So Playing the Piano for Pleasure finally arrived in the mail the other day and whilst reading it, I was intrigued by something that was written in the forward to the book.



The author of the forward, Michael Kimmelman, goes on to explain that this view is wrong and then give a potential reason for why people in general have come to believe amateur = incompetent (in the "not good enough" sense).



What does everyone here think, does society in general view the concept of amateur as someone who is ‘incompetent’ or ‘not good enough.’ You can call me the pessimist, but I would say yes, this very much is the implicit view society holds, and it acts as a wonderful excuse for people not to try. As for the causes of this view, I do agree that recordings have played a integral part in creating it, but other modern “conveniences” have contributed perhaps more substantially, most notably television. Learning an instrument only reveals its rewards after years of hard work, television on the other hand provides us with immediate gratification. It is of course a gratification that cannot even compare to the long-term one revealed by learning an instrument, or taking up some other art (even the most ardent coach potato will admit this is probably the case), but it is immediate, and this immediacy makes it undeniably addictive.

Polyphasic, what an excellent and thought-provoking post.

I'll have to give it a bit of thought, but my initial reaction is yes, the phenomenon described in your post is alive and well in our society, and I think one need only read a few threads on ABF to see it rearing its head. It's right there in our impatience, our self-criticism, our frustrations, our constant search for the right "method" or technique, our carrying on about professional players and which of them we like or don't like and why, our self-important comments about the way something "should" or "should not" be played, etc. etc. etc.

What if we played and learned simply because it is enjoyable in and of itself? In fairness, there ARE excellent examples of folks who have exactly that attitude, and they too can be found on these pages. But they certainly seem to be the exception and not the rule.

I agree LB,
Some people have forgotten the original definition of amateur. It originally refers to "the lover of", and implies non-professional status.

The term incompetence is not tied whatsoever to the definition of amateur, since we all know incompetence discriminates against no one and we can find it amongst professionals and amateurs.

PW has all kinds of folks at various levels of education and experience and one does not have to look far to find those that love to play for the sake of it.

I think in theory he's correct. And the word "amateurish" tells us enough about this word ...

... or does it. I still find that if you play the piano for a group of people, they drop their preconceptions of professionalism or amateurism. I get genuine positive feedback. Yes, I think we hold ourselves up to a high standard. But if you put yourself out there, you won't be judged like that.

I was in downtown DC the other day. There were about four or five games of amateur baseball (plus one of cricket!!!!). They were enjoying themselves ... and the folks watching were too.

Yes, I do beleive that in the course of the last 20 or so years, our society now labels "amateurs" those people who are less "competent or hardly competent", or beginners without real-life experience, in any field or endavour. We, as a collective, and as Inlanding pointed out, have forgotten the real definition of the word "amateur". Its a pity, really!

Perhaps the proliferation of recordings has made people less willing to learn an instrument... why bother since there is so much good music around and all one has to do is listen passively instead of create? I'm not so sure that most people judge their potential according to what they hear and then conclude they could never be good at playing music and so never even bother to try. I think the reason is more serious and deep.

We now live in a world where the majority is self-centered and more and more people are isolated or alienated because machine interfaces and virtual realities have replaced face-to-face meetings with real people and taking the time to really get to know each other. We are interconnected electronically but mostly so isolated spiritually and humanly a lot of the time.

We also live in a very fast-paced and "instant gratification" world, where a push-button or the click-click of a credit card can buy us just about any toy or service we care to think about, right now! People don't build things anymore, they don't take the time to learn a skill (it takes too long, except if its school to then get a paying job - but all that is the domain of "obligations" for most of us), they hardly work with their hands... The other day, I saw a mother forbid her child to smell the scent of a flower in a park... "too many bugs, its dangerous" she said. It then struck me that she is (has) forgetting what it is to be human and to be conencted to our home, the earth and to our own lives. Most of the world lives in artificial environments now (big cities full of concrete and ashphalt), far disconnected from who and what we really are.

And I'm saying this as a guy who has worked in hi-tech his entire life, and I don't subscribe to the point of view that "life was better back when...". I'm not nostalgic, just conscious of what is around me and in me.

I suspect most intelligent people realize intuitively the complexity of becoming competent at playing an instrument and they are just not willing to spend the time it takes and reap the fruits of their efforts later. They claim they "don't have the time" yet they willingly lose their time on the internet or passively watching "reality" TV shows... But they are missing out on a journey that has all the potential to reconnect them with themselves and help them lead a more balanced and satisfying life. They have forgotten the power of music!

When cheap energy (the oil) runs out and we have no choice, as a world, to slow down, downsize and attend to the real things that matter in life, I suspect a lot more people will take up a musical instrument!

John

Some interesting views. I agree that part of the problem lies in a contemporary society where instant reward or gratification is expected by many, where people are not allowed to fail or falter and to learn from that and where careerism has led many of us to think we must make money out of an endeavour or not pursue it.

I agree with Andy, though, that in an informal social setting if you play for people they will respond and are very forgiving of technical errors.

Somehow, when it comes to music, people are too afraid to have a go. I think it may stem from poor experiences at school or in family. My school age musical experiences were mostly negative and when at 13 I was learning guitar my mother once said to me, "Can you go and make that noise somewhere else?"

What a great post, Polyphasic! I must agree with everything you say; the label "amateur" has come to mean a mere dabbler, a diletante whose efforts are disparaged when compared to the "expert" or "professional."

And part of the reason, I believe, is that we are ALL exposed to the greatest efforts of the professionals on a daily basis. On the radio, on YouTube, on CDs, etc., we are exposed daily to musical (and other) efforts that never fail to astonish. And even some of those efforts are not REALLY what the performer did, but rather what the performer did over several trials--which was then synthesized into a perfect performance in the studio.

As a comparison, think of living in a small village in the early 19th century and looking for a mate. The "handsomest fellow" or "prettiest girl" in the village was probably pretty homely by today's standards--given that we're treated to images of Brad Pitt and Katie Perry on every magazine cover--but no one cared or knew about the better looking people out in the world. Their village WAS their world, and that was enough.

Today, though, every person with access to the media is exposed to real or manufactured perfection on a daily basis. No wonder that the "mere amateur" has shrunk into the background, afraid to come forward with a creditable performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" when every person listening has already heard dozens or hundreds of illimitable performances with which to compare it.

It's a problem, to be sure. I wonder if there's a solution.

This is an interesting discussion. Coincidentally, the two distinct meanings of 'amateur' were just explored in a thread in the Pianist Corner, too:

'New take on the idea of an Amateur Pianist'

Personally, I don't feel that the 'amateur = inept' definition has replaced the traditional meaning of one who pursues an avocation for enjoyment but doesn't make money from it. That's still the basic distinction between amateur and professional for me ... but maybe I'm just showing my age and not attuned to the shift in meaning.

But it was apparent from that Pianist Corner discussion that I'm not alone -- even as other members clearly did equate 'amateur' with 'bad'. I don't know if it's a generational thing or not, though. I mean, I've always been aware that the word can be used that way (like in the example of amateurish, where no other interpretation is even possible).

It's interesting to me that 'dilettante' once had the same duality of meanings. The root of the word expresses doing something or having an interest for the sheer delight of it -- in the same way that 'amateur' derives from doing something for love rather than money. And yet 'dilettante' really has instead come to mean someone whose interest is flaky and superficial.

I hope that the positive meaning of 'amateur' isn't disappearing! I've never felt any shame or stigma over identifying myself as one -- I guess because I assumed that everybody else accepted the same definition that I did! Maybe I need to rethink it now ... and in that case, what would replace it? 'Hobbyist'? I suppose that works, even if it sounds less-than-serious and doesn't convey the literal 'love' I feel for my 'hobby'.

Very interesting observation Michael. I don't know about a solution but for me, I'll keep on learning and playing for the pure enjoyment of doing it.

Yes, "hobbyist" (for me anyway) carries the unfortunate connotation of lacking seriousness. It sounds as if you're dabbling about with no real ambition to improve.

I thought about this recently when trying to talk with some extended family members about my piano playing. It became clear that they thought I was a much better player than I am, so I struggled to find a proper descriptive word for my piano pursuits.

I considered describing myself as a "hobbyist," but rejected that in favor of "student." I'm a "student of the piano." They understood and accepted this. It's perfect for me, as it implies a serious pursuit but also makes it clear that I'm neither playing for money nor playing at a virtuoso level.

I always remember the words from Daila Lama (was it him?) who said: We die at an age of 35, because we only think in concepts. Physically we die 50 years later.

Although hobbyist or amateur has a negative connotation, it's concept doesn't come up when I hear somebody playing piano. I would have different thoughts from wow really amazing to that piano needs to be tuned, but mostly very positieve, even when the player is an amateur. Though I would judge an amateur very light and I expect more from a pro. But I think that's logical.

Would a professor in science, who plays piano every sunday in the church for free, be considered as incompetent or less competent, because he's amateur?

My opinion is let the music speaks for itself.

I agree with a lot of the above regarding today's instant gratification culture. To some people, they feel that they don't have the 'time' to learn an instrument. The reality is that of course people have time, but they just don't have the motivation to use that time to pursue something that takes meaningful effort over a number of years (not a few weeks). It's very easy after a hard day's work, when the kids have gone to bed to sit down in front of the TV for the night. I've done it before, but I could use that time (or at least some of it) learning the piano (and I do!!).

As for the original topic, yes I think we are so overexposed to perfection, in many different areas, that it can be easy to very quickly lose interest in pursuant of what might be perceived to be meritocracy. Everything from appearance, diet, weight, reality shows on 'singing' ability, musical talent. One glance at Youtube and it can seem like 'everyone' is better than you on the piano, so why bother? (Of course we all know why we bother and how rewarding playing the piano can be at any level).

I do think there is a slight paradox here. On the one hand, when it comes to actual real talent, society only seems to reward the best, but at the other end of the scale, certain people seem to be rewarded with adulation and celebrity for having no absolute talent for anything whatsoever. In society's eyes then it's arguable that you'll go further being a useless wannabe with no talent but some form of idiosyncracy publicised through some reality show than being a good but not outstanding musician/actor etc. etc.

I like LB's 'student of the piano' phrase and the connotations that go with it (ie serious devotion with an aim to improve, but not necessarily professional and certainly not incompetent).

That more aptly describes our activity and suits me a lot better also.

I think we need to be a bit careful here about how we describe contemporary society. One of my favourite things to read is the Diary of Samuel Pepys, who lived in England in the 1600s, and was apparently a brilliant flutist. Anyway, one of the things that strikes me as I read the day-by-day account of his life is how much free time he had to do things like go for a walk, play cards, practice the flute, or even just show up unannounced (which was quite common in those days) to a friend's house to have dinner. And this got me thinking, in those days there was very little to actually occupy a persons time: there was no radio, television, internet, shopping malls, ect. Just think how empty (in the sense of just stuff that is purchased) a person's house would have been in those days. When the Great Fire of London occurred the most valuable possession Pepys owned was some wine and some parmesan cheese.

Back then, playing an instrument would have seemed miles more entertaining than the available alternatives (i.e. just sitting in, what we would consider, a empty house). My point is that it is easy to say that contemporary society lacks this or that trait, or this or that value, but, fundamentally, the people of Pepys day are the same as the people of our day, and the fact that they pursued music more readily was not so much a function of anything intrinsic to them as people, but rather was a function of simple necessity. Here is a hypothetical, supposing you had no money to go shopping or to the movies, or whatever, and supposing you did not own a television or computer, and that the only thing inside your house was some furniture, basic appliances, and a piano. I bet you would find practicing a heck of a lot easier.

So in light of this, I think we have to be careful in how we describe modern society, we frequently say that people of today lack motivation, dedication, ambition, drive, commitment, or that we are alienated and have forgotten on some fundamental level what it means to be human and that this is why nobody pursues a modest level of ability at an instrument, but I don't think this is the case at all. The general lack of artistic pursuit can be seen, IMO, as simply a function of the environment we live in. I don't think there is anything wrong with the people or society per se, it is just that our range of choices has expanded to such an extent that now many things are possible to occupy our time, and we frequently choose those that provide the most immediate pleasure.

Of course, the unfortunate setback to this is (as so many here have stated) that with so many possibilities the delayed effects of learning music thus become far less likely to be experienced.

Yes to everyone's comments so far, I think this is a complex issue, and all of the things that people have described factor into the current situation.

But the flip side of that is that people are sort of stepping back and realizing how much enjoyment they can get by being a producer or participant instead of just a consumer or observer. We as piano-students/hobbyists/amatuers might think that one of the contributions we can make is to remind others of this notion. We don't have to play at the level of professionals to be able to experience that enjoyment.

Also, experiencing great music performed by professionals is great, but how often do people actual go and hear live music? When we make our own music, it is always available to us. And I generally prefer a less than professional performance on an acoustic instrument to a perfectly performed digital recording played through a stereo.

This is definitely a subject wrth talking about, and not just among ourselves but also with people who don't play but would like to!

I know you can't stop a moving train -- or the wheels of progress -- but I do wonder if the pendulum will ever begin to swing in the other direction. Isn't it inevitable that at some point people will become oversaturated with information and overwhelmed by choices and overburdened with the demands of 24/7 connectivity?

I remember reading some time back that the marketing strategy of offering a multitude of choices can backfire and cause consumers to react by shutting down and declining to make any choice at all. Confronted with 'too many' choices of products and feeling unable to make an informed decision about what to buy, some of us decide not to buy anything.

The slogan 'Less is more' has been around for a while, too -- and used in slippery ways for diverse messages. But I expect it to have increasing relevance in the future, as more people become fed up with the accelerating pressures of constant multitasking and multiple choices. An eventual movement toward a Back-to-Basics goal is easy for me to envision.

I expect there'll always be technological junkies and early adopters, but other people -- if we really are the same species that humankind was in the 1600s! -- are bound to want to draw the line at some point on the intrusiveness of all the accessories of 'modern life'. I think a basic human need is for at least occasional solitude, silence and personal 'down time' -- and that's the one choice we seem to be increasingly denied.

I sincerely hope so. I am quite the night owl, and I find that one of the things I like best about the twilight hours is the fact that the world seems to have sort of "powered down," as it were.

Very interesting discussion so far. I'm going to move in a different direction and propose a corollary to the original topic (the changing face of "amaturism") and suggest the following:

In addition to changing "amateurism," I think some of the same forces we've been discussing have likewise changed our perceptions and expectations of "professional" musicians.

The first facet of this that springs to mind is the incredible heights to which virtuosity has risen in general. Yeah, I know there have always been great virtuosos, and I'm not saying there's anybody around today who could outplay Liszt or Art Tatum or (insert your favorite here).

But with the vast array of recordings available to us, which can be found instantly and everywhere, and all of which exhibit amazingly perfect technique, it seems that the baseline of technical ability that's necessary to sound "professional" in the public's opinion has risen considerably.

Add to that the rise of digital and synthetically created music, which is of course "perfect," and I think the result is that the number of people who can play well enough to "wow" an audience, and not sound "amateurish," has narrowed considerably. I can easily imagine living in a time not so long ago when a professional pianist might come to town and WOW the crowd with his abilities... but that same pianist's performance nowadays, put on youtube, might well be middle-of-the-pack at best. He/she would be up against many of the greatest performances since the beginning of recorded music. To the public, who has now heard these great performances over and over until they're "standards," one would have to be pretty amazing not to sound amateurish in comparison.

The second facet that comes to mind is that these forces have led to a certain degree of homogenization and sterilization of music. The (non-musician) general public has come to accept and expect a more technically accurate, more expertly produced product, but which often contains a less humanly passionate performance. "McMusic," if I may coin the term (although I'm sure I'm not the first). I don't know... I'm less sure of this part, just thinking about it a bit... what do you all think?

I feel like Glenn Gould would've liked to say a few things in this regard (start watching the second video at 2:45)

Darn you, Polyphasic

You're going to drag me kicking and screaming into that amusement park known as "Glenn Gould's mind," aren't you?

I'd been congratulating myself on avoiding that particular excursion thus far, despite the fact that so many have recommended it to me and assured me I would find the rides to be right up my alley.

Looks like I might as well strap on my safety harness... hands and feet inside the car please... off we go...

Just been looking up the origins of the word amateur, and how it has changed over time.
Given that it has changed and we cannot change that, maybe we have to come at it from a diffeent angle.
If folk can change amateur from meaning Lover, or for the love of to inept, then we can fight back like for like.

We can turn "professional" into meaning prostituted or "will only play for monies" "Will not play for the love of"
"Professional: loathed to be avoided. Sell out.

Just an Idea.

PPPianist, its really great to see you quoting "time actually expands when we wish it too" You know how much I love this sentiment. (lol)

Chercherchopin, you are absolutley correct, there is an oversaturation of information, The next generation believe the answers to just about everything can be found on the internet, but there lies the problem.
There is no point in having every bit of info in the world on the internet, if it cannot be found or trusted.

It is like a library the size of a continent, and you go there wanting a specific page in a book, but you dont know what shelf, there is no dewi decimal system in place, and a lot of books have no titles.
It doesn't do you any good knowing that page is in there.
There has been a gradual dumbing down of school leavers in this country, the sheer amount of illiterates is unbelievable.
Kids believe wickipedia will provide.

There are many causes but it started off in the late seventies with the do-gooders that made it illegal for the teachers to give the kids a clip round the ear.

This allowed the kids to sit in class swearing at the teachers and then sticking a finger up when challenged about it, knowing they could not be disiplined by law.

This caused disruption, that had effects on the kids that did want to learn.

Then came the great exam swindle, when schools in the UK got "league tables" what did they do, they changed the exams, as "o" levels were just too hard for the kids now.
They then let kids use calculators in maths exams, the start proper of techno dependence over learning.

I was in our local garage two days ago, and there were three boys aged twelve to fourteen.
They were argueing:
One kid says "no , no, you have £1.80, you want £1.20 for chips, that means you have 40 pence left"

The other kid says " no, that aint f in reet, you got £1.80 your chips r gunna b £1.20 so U got 80 pence left for choccy bar" ( I jest not, I was gobsmacked)

Finally the kid with the money blew me away by saying "If I dont get a choccy bar, can I get two bags of chips?"

I thought about just how many blackboard rubbers would have been thrown at me in school, had I come up with any of those answers when asked.

Thinking its just a dumbing down of younger teenagers, would logically mean that Jeremy kyle is short for contestents on his corporate belitlement fest, but he isn't , there is a glut at the moment.

I bumped into my English literature college tutor in the bus station, she is a lovely lady and extremely well versed in the classics, and greek mythology.
She said this:
"Mr.Rostosky", ( and after a few pleasentries and hasnt time passed comments) went on to say:
" You will not believe this, The girls in my "A" level English lit class, being age 18 are legally entitled to get married, have children, drink alcohol, Can cast a vote in the elections for folk that govern this country, they can sit on a jury. I set a paper for homework entitled 'nuclear weapons discuss'
The best result I got was 'they are not very nice'"

This prompted my old tutor to consider retiring.

Gould is a fascinating (and addictive) journey, to be sure. There is an album Gould made called "Concert Dropout" which documents Gould's aesthetic philosophy for recording and music quite clearly. The other two videos I posted earlier are a bit indirect in this regard. Anyway, the album is a fascinating sit through if you are interested, and the whole thing is on YouTube in 6 parts:

Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCMZ6FKipg&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=10

Part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z-R5oU_cQ&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=11

Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eABQEZzzEsc&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=12

Part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPWhX-rFRM8&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=13

Part5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-hUVQkjEsk&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=14

Part6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwRjYg9ulY&feature=BFa&list=UL53aoAAZNL6s&index=15

While reading all of your comments I realize that I agree on many considerations and you all expressed in very clear and deep ways.

But, on the other hand, I'm also fond of two sportstechnically very complex (tennis and skiing) and ... I don't register the same type of feeling in those who practice them. Tennis courts are full of people who enjoy them selves in the process of just competing but also learning new skills. And slopes are as well.

So? Is it piano the only affected by this syndrome?

Sviatoslav,

Relating the negative association of being an amateur to other phenomenoms of society, I can tell it's very strong with our national sport soccer in my country (Holland).

When I sit in a park with friends and some people play soccer, there's always one who will criticize them in a very aggresive manner, almost violent, for not playing good.

If I play soccer with some other friends, all adults, then it's clear we have no talent at all. Some people react very angerly towards us, some laughing and pointing. Soon we stop, because there's higher chance to get our butts kicked.

I guess people watch too much soccer on television, professional play by FC Barcelona, Real Madrid or Manchester United or other top teams, will be the norm of what is normal.

Obviously I don't play ball in the park anymore.

I see your point but let me say that a team activity is not very much like an individual one like playing piano (or tennis, or skiing). We are alone with our music and yes there could be someone who likes to spend his time criticizing others but, at the end of the day, most of the time, we are alone practicing and struggling to get what we want.

I guess that the point is more "what we want".

I realize that in a "click" society (I like to see the best soccer in the world - "click" and I watch TV; I like to listen to the best Rachmaninov ever - "click" and I even see it in youtube; etc.) we get used to a very (too) comfortable way to get what we like.
Instead activities like piano playing imply a lot of practice and discipline to just get something reasonnable.

Perhaps surprisingly, this isn't really a new thing. In the introduction to the 1908 (I think) edition of Hanon's exercises, the author makes the point that there are now so many excellent piano performances in so many places, that an aspiring performer has to be exceptionally good to be taken seriously. That was a hundred years ago. Guess it's even worse now

PPP, thanks for those GG videos. I've only watched the two from your earlier post, the rest will have to wait. But it's really interesting in the context of this thread to think about what we get from recording technology, versus what we get from a live performance.

As much as I love hearing Glenn Gould recordings, I still think I prefer the organic-ness of live music, and acoustic instruments. Maybe it's because of the digital world we live in, but I even love the imperfections. When I lived in Japan, and still had my acoustic piano (sniff sniff) I loved to hear my piano change with the weather, or slowly go out of tune between visits from my tuner. The voice of my piano was different from day to day. With a recording, it's the same no matter how many times you listen to it. And my current instrument, a digital piano, while being the prefect instrument for a grad student living in an apartment, is boring and sterile, the same every day.

I'm of a generation that still considers amateur as someone who does it for the love of the activity.

Though if I hear "you're such an amateur" - it is always in a disparaging tone, and "amateurish" likewise.

Amateur theatre though, is a great joy.
Amateur golfers are pretty serious fellows.

Olympic athletes are technically amateurs, though certainly it is their life's work.

There are a lot of things I agree with here - starting from the concept that we are increasingly an impatient society. We want things NOW. Long term plans are a challenge.

As our ABF survey shows, a great number of us are 45-55 - so we're old enough to have gone to school without calculators, or only to have had them at the end of highschool - we lived through the first computers in the workplace, and then in the home (my first home computer had a 20mb hard drive, we upped that to 80 and figured we'd never need more. I think mine now has 250gb???).... The introduction of the internet, email, mp3 players (versus walkmans) cell phones that are computers ... I mean, it is insane. I can shop on line, bank on line - and all in the blink of an eye.

So yes, - if people of my generation are getting used to (or rather have gotten used to ) this possibility of instant response, what kind of mind set do people 20-30 years younger have? How much harder is it for them to focus on something that takes a long time to do well?

Of course that's a generalization - there are certainly others (like the folks here) who are VERY inclinded to put time and effort into something that is important to them.

But I fear we and folk like us are a minority.

What I don't understand is why there should be disdain for someone who is "just" an amateur. Why is there a lack of respect for someone who works hard to do something challenging?

Just as a note of interest: in Italy the work dilettante is used for describing an amateur musician. While it too can be used with the sense of "dabbler", so far I have not heard it used in a disparaging way. Maybe , for the moment, Italians still have a certain amount of respect for the amateur (especially musicians) that seem to be lacking in other places?

Personally, I'm happy to be an amateur, in the truest sense of the word.
An Amateur Beginner. Of course.....this is the AB forum, isn't it?

I'm afraid that's your age showing Cheryl - the rules changed! Boxing and wrestling are the only ones still required to be amateur by Olympic rules. Some countries and/or sports associations may impose additional requirements of course.

I sort of know M. Kimmelman -- we studied with the same teacher for a long time, and met many times -- and I think he's brilliant.

But I think he has this thing exactly backwards. I think more and more non-professionals are dabbling seriously (if that's not an oxymoron) ....dabbling seriously, in all the arts -- music (both classical and non), visual arts, writing, photography, whatnot -- and doing remarkably well.

I would say that maybe there was a trend such as he described for a few decades before the internet took hold -- but not any more. And I think that with the help of what you can find online and apps for doing this-and-that, not only are more and more non-professionals becoming capable with music and other arts, but they're able to do it quicker and more readily than ever before. I've been astonished at how well some people have learned to play intermediate level piano pieces after just a few weeks or months, often completely on their own (and with the computer).

And BTW I still play in baseball pick-up games.

I agree with you, Mark -- and to your list of arts that attract serious dabblers, I would definitely add home improvement (including decorating and design) and cooking. Seems like they represent a full-fledged DIY movement, even if the inspiration comes as much from cable television as from the internet.

And FWIW ... even as I was originally reading Kimmelman's quotation, I was thinking of an area in which exposure to professional standards of 'perfection' probably has had little negative impact on the desires of mere amateurs: the bedroom!

Just consider the remarkable evolution in the availability and acceptability of porn in just 40 years. Somehow, I don't think most people find the expert performances of professionals to be any reason to give up their own 'amateur' efforts. They might be inspired instead to more skillfulness, just like the viewers of all those DIY-based reality shows on TV.

The reason I joined PW is because I came across a similar discussion via Google about PW members feelings about the use of the word "hobby" for pianists who are not necessarily paid for their work.

There were many differing opinions about it. I personally came to the conclusion that I felt just fine with "hobby". It means that I am serious about my work in studying piano. It's not about being paid. I do it regardless. If someone were ever to hand me a check for performing, however, I sure wouldn't turn it down!

Ouch. The bitter truth.
Edited to add: bold face is mine.