The "versus" implies a conflict. I think it's more "horses for courses".

We all have our favourite professionals and appreciate the commitment, dedication and sometimes sheer genius that they combine to make them so special. On the other hand, for many of us the greatest pleasure is being able to have a go ourselves. The term 'amateur' covers a multitude of sins – and talent. On the one hand there's the person whose ability is up there with the best pros but who, for whatever reason, chooses not to join their ranks. On the other, there's the ear-searing efforts of the two-chord merchant whose repertoire seems to consist solely of Where Have All the Flowers Gone and The Wild Rover but who, after hundreds of attempts, still hasn't managed to remember the words or the tune.

The problem often is not a shortage of performers but a shortage of audience. At one club I used to go to the performer/audience ratio is around 20 to 1. Everyone wants to play but the price is that you have to listen to everyone else. For me, the price, I'm afraid, became too high. Others, no doubt, feel the same about my efforts. As a rule, though, I think that if you're going to play in public you owe it to your audience to put in the effort to be as good as you possibly can. Anything less is doing yourself and those listening to you a disservice.

If a professional folk musician can't earn a living from what he/she does I'm afraid that, as with any other profession, they have to take a hard and honest look at their abilities and market and make the necessary adjustments or find a new job.As my old dad told me many years ago - and as I tell my children - the world doesn't owe you a living; you've got to get out there and prove that you're worth whatever people are prepared to pay you.