MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!
Mon, 19 July 2004, 03:33 pmMish_L55 posts in thread
MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!
Mon, 19 July 2004, 03:33 pmINTERNATIONAL ARTS CO PRESENTS........
MOULIN BLUES!!!!
REGAL THEATRE 7TH AUGUST!!!
ONE SHOW ONLY SO GET IN QUICK!!!!!!!!
Live Band, Live Singers and Dancers!!!
A truly entertaining night for all
Tickets at BOCS $35
MOULIN BLUES!!!!
REGAL THEATRE 7TH AUGUST!!!
ONE SHOW ONLY SO GET IN QUICK!!!!!!!!
Live Band, Live Singers and Dancers!!!
A truly entertaining night for all
Tickets at BOCS $35
Re: Professional Vs Amateur
Tue, 3 Aug 2004, 12:56 amthe meddoes wrote:
>
> andrew3 wrote:
> >
> > Professionals get paid!
> > Amateurs don't.
>
> The word for that definition is "simplistic", not "simple".
>
> I have worked with many professionals who were toiling
> unpaid, and more than a few amateurs who were pulling a wage
> for their "efforts".
> It's a state of mind, pure and simple. Money doesn't even come
> close.
> Sorry to break it to you, my friend, but no-one who's been in
> this business beyond a couple of years would attach much
> weight to your theory.
> (Except maybe to help it sink.)
By way of illustration of David's point:
I belong to the MEAA union (Equity section) as a professional actor. They have a scaled structure that allows reduced dues payable by anyone who earns less than a certain figure from the industry.
I virtually earn my entire living from acting, so I didn't qualify for the reduced rate...and in terms of my annual income, the dues for a year were a quite significant percentage of that income.
Someone else I know got paid to be in an ad, and so also joined the Union last year. The amount they earned from the industry was relatively small, being an 'amateur' (doing it for the love of it). So they only paid the significantly reduced rates. However, this person has another job where they earn pretty well double my total annual income. In terms of percentages, the reduced fees were quite an insignificant portion of their entire income.
Both he and I agree that I can only be classified as a professional actor, while he can only really be seen as an amateur, despite him earning something for his commercial, and me doing the occasional gig where I earn bugger all.
Yet in the above scenario where I am only comparing gross annual income against the dues payable to be considered a professional actor, I'm the one who is barely earning anything, while the amateur is doing fine, thank you.
(My definition of professional actor here is the same as the tax office's and the CES jobtest....belonging to the actor's union; having an agent seeking work on my behalf; and demonstrating a portfolio of work that justifies calling yourself an actor.)
The professional's hardly being paid...which damages your take on things.
I don't like it, so I do try to get better pay while remaining a professional actor.....but I find I CAN'T really put myself into any alternative industry.
So I find David's definition to be ringing true.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> andrew3 wrote:
> >
> > Professionals get paid!
> > Amateurs don't.
>
> The word for that definition is "simplistic", not "simple".
>
> I have worked with many professionals who were toiling
> unpaid, and more than a few amateurs who were pulling a wage
> for their "efforts".
> It's a state of mind, pure and simple. Money doesn't even come
> close.
> Sorry to break it to you, my friend, but no-one who's been in
> this business beyond a couple of years would attach much
> weight to your theory.
> (Except maybe to help it sink.)
By way of illustration of David's point:
I belong to the MEAA union (Equity section) as a professional actor. They have a scaled structure that allows reduced dues payable by anyone who earns less than a certain figure from the industry.
I virtually earn my entire living from acting, so I didn't qualify for the reduced rate...and in terms of my annual income, the dues for a year were a quite significant percentage of that income.
Someone else I know got paid to be in an ad, and so also joined the Union last year. The amount they earned from the industry was relatively small, being an 'amateur' (doing it for the love of it). So they only paid the significantly reduced rates. However, this person has another job where they earn pretty well double my total annual income. In terms of percentages, the reduced fees were quite an insignificant portion of their entire income.
Both he and I agree that I can only be classified as a professional actor, while he can only really be seen as an amateur, despite him earning something for his commercial, and me doing the occasional gig where I earn bugger all.
Yet in the above scenario where I am only comparing gross annual income against the dues payable to be considered a professional actor, I'm the one who is barely earning anything, while the amateur is doing fine, thank you.
(My definition of professional actor here is the same as the tax office's and the CES jobtest....belonging to the actor's union; having an agent seeking work on my behalf; and demonstrating a portfolio of work that justifies calling yourself an actor.)
The professional's hardly being paid...which damages your take on things.
I don't like it, so I do try to get better pay while remaining a professional actor.....but I find I CAN'T really put myself into any alternative industry.
So I find David's definition to be ringing true.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···