Thursday, September 27, 2007
Response to class 9/25/07
During class on Tuesday, I was thinking about the comparison between taking sports and taking music with regards to going professional, and I think another good argument for why taking music with the intentions of becoming a professional musician is legitimate is that there is always a constant and growing demand for musicians and new music throughout the world. Sports have a limited amount of professional slots to be filled, and that's it. Granted, it's very difficult to make it to "rock star" status, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many opportunities to make money as a professionally trained musician. After all, Westminster stakes the claim that all of its graduates are capable of gigging and obtaining church jobs of all levels. So why should sports be weighted higher in the community even though there's almost no money to be made in sports, and music is just as much a part of our daily lives, if not moreso?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The answer to this might be simpler than it seems. Sports are easier for people to connect to. Anyone can go to a sporting event and be entertained for hours, while only a small handful of people can go to a symphony and have a good time. Sports are also much easier to understand. Would a 15 year old kid rather take two years to learn how to read music well or would they rather take 2 minutes to understand how a football, baseball or soccer game works? Music may be a bigger part of our daily life, but sports are easier to come by for a greater portion of the population. Its also important to remember that sports might be a bigger part of a sports fan's life than music is
excellent point, kieran. hat's off to you, man
Post a Comment