I think your kid should play whatever he enjoys playing.

I feel bad for parents (and their children) who choose activities based on perceived prestige or supposed brain development or Ivy acceptance rates rather than interest. I suppose it's not the end of the world but I think it's just better parenting to step back and let your kid find what they love.

You know what's classy, and also good for the brain? For you to ignore the friends and embrace the sax. Tell your son that he if he wants to one day, he can play in an orchestra, a band, a jazz ensemble or a marching band. Strings don't have all those options. You should take him to concerts that feature sax players so he can see and hear the instrument played at a professional level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a weird question I realize. But when it comes to getting kids music lessons, it seems like most of my social circle has opted for violin, cello, or piano.

Is there a reason for that? My son is learning the sax. Is this considered less classy?

I feel that it is subtly looked down upon as not good enough by the other moms.

How old is your child? Some instruments are harder to start on at younger ages and others are easier. Some kids have lung capacity, finger, arm length etc that lend themselves to a particular instrument. There are many factors.

I don't know why you would feel that someone is looking down on your kid, but if your child is young then sax is unusual. If your child is older then I am not sure why you care.

From a college admissions perspective, the more rare the instrument the more chance of it helping with college admissions. But even then, the level of play has to be basically conservatory level for it to have an impact on admissions and I'm not sure it id does anyway. Playing an instrument that is needed at a school is nowhere near the hook that being a recruited athlete is.

So, in short, don't worry about. My ds plays piano and double bass. The double bass is incredibly difficult to move around. Unless he starts practicing more, the chances of him playing in college are low!

It must be easier than moving a piano! lol

Anonymous wrote:I can think of a few things they might be thinking, none of them actually true for anyone who actually knows anything at all about music.

- Orchestra is more intellectual than band, since orchestras play real classical music and band is just marching around in costumes and playing at football games.
- String instruments and piano have huge competition circuits starting at age 3 so therefore must be higher status because why else would they have competitions to prove who is the best
- Strings and piano are more difficult than any other instruments hence need to be started earlier to actually be good, so therefore they must be better.
- Good string and piano teachers teach at conservatories, and saxophone teachers only teach at Music & Arts, therefore piano and string instruments are more serious pursuits because it costs more for lessons.
- Having a teacher from the NSO is so much classier than having one from one of the military bands

This lady right here knows what she is talking about. I’m a piano player (mundane) with relatives who played violin (first chair) and cello. They went to Ivy League schools and I went to a “little Ivy.” That said, both violin and cello are pretty tough on the body if you play competitively. Piano was a better fit for my weaker constitution.

I have several friends tell me that instruments that require the mouth are much better for their rambunctious kids. I have no idea if its a much needed stimulation in the math but they swear their kids can concentrate better with these types of instruments versus piano or violin.

So learning the saxophone does little for brain development?

I can think of a few things they might be thinking, none of them actually true for anyone who actually knows anything at all about music.

- Orchestra is more intellectual than band, since orchestras play real classical music and band is just marching around in costumes and playing at football games.
- String instruments and piano have huge competition circuits starting at age 3 so therefore must be higher status because why else would they have competitions to prove who is the best
- Strings and piano are more difficult than any other instruments hence need to be started earlier to actually be good, so therefore they must be better.
- Good string and piano teachers teach at conservatories, and saxophone teachers only teach at Music & Arts, therefore piano and string instruments are more serious pursuits because it costs more for lessons.
- Having a teacher from the NSO is so much classier than having one from one of the military bands

Anonymous wrote:This is a weird question I realize. But when it comes to getting kids music lessons, it seems like most of my social circle has opted for violin, cello, or piano.

Is there a reason for that? My son is learning the sax. Is this considered less classy?

I feel that it is subtly looked down upon as not good enough by the other moms.

How old is your child? Some instruments are harder to start on at younger ages and others are easier. Some kids have lung capacity, finger, arm length etc that lend themselves to a particular instrument. There are many factors.

I don't know why you would feel that someone is looking down on your kid, but if your child is young then sax is unusual. If your child is older then I am not sure why you care.

From a college admissions perspective, the more rare the instrument the more chance of it helping with college admissions. But even then, the level of play has to be basically conservatory level for it to have an impact on admissions and I'm not sure it id does anyway. Playing an instrument that is needed at a school is nowhere near the hook that being a recruited athlete is.

So, in short, don't worry about. My ds plays piano and double bass. The double bass is incredibly difficult to move around. Unless he starts practicing more, the chances of him playing in college are low!

Band seems to be very popular among the magnet kids in DC’s middle school..

You need new friends.

I have kids who play piano, violin and sax. The sax player has the highest IQ.

But, yes, there are studies shower correlations between musical ability on violin and piano and math abilities, that don't seem to hold true for other instruments. Piano and violin are both definitely more complicated, musically, that something like sax. But, really, who cares? The most important thing is for the kid to play an instrument that they feel passionate about.

Anonymous wrote:How old? From what I understand, it's easier for a kid to start a string instrument when they're younger. You can learn to hold a bow and play notes ok at 5, but you don't have the mouth/breath control (I don't know how to describe it, I don't play any of those instruments) to play a wind instrument yet.

I would put it differently. At younger ages, kids are less concerned about sounding terrible so it's a good time to start violin, since it takes years to be able to play anything that isn't atrocious.

It's good to start piano early because it's so difficult, you need to start your brain on the concept young.

I think the analysis shows that string instruments and piano have a higher acceptance rate into Ivies. The look in the other moms' eyes is probably pity.

How old? From what I understand, it's easier for a kid to start a string instrument when they're younger. You can learn to hold a bow and play notes ok at 5, but you don't have the mouth/breath control (I don't know how to describe it, I don't play any of those instruments) to play a wind instrument yet.

This is a weird question I realize. But when it comes to getting kids music lessons, it seems like most of my social circle has opted for violin, cello, or piano.

Is there a reason for that? My son is learning the sax. Is this considered less classy?

I feel that it is subtly looked down upon as not good enough by the other moms.