means you need money
> from somewhere - thus a job) let alone trying to break into
> the A-list castings associated with the Pro companies here in
> Perth. I am simply saying Realistically (funny since I am
> reknowned as an idealist) people shouldn't simply EXPECT to
> survive off Theatre alone here in Perth and I can't abide
> people who do simply wait on the dole until the next role
> pops up - which could be five a year to one every five
> years. How productive is this for you as an actor and as a
> human being? (wow these two things pop up a lot in my
> speaches)
Your original quote was "To expect equity rates in Theatre in Perth is simply naive and we all tend to be grateful for whatever little bit is offered."
Sure, it might be naive to expect to get a lot of work, and to survive off it. (Although I can demonstrate it IS possible).
My point was that you SHOULD expect Equity rates for the work you ARE offered. The sooner we all expect it, and demand it, the better off we'll all be.
Your paragraph above has actually helped refine our definition of what it means to be professional. Giving up work and sitting on the dole does not make you a professional ANYTHING. Just saying 'I want to be a professional actor' does not make you one, regardless of whether you occasionally earn money or not. None of what you describe above really applies to SERIOUS professionals, therefore you are describing a different type of performer who by my definition is NOT professional.
> > The performance job I am currently doing is paying
> > above-award rates,
> > and we turned down other gigs that simply weren't offering
> > enough money.
> > Personally, I think that's the real definition of
> > 'professional'.
>
> So it is the money - the being paid Equity rates - or is it
> the ability to be turning down work because you aren't being
> paid enough?
It's both. It's working for the correct amount of money, and it's being willing to turn down insufficient offers.
The ABILITY to turn down poorly paid work only arrives from the DECISION to turn down poorly paid work.
That DECISION might be the ONLY thing that separates a professional from an amateur...
> Personally - (isn't it always) I agree. The money defines
> the status somewhat but I have to say, shouldn't the work
> standard as well as the attitude also have a part in this?
> Because once again, I have encountered some very Professional
> Community actors and some very (I will use the word because I
> know few Community actors that would behave and perform the
> same way) Amateurish Professional actors.
> Or am I simply being Idealistic again?
The words 'professional' and 'amateur' have so many connotations that they start to lose their meaning. Work Standard, Attitude, Money Earned, Status, and I would also add Work Ethic all contribute to the mix - none of the component parts by themselves define you as professional, it requires top marks in all. Your 'Professional Community actors' may be high up the list, but unless they're being paid to work in a community project, I don't define them as professional.
But by the same logic, just getting paid doesn't make you professional, so I would dispute the existence of your 'Amateurish Professional' actors. I'd just call them lucky amateurs.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···