4 ms·

You imply architecture and music have meaning and affect people's lives in real ways, yet sports do not. Do I really have to point out what's wrong with this s

You imply architecture and music have meaning and affect people's lives in real ways, yet sports do not. Do I really have to point out what's wrong with this statement? Not to mention it sounds incredibly pretentious. I say this as someone who doesn't really follow sports (maybe in the playoffs or post-season), but can recognize it's impact on culture.

lmm 14y ago
Music and architecture bring joy to people who like them. Even in musical competitions, most of the audience enjoys most of the performance. Sports seems to be zero-sum; people don't appreciate a good game, they appreciate one arbitrarily-labelled team beating another. (Interestingly I'm far more able to appreciate professional wrestling, since (at least some of) the fandom for that is more interested in seeing a good performance than which side wins (and indeed often it's the "loser" who has the most important and hardest job))
- jpeterson 14y ago
  Music and architecture bring joy to people who like them. So do sports. Sports seems to be zero-sum; people don't appreciate a good game, they appreciate one arbitrarily-labelled team beating another. This couldn't be more wrong. Sports fans absolutely do enjoy good games, independently of which team happens to be their favorite.
fiblye 14y ago
I think a fair difference between music/architecture and sports is the relative permanence of the former. An individual structure will be studied 4000 years from now and tell us how an entire culture thrived. Music from the 1700s is still enjoyed today. Most sports games have no lasting effects beyond a week, and when we actually do study ancient sports, we study ancient art and architecture to learn how it was played; individual games within that sport usually have little relevance unless they involve royalty or politics. It's certainly an important aspect of our culture, but it has a much smaller role than music and architecture. Everybody knows the Empire State Building and Beethoven, but most people don't know who won last week's football game and by what margin.
- pflats 14y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges. People know who Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan are, the same way they know the Empire State Building and Beethoven. Besides, I'd be shocked if fewer people know who played the Monday Night Football game this week than who was nominated for best album at the 2013 Grammy awards, 5 days earlier.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  An individual game will typically have no permanence to it, but the nature of the game can last a lot longer. In many cases, the games we are playing today originate from older versions that pre-date the 1700s, so if 'permanence' is your qualification for cultural relevance, then sports seem to have as much (if not more) relevance than music. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#Origins_of_baseball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#Origins_of_baseball
  - yen223 14y ago
    Not to mention the Olympics =)

lmm 14y ago

Music and architecture bring joy to people who like them. Even in musical competitions, most of the audience enjoys most of the performance. Sports seems to be zero-sum; people don't appreciate a good game, they appreciate one arbitrarily-labelled team beating another. (Interestingly I'm far more able to appreciate professional wrestling, since (at least some of) the fandom for that is more interested in seeing a good performance than which side wins (and indeed often it's the "loser" who has the most important and hardest job))

jpeterson 14y ago
Music and architecture bring joy to people who like them. So do sports. Sports seems to be zero-sum; people don't appreciate a good game, they appreciate one arbitrarily-labelled team beating another. This couldn't be more wrong. Sports fans absolutely do enjoy good games, independently of which team happens to be their favorite.

fiblye 14y ago

I think a fair difference between music/architecture and sports is the relative permanence of the former. An individual structure will be studied 4000 years from now and tell us how an entire culture thrived. Music from the 1700s is still enjoyed today. Most sports games have no lasting effects beyond a week, and when we actually do study ancient sports, we study ancient art and architecture to learn how it was played; individual games within that sport usually have little relevance unless they involve royalty or politics. It's certainly an important aspect of our culture, but it has a much smaller role than music and architecture. Everybody knows the Empire State Building and Beethoven, but most people don't know who won last week's football game and by what margin.

pflats 14y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. People know who Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan are, the same way they know the Empire State Building and Beethoven. Besides, I'd be shocked if fewer people know who played the Monday Night Football game this week than who was nominated for best album at the 2013 Grammy awards, 5 days earlier.
cobrausn 14y ago
An individual game will typically have no permanence to it, but the nature of the game can last a lot longer. In many cases, the games we are playing today originate from older versions that pre-date the 1700s, so if 'permanence' is your qualification for cultural relevance, then sports seem to have as much (if not more) relevance than music. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#Origins_of_baseball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#Origins_of_baseball
- yen223 14y ago
  Not to mention the Olympics =)