Musicians or Athletes?
 

In my opinion, Musicians are better because they last longer.

An athlete's life span goes like this:
*Starts playing at the age of 4
*Below 13 - develops as an athlete
*Teens and 20's - at their prime
*30's - at their peak
*40's-retiring
*40's and beyond - either be a coach or work in the executive department of a team.

For a musician, it doesn't matter what age he starts. He can still play until his 70's and beyond.

Pls share your opinions.

Well for musicians it goes
Age 12 (or start of puberty) - starts playing
Age 15 - starts first ****ty band
Age 19 - starts second band that's somewhat bearable
Age 26 - hits the big time with second group
Age 27 - dies of a heroin overdose

Were you not into Fecal Matter

Well why can't a musician be an athlete and have the qualities of both? Does that work? (Marching band and DCI are DEFINITELY sports!)

I'm confused, why do we have to choose between the 2?

I don't want to see someone like Mick Jagger playing for my rugby team any more than a I want to hear a Usain Bolt trible jazz funk album.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M9UHcRrCWlI

:cool:

I think this is just distracting us from the real question of our time...

I see your Andy Cole & raise you...

I'm an athlete, not professional, but I've won trophies at sanctioned events in Disc Golf. I'm knocking on the door of turning 50, yet I still churn out some halfway decent tunes (according to some people). My abilities are fading though, and that's kind of sad.

I need a nap.