[PrinceLightfoot]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

I will concede that our desire for excellence in the arts is not as prominent as they are for academics or athletics. We do not treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes equally but that, too, is market driven. Musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, actors, etc. do not elevate the Stanford brand and provide revenue that can match those of athletes. This is true at professional levels - the entire symphony circuit probably could not come close to rivaling the revenue generated by one professional NFL or NBA team. The market decides what and how much it wants to consume. The biggest difference between the two at a collegiate level is one can major in music or art or performing arts but one cannot major in football. The extracurricular time commitment for an athlete further differentiates the two thus the athletic scholarship seems absolutely justified.

I do not believe it is about machismo either. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on this board knows we love our women's teams! Further, our football team brought the hastag "NerdNation" to the forefront on national TV after the win against Oregon to symbolize the dedication towards academic excellence. They didn't come in wearing caps that said "Jocks with Cocks".

Perhaps one day the university may be willing to compete with Julliard and Oberlin for elite musicians, but I do not think they are willing to pay the costs of attracting both instructor and student talent from the academic budget given the return in doing so at this time. I was a professional musican my entire time at Stanford and the music department during the 1990s did not have the instruction I felt would have expanded my capabilities beyond some of composition courses. The very few students I knew that were part of a formal group like the symphony, wind ensemble, or jazz ensemble did not dedicate time to music half as much as athletes train for their sport. Most Stanford musicians know that the chances of making a profitable career in music is razor thin and even if they are successful would need to supplement their earnings through continual private lessons, workshops, or do what most do and become teachers in a formal school. Consequently, the arts on campus are considered more like a hobby instead of a serious, focused pursuit. We have some great A Capella groups, a decent symphony and jazz ensemble, a commitment to social dance and ballet, and decent theater production but none of them are going to completely stun you into thinking their performance is near the top level of their art. To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare b.e.a.r to listen to them with a discerning musician's ear. I know they wouldn't have it any other way.  ;)

[PrinceLightfoot]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

I will concede that our desire for excellence in the arts is not as prominent as they are for academics or athletics. We do not treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes equally but that, too, is market driven. Musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, actors, etc. do not elevate the Stanford brand and provide revenue that can match those of athletes. This is true at professional levels - the entire symphony circuit probably could not come close to rivaling the revenue generated by one professional NFL or NBA team. The market decides what and how much it wants to consume. The biggest difference between the two at a collegiate level is one can major in music or art or performing arts but one cannot major in football. The extracurricular time commitment for an athlete further differentiates the two thus the athletic scholarship seems absolutely justified.

I do not believe it is about machismo either. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on this board knows we love our women's teams! Further, our football team brought the hastag "NerdNation" to the forefront on national TV after the win against Oregon to symbolize the dedication towards academic excellence. They didn't come in wearing caps that said "Jocks with Cocks".

Perhaps one day the university may be willing to compete with Julliard and Oberlin for elite musicians, but I do not think they are willing to pay the costs of attracting both instructor and student talent from the academic budget given the return in doing so at this time. I was a professional musican my entire time at Stanford and the music department during the 1990s did not have the instruction I felt would have expanded my capabilities beyond some of composition courses. The very few students I knew that were part of a formal group like the symphony, wind ensemble, or jazz ensemble did not dedicate time to music half as much as athletes train for their sport. Most Stanford musicians know that the chances of making a profitable career in music is razor thin and even if they are successful would need to supplement their earnings through continual private lessons, workshops, or do what most do and become teachers in a formal school. Consequently, the arts on campus are considered more like a hobby instead of a serious, focused pursuit. We have some great A Capella groups, a decent symphony and jazz ensemble, a commitment to social dance and ballet, and decent theater production but none of them are going to completely stun you into thinking their performance is near the top level of their art. To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare b.e.a.r to listen to them with a discerning musician's ear. I know they wouldn't have it any other way.  ;)