Red Sox would be tough, Mets would be fine.
Jim
That’s exactly what I’d do. Some kids are more interested in one activity over another, but I’d give them the chance to try out both if they wanted to.
Given the choice between the two I would encourage sports. Teach him competition at an early age.
In my opinion, it’s easier to learn a new sport at an older age than it is to learn a musical instrument.
No, no, that’s what’s known as poetic justice.
If I had children and wanted to encourage them to be involved in some activity, I’d choose music over sports, but that’s because I’m not a fan of sports, and in school I fit in with the band geeks (I played trumpet through junior high and high school) more than I did with the jocks, most of whom were complete assholes. I’m in favor of instilling individual creativity over competitiveness and teamwork. The risk of injury is much greater where sports are involved. While someone mentioned recitals as being as painful as attending games, you never hear about “band moms” like you do “soccer moms.” Parents at a recital (I hope) don’t make complete asses of themselves and cheer loudly to their sons and daughters up on stage or get into fights with other parents. “Nice solo, Bobby!” wouldn’t go over so well in the school’s auditorium as “Nice catch!” would out on the playing field bleachers.
That said, if I had a child who wanted to play a sport I’d allow it, but I’d let him or her know what is involved and what the risks are (physical, mental and social).
I think kids can do both well. I prefer musicians to athletes but Kid Kalhoun did both. Not as much with the sports.
I’d encourage my hypothetical children to take up a sport. While kids can get exercise without playing a sport, the childhood obesity statistics make it pretty clear that most don’t.
Neither, because I wouldn’t choose any activity for my kid. I’m assuming this isn’t really an issue until they reach elementary-school age, and by then they’re old enough to make their own decisions. (Also, if my kids take after me at all, they won’t have the slightest aptitude or inclination for sports OR music.)
We did when we were kids; they don’t now because of unhealthy eating habits and more sitting at television or computer instead of playing outdoors. If my (hypothetical) child enjoyed both equally and looked to me for the decision, I’d prefer they be involved in music - still team building, but music lessons aren’t something I can offer them at home. Regular exercise and proper eating habits are something I can teach outside of organised group activities.
I would only choose something if my imaginary kid was too lazy and boring to pick something on his own.
Music.
I view sports as nothing more than organized play. I feel that if kids have any inclination towards physical activities, then they’ll get into some kind of sport all on their own, even if it’s through backyard rough-housing or street play. And if they’re really into it, they’ll join a team through school. But if they aren’t interested in sports, no amount of parental pushing is going to change that. I feel like sports is something you have to really want to do to get something out of it, since it’s so competitive. If a kid is sitting on the bench each game, what are they getting out of it? Since my kids would have half of my DNA, I feel like they were be major bench-warmers.
Sports are also something that’s not too hard to jump into once you get older. The only limiting step is keeping the body in shape. But as long as one stays fit and can find people to play with them, you can jump into any sport. The rules aren’t really that difficult to learn and they aren’t easily forgotten.
But it’s easier to teach a child how to play an instrument compared to an adult. It’s even harder to teach an adult how to read music. So, it makes sense to place more importance on music than sports in the early years.
Music is also one of those things that a person can do alone and with others. Sports are generally group activities. There’s a huge benefit to cultivating solitary hobbies. They are cheaper, for one thing, as well as something to keep the loneliness at bay.
And not to mention…music provides many more professional opportunities than sports. A person only gets better with their music with age, while the opposite is true for sports. Music transcends culture much more than sports. I also think people who appreciate music are also more likely to have discriminating musical tastes. I dunno…I just think music has many more advantages than sports does.
I would put my kids in a music program even if they were already in sports. I can’t say I would do the reverse.
Music, definitely (unless the kid really hates it). Good for the emotions, the brain, the intelligence…!
Would I ‘put a child into music lessons’? Hell, no. By all means, find a way to give your child opportunities in music, which may well involved formal lessons, but don’t assume that a weekly thirty minute session of piano instruction necessarily creates a musician at any level.
Ummm, can you tell I’m a music teacher? 
(Obviously, a good piano teacher is a different matter entirely!)
Sports, similar story. A good coach or team or whatever can deal with different abilities and structure what they offer so that every child is being challenged at the right level.
Where I do object is the equating of the ‘teamwork’ of musicians with ‘teamwork’ of a sports team. They are fundamentally different. Yes, sports teach competition. Music does not do so, and I don’t see that this is something to be apologised for, because it deals with direct communication in a completely different way.
Thanks for all the replies.
I am a teacher in a band program and of course our program is voluntary. I have lots of competition with sports in my program. If I have a concert night picked out and there is a hockey game…theres a problem. With some kids even a practice wins over our concert (which we only do four of in the year!)
It really frustrates me to have to compete with sports with my program. I am a runner and absolutely understand the importance of exercise for young kids. Yet at the same time I know that band is exercise for the BRAIN. MusicMix Radar - Music blog to hear about the latest music news and rumours for festivals of american artist's
I used to think music was just for fun and I pursued a career out of it because of how much I enjoyed it. But now that I’ve worked as a musician and spent a year teaching students how to perform music…I really see the bigger picture. It is a team experience without the emphasis on competition. Everyone relies on each other in band / music ensembles to create the whole picture. It really builds people.
Many people say they/ their children don’t have a talent for music…I simply don’t believe it. Like Einstien said (i’m pretty sure it was him) genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. If a kid/anyone works at his instrument and music they will eventually have some sort of success. Most adults who don’t play an instrument wished they had learned one.
Anyways I’m frustrated with all the fighting I have to do in a sports town to keep my program running optimally. If I had to choose for my child, I think I would lean towards music lessons and encourage fitness through other means first. Of course I would emphasize both if possible but for me the music is the first priority.
I’m replying to this because it has come up a few times… but I think that, while the premises here are valid, the conclusion is fallacious. You (and others) comparing playing a sport at all to playing music well. Anyone in good shape can easily learn the basic rules and maneuvers necessary for most sports… but anyone with a basic sense of rythym and tone can learn the basic maneuvers necessary to make some sort of music emerge from most instruments. Competence, and especially excellence, in either venue is going to require all manner of learning and practice beyond that initial effort.
Of course, the average person is probably more likely to be incidentally exposed to sports-playing than to music-playing. On the other hand, I know more than one perfectly in-shape twenty-something whose grace on the athletic pitch is roughly equivalent to the grace of the pitch that I get out of a drum set: the natural talent or inclination may well be there, but not having been honed, it is not likely to emerge now without supreme effort.
As for the OP, me? I’d let them choose, but failing that, I might just go for music (even though sports are a central part of my life and frankly a defining characteristic of who I am). Music has a profound effect on my state of mind, and in many ways is what gets me through the day. Even if not PLAYING music, certainly APPRECIATING music is crucial.
Really, it’s gotta be both, though! 
I don’t think I would have done being pushed into sports. I’m not that competitive, and I’m so clumsy I should probably be diagnosed with something. Plus, I really don’t like games. Very few of them intrigue me. I would have hated if my parents they had pushed me into sports.
But I do agree some kind of physical activity should be encouraged. I took folk dancing all throughout elementary school, and it was not only a great workout, but it provided socialization and exposure to international music.
Oh, that sounds familiar! What I’ve found is that while we understand that the ‘letting everyone down’ principle applies just as much in music, it’s far more overtly present in the peer pressure of sports. At times, I rise to match it and talk on the same level, until a kid realises it’s just as big a deal as missing a big game. And that it does indeed have a bearing on where they’re sat and what roles they have next term. Having a few completely music-mad kids arounds helps, because they can’t help themselves but chime in with “you’re missing the concert for football?!” comments.
I’d pick sports - probably tennis, swimming or skiing. My parents chose music (piano); I did it for about a decade and hated it. Mum thinks that piano gave me nicely-shaped hands but then again she also thinks that playing basketball made my sister tall(er than me).
Reasons I chose sports:
- As a child I would have preferred sports to music
- I think sports is more of a life-long thing than music. My skiing friends go every season whereas I haven’t touched a piano in years
- Have you heard beginners practice? They sound like shit
I pick music but that is probably my own bias shining through. I was in band in middle and high school and play the bass now.
As with everything else it depends a great deal on the child. My own eldest child has, to date, benefitted a great deal more from sport than from music. He is a great appreciator of music and enjoys listening to it more than does his brother, but does not really want to make music. Being very good at football (soccer for the US crowd) has been quite good for him – it is something he can do well and which is valued by those around him. This is important for him because he has a language disorder and there are a large number of things he cannot do well, which everyone else can.
Youngest likes to listen to music but really wants to make music. He wants to control the sound and turn it into a tune, even on a 50 cent plastic harmonica. (There are four professional or semi professional musicians in the immediate family so there you are). He likes sport but it’s not all that important to him.
This can and no doubt will all change over time, my kids are very young. I want them to be able to understand music sufficiently to make out a melody on a recorder or a keyboard or a lap harp. Anything further they will have to work out themselves. I want them to be able to commit themselves to learning a sport, compete with passion, and be able to win and lose gracefully. Beyond that & etc.
But I don’t think there is a right answer in terms of which is more beneficial to the benefit of a child in the abstract because it depends on where a particular child is developmentally and what I wanted to develop and so on. A child with anger issues might benefit far more from learning a martial art than from learning to play the kettle drums, even if both would be good.